Barrycdog
Major
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2013
- Location
- Buford, Georgia
A bit lengthy but well worth the read:
"..But the Southern Confederacy is reproached with the fact that it was deliberately built on slavery. Slavery, we are told, was its cornerstone. Even that most honest historian, Mr. Rhodes, says, ''Their fight, they averred, was for liberty, and yet they were weighted by the denial of liberty to three
and one-half million of human beings."
But if slavery was the cornerstone of the Southern Confederacy, what are we to say of the Constitution of the United States? That instrument as originally adopted by the thirteen colonies contained three sections which recognized slavery. And whereas the constitution of the Southern
Confederacy prohibited the slave-trade, the Constitution of the United States prohibited the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years-and if the men of the South are reproached for denying liberty to three and a half millions of human beings, at the same time that they professed to be waging a great war for their own liberty, what are we to say of the revolting colonies of 1776, who rebelled against the British crown to achieve their liberty, while slavery existed in every one of the thirteen colonies un-repudiated? Cannot these historians who deny that the South fought for
liberty, because they held the blacks in bondage, see, that upon the same principle they must impugn the sincerity of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? For while, in that famous instrument, they affirmed before the world that all men were created free and equal, and that '' governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," they took no steps whatever to free the slaves which were held in every one of the thirteen colonies. No, my friends, if the cornerstone of the constitution of
the Southern Confederacy was slavery, the Constitution of 1789 - the Constitution of the United States had a worse cornerstone, since it held its aegis of protection over the slave-trade itself! We ask the candid historian then to answer this question: If the colonists of 1776 were freemen
fighting for liberty, though holding men in slavery in every one of the thirteen colonies, why is the tribute of patriotism denied to the Southern men of 1861 because they too held men in bondage?
If George Washington, a slave-holder, was yet a champion of liberty, how can that title be denied to Robert E. Lee? Slavery was not abolished in the British dominions until the year 1833. Will any man dare to say there were no champions of human liberty in England before that time?
But after all that may be said, we are told that slavery was the cause of the war, and that the citizen soldiers of the South sprang to arms in defence of slavery.
Yes, my comrades, History, or rather let us say Calumny, masquerading as History, has told the world that that battleflag of yours was the emblem of slave power, and that you fought, not for liberty, but for the right to hold your fellowmen in bondage.
Think of it, soldiers of the Southern Cross! Think of it, followers of Lee and Jackson and Albert Sidney Johnston! You were fighting, they say, for the privilege of holding your fellowmen in bondage! Will you for one moment acknowledge the truth of that indictment? Ah, no! that banner of the Southern Cross was studded with the stars of God's heaven, like Old Glory itself. You could not have followed a banner that was not the banner of liberty! You sprang from the loins of freemen! You drank in freedom with your mother's milk! Your revolutionary sires were not inspired by a more intense devotion to liberty than you were!"
Excerpt from: A Soldiers Recollections-Leaves From The Diary of A Young Confederate With An Oration On The Motives And Aims Of The Soldiers Of The South by Randolph H. McKim. Published 1910
"..But the Southern Confederacy is reproached with the fact that it was deliberately built on slavery. Slavery, we are told, was its cornerstone. Even that most honest historian, Mr. Rhodes, says, ''Their fight, they averred, was for liberty, and yet they were weighted by the denial of liberty to three
and one-half million of human beings."
But if slavery was the cornerstone of the Southern Confederacy, what are we to say of the Constitution of the United States? That instrument as originally adopted by the thirteen colonies contained three sections which recognized slavery. And whereas the constitution of the Southern
Confederacy prohibited the slave-trade, the Constitution of the United States prohibited the abolition of the slave trade for twenty years-and if the men of the South are reproached for denying liberty to three and a half millions of human beings, at the same time that they professed to be waging a great war for their own liberty, what are we to say of the revolting colonies of 1776, who rebelled against the British crown to achieve their liberty, while slavery existed in every one of the thirteen colonies un-repudiated? Cannot these historians who deny that the South fought for
liberty, because they held the blacks in bondage, see, that upon the same principle they must impugn the sincerity of the signers of the Declaration of Independence? For while, in that famous instrument, they affirmed before the world that all men were created free and equal, and that '' governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," they took no steps whatever to free the slaves which were held in every one of the thirteen colonies. No, my friends, if the cornerstone of the constitution of
the Southern Confederacy was slavery, the Constitution of 1789 - the Constitution of the United States had a worse cornerstone, since it held its aegis of protection over the slave-trade itself! We ask the candid historian then to answer this question: If the colonists of 1776 were freemen
fighting for liberty, though holding men in slavery in every one of the thirteen colonies, why is the tribute of patriotism denied to the Southern men of 1861 because they too held men in bondage?
If George Washington, a slave-holder, was yet a champion of liberty, how can that title be denied to Robert E. Lee? Slavery was not abolished in the British dominions until the year 1833. Will any man dare to say there were no champions of human liberty in England before that time?
But after all that may be said, we are told that slavery was the cause of the war, and that the citizen soldiers of the South sprang to arms in defence of slavery.
Yes, my comrades, History, or rather let us say Calumny, masquerading as History, has told the world that that battleflag of yours was the emblem of slave power, and that you fought, not for liberty, but for the right to hold your fellowmen in bondage.
Think of it, soldiers of the Southern Cross! Think of it, followers of Lee and Jackson and Albert Sidney Johnston! You were fighting, they say, for the privilege of holding your fellowmen in bondage! Will you for one moment acknowledge the truth of that indictment? Ah, no! that banner of the Southern Cross was studded with the stars of God's heaven, like Old Glory itself. You could not have followed a banner that was not the banner of liberty! You sprang from the loins of freemen! You drank in freedom with your mother's milk! Your revolutionary sires were not inspired by a more intense devotion to liberty than you were!"
Excerpt from: A Soldiers Recollections-Leaves From The Diary of A Young Confederate With An Oration On The Motives And Aims Of The Soldiers Of The South by Randolph H. McKim. Published 1910
Bringing the