flag

Susan Lee, of The Virginia Flaggers, speaks at a meeting of the local chapter of Sons of Confederate Veterans on Tuesday night at the Shenandoah Valley Civil War Museum.

WINCHESTER — “The difference between us and them” was stressed by Susan Lee, of the Richmond-based Virginia Flaggers, during a speech Tuesday night to a local chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

“The difference between us and them is the blood running through our veins,” Lee said, adding that she and the group’s members have the blood of “honor” in their bodies. “They don’t have it.”

Founded in 2011, The Virginia Flaggers stands “against those who would desecrate our Confederate monuments and memorials and for our Confederate veterans,” according to its Facebook page.

Lee, of Richmond, organizes events for the group across Virginia. Her Tuesday night talk was advertised as open to the public.

She called those who want Confederate monuments removed “godless radicals” and “liberals” and said they “hate us because of our Christian faith. The South was a Christian nation.”

“We will always be about the Confederate soldier,” Lee told an audience of more than several dozen people at the Shenandoah Civil War Museum on the Loudoun Street Mall. “That’s who we’re here for.”

The removal of Confederate monuments and flags across the country accelerated following the racially motivated killing of nine black people in a Charleston, S.C., church in 2015.

“We have been at this for eight years, this fall,” Lee said. “What happened in Charleston had nothing to do with anyone in this room.”

Her speech, which received applause and ovations from the audience, belittled the Black Lives Matter movement and attacked Democratic politicians, Episcopalian churches, the nonprofit Southern Poverty Law Center, the Community Anti-Racism Education Initiative (CARE) and Boston-based author Kevin M. Levin, who wrote a 2016 blog linking The Virginia Flaggers to white supremacist groups.

Lee praised the Southern purpose in the Civil War and applauded President Donald Trump for not being “politically correct.” She said the push to remove Confederate monuments is part of a backlash against him being elected to office.

“I mean, look at this country. Was the South right?” Lee asked. Many in the room responded by shouting “yes.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, based in Birmingham, Ala., does not include The Virginia Flaggers on its list of 37 hate groups active in Virginia. The list does include groups like Identity Dixie and the Nation of Islam.

The Virginia Flaggers is on the center’s Hatewatch that lists groups that lend ideological support to the “Lost Cause” that romanticizes the Confederacy, which it says empowers neo-Confederate and white supremacist hate groups.

William “Bill” Scott, a member of the local chapter of the NAACP, attended Tuesday’s meeting and said he agrees with the Southern Poverty Law Center’s assessment. He said terms such as “state’s rights” and “heritage” support the Lost Cause and the Confederacy’s support of slavery.

“Even though I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, it’s a racist and traitorous symbol,” Scott said of the Confederate flag. “Robert E. Lee himself said it should be folded up... and not waved to inflame old tensions.”

Scott was one of five people affiliated with the NAACP who attended the meeting.

“The idea that the cause of the South was right... she’s implying that slavery was acceptable,” Scott said.

Gwen Borders-Walker, former president of the local NAACP chapter, recently told The Star that the Confederate flag is perceived by African-Americans as a symbol of oppression and hatred. “That flag was present at lynchings.”

Brian Daly, a self-described “history buff,” said he is not a member but regularly attends meetings of the local Sons of Confederate Veterans Turner Ashby Camp.

“How does a lifeless statue impact you?” he said about calls for the removal of Confederate monuments. “If I’m a person who believes that flag is offensive, I just let it go.”

Todd Kern, president of the Turner Ashby Camp, said afterward that the meeting was one of the most successful he’s attended and that Confederate symbols are memorials to soldiers who fought for self-determination.

Kern rejected the “clearly biased” assessment of the Southern Poverty Law Center and called the organization “an extremist group” that engages in “the big lie” that the Civil War was primarily about slavery and that monuments were erected to establish white supremacy in the Jim Crow era.

“Saying you’re proud of your heritage does not take away from anyone else,” Kern said. “We just want to be left alone to have our history meetings.”

Lee urged those at the meeting to take action by unfurling the Confederate flag in public places.

“Are you men or are you not?” she asked the group. “It’s much better to ask forgiveness than ask permission. Just do it.”

She said the removal of Confederate symbols in cities like Dallas and Baltimore is a “temporary” victory for “the godless heathens” who “take down our memorials” and strip the names of Confederate figures from public schools.

At the end of her speech, she displayed a message that read “it may take 100 years... but we will take our land back and when we do the flags will rise, the monuments will be returned and the school names will be restored.”

Kern said he believes that statement means that “eventually people will have tolerance and acceptance for whatever your heritage is.”

— Contact Onofrio Castiglia at ocastiglia@winchesterstar.com

(100) comments

Todd Kern

I am appalled at the people here citing their ancestors as Confederates and then immediately turn around and urinate on their family's graves!...and they think this gives them some sort of credibility or respectability! It does not, it only means you have been indoctrinated with half truths and Lies about your family heritage, their sacrifices, and the circumstances of the past without even defending your own family! There is no honor in this, it is shameful! Ms. Lee was right, you have no honor in your blood.

Todd Kern

Silvius0307, I know at least 3 millennials who have commented here and they think your ilk is un-american, and your bigotry and hate really shows through. Again, showing who the real haters are! ..not to mention your opinion is based on flawed facts that you have been fed like a sheep. I believe their vote and their children will cancel out your totalitarian views. Your kind of thinking caused the last war, an insistence that your views be forced on others ,and will cause the next one. Btw we are a republic.

Chris 22602

I have confederate blood running through my veins, I just realize they were racist Tennessee rednecks who once had a slave. They were evil hearted traitors and they deserved to die like they did in the middle of a Virginia battlefield. They were scum, I’m ashamed that’s my heritage, which is why I despise the confederate flag and every confederate monument I see. These confederate waving idiots are only a few steps away from joining the KKK. A bunch of them are probably already members.

Connie Chastain

Chris you would have to be God or a mind-reader to know they are "only a few steps away from joining the KKK." And I don't think you are. Your comment tells us a whole lot more about you (and your bigotry) than it does about them.

CRT

Some of you need to seek help for your obsession about a war that has been over for 150+ years. Let. It. Go.

ralcabin

Says the guy who just commented several times, course wouldn't be you if you missed any opportunity. What's the matter, facts befuddle & confuse you, guess you need to let it go, take your own advice, everyone knows how you feel about everything anyway, lol.

CRT

Oh the rapier wit of ralcabin! It cuts deep!

Connie Chastain

It's not an obsession. You are the obsessed one.

CRT

No puppet! You're the puppet!

Steve Cunningham

CRT...nothing like a third grade comment to prove your point [beam]

Connie Chastain

“The idea that the cause of the South was right... she’s implying that slavery was acceptable,” Scott said.

Scott may have been inferring that, but Lee didn't imply it. This is the inference of somebody who wears slave-colored glasses. Who sees the whole world through that lense. Also known as indoctrination.

pabtm

In response to slowe's list of New Testament passages that he seems to think prove that the Christian Bible "condones" slavery... I hate to info-dump on everyone, but I feel the question is super important and deserves a careful and complete response. Apologies to all for the length. I'm going to tackle each verse that slowe has offered, in the order he gave them.

==
Eph 6:5-8 - This is a set of behavioral instructions designed to keep enslaved persons from making their situation worse. If a 21st-century person of color were to say to her child, "honey, if a cop stops you, please be respectful to him," is that parent somehow condoning unjust police brutality? No. She's saying to her kid, be smart, there's a lot of bad out there, don't make things worse for yourself. The proof of what the Bible means is found in the VERY NEXT VERSE (Eph 6:9), which slowe didn't seem to notice. It addresses slave owners directly, tells them to be good to their slaves, because God, "Who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and... there is no partiality with Him." Read that again -- "there is no partiality with Him." The bible is explicitly saying to slave owners that, to God, you and your slaves are moral equals.

Col 3:22-24 - This is a mirror passage to the Ephesians verse above. Again, instructions to enslaved persons on how to keep faith with God, despite what they are enduring. In this version, the missing next verse (Col 3:25) says even more explicitly, "For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." In context, this passage is equating slaveholders with "wrongdoers."

1Tim 6:1-2 - This is specifically addressing enslaved persons who are Christians, telling them how to behave for the sake of their faith. It also refers to the "yoke" of slavery, which shows that the writer did not think slavery was some wonderfully pleasant thing. While this passage doesn't have the subtle slapback aimed at slaveowners that the previous two passages had, it does highlight one remarkable thing: that early Christians had no hesitation to preach the Gospel to the enslaved, and happily received them as "brethren" if and when they converted.

Titus 2:9-10 - Another passage that echoes the earlier Ephesians and Colossians verses. Enslaved persons should behave well so they can show others "the doctrine of God our Savior." The next verse (Titus 2:11) says, "For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of ALL men" (emphasis added), which again can only be interpreted as a call-out that the enslaved are morally equal to their "masters" in the eyes of God.

1Pet 2:18 - This is so far the most egregious example of quoting a Bible verse out of context. Verse 18 says, "Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing." First thing to notice is that it says "servants," not "slaves." So at a minimum, this verse is including those people who are not enslaved, but who are paid servants. But the real eye-opener comes in the immediate next verses (1Pet 2:19-23), which slowe doesn't mention. I'll not quote them in detail, but basically, they say clearly that these "servants" are "suffering unjustly," and exhorts them to emulate Jesus, who "When He was reviled, He did not revile in return." It elevates the dignity of the servants' suffering by comparing it favorably to the suffering Jesus endured on the cross. These are not words that "endorse" slavery; if anything, these are words that embrace the enslaved, and seek to take the psychological sting out of their suffering.

Col 4:1 - This is a brief redux of the other passages. Again, slowe left out the crucial companion text that immediately follows, which explains WHY masters should be kind to their slaves... because "you [the masters] also have a Master in heaven." Moral equality, again, plainly laid out.

==

To sum up, slowe has not given us any Bible passages that say (or even imply) that slavery is a positive good, or that people should go out and own people. I don't believe any such passage exists. slowe's passages do acknowledge the reality of slavery as it existed when those verses were being written. But acknowledging what exists and endorsing it are two very different things.

If I'm wrong in any of my analysis, I invite others to jump in and show me the error of my ways.

CRT

In the Bible, God is not coy when telling people what not to do. Find one verse where is says one person is not to hold another in forced servitude. The Southern Baptist Convention was founded upon wanting to maintain the institution of slavery and thrived in the Jim Crow era. They used the very verses Mr. Lowe cites to justify the practices of slavery. God went so far as to tell slave owners how to behave, but didn't forbid the practice.

Connie Chastain

And God knows a lot more about what's right and wrong than you do. He is the author and source of it. You are not. You want to judge God because he doesn't conform to your petty, finite, human understanding? Hahahaha.

creamcheese

I am not from the South but the civil was was an extreme time of suffering for many. It will never be forgotten for those that have had relatives, family and friends involved in that war. Very sad time and we can say that we have come a a long long way to NOT going in reverse like some countries have still have slavery in some form or another in this day an age.. We are Blessed.

Ronald Jenkins

They should fly the last flag Robert E. Lee rode with to Appomattox, the white flag of surrender.

Connie Chastain

White flags also symbolize truce. Well, bud, the truce is over.

CRT

What does that mean, tough gal? The South gonna rise again! Since most "taker" states are in the deep south, please go! Take KY and WV with you.

Connie Chastain

It means the culture war is underway in earnest. Why do you think the South supports Trump's presidency? Why do you think there are meetings like the one Susan spoke at? Why do you think there are bills in state legislatures to protect monuments. The culture war is heating up.

Oh, and the South won't have to rise again. Just remain standing while the rest of America falls. The country will break and the cracks along which it will break are already showing.

Connie Chastain

(Quote) The removal of Confederate monuments and flags across the country accelerated following the racially motivated killing of nine black people in a Charleston, S.C., church in 2015. (End quote.)

There were people who wanted Confederate symbols erased from the American memory and the Southern landscape long before that. For the most part they weren't successful. It appears they latched onto Roof's heinous crime as a precipitating event to the resulting removals. It had to be helped along, though. There weren't many images of him with Confederate symbols. It appears that some of the most infamous -- Roof holding stick flags -- were photoshopped. There are all kinds of image processing errors in them. In any case, Roof was not a Confederate heritage activist ... not a member of any heritage groups, did not attend heritage events. What he was and is, is a crazy person. Clinically insane. A sociopath. Anybody who attempts to interpret or justify anything using him is visibly grasping at straws and, not incidentally, exhibiting their true motives.

CRT

There are lots of photos of Roof with Confederate symbols. They are not photoshopped. He's yours. Own it.

Connie Chastain

They are indeed photoshopped. Shadows that defy the laws of physics. A "magic" hat strap that magically penetrates through a solid towel. White border artifacts that indicate that the edge of a pasted object wasn't properly cleaned up. Elements of a single image showing different resolutions. Roof is a crazy person.

Prove he was ever a member of a heritage organization, or own up to your lying and hate.

CRT

So the FBI and federal prosecutors at his trial introduced photoshopped evidence at Roof's trial? Was that the same photoshop that was used on Obama's birth certificate??? You people are a hoot!

Connie Chastain

The ones that show him holding a stick flag were absolutely photoshopped. Anybody who works with graphics editors can see it. Different elements of some of the photos have different resolutions, meaning they were pasted onto the background. Some have white borders slivers, meaning the edges of the pasted element weren't properly cleaned up and the slivers are part of the original background. There are shadows that defy the laws of physics. In some pics, his hand is holding the stick flag oddly and the sticks are often way too bright white. He he was probably holding something else that was 'shopped out and the stick 'shopped in. Some people have speculated he's holding a beer bottle in some, a gun in others.

Roof's crime, as if it wasn't bad enough, was apparently chosen as the trigger for removing public Confederate symbols. And there are people who swallow the trickery whole.

He doesn't belong to Confederate heritage. Name one org he belonged to. Name one event he attended. You're making it up -- why? You own your unworthy motive.

Connie Chastain

I don't know what photos they introduced at the trial. But you apparently have a lot more faith in the righteous, angelic government than I do. I don't know if they were in on the deceit, or if they just accepted it. I wouldn't put either one past them.

Connie Chastain

It's irritating that you can't put paragraph breaks in these comments.

The corwin amendment

Too often we look at history through today's lens and cast judgment. I see a lot of slavery talk here. Do those so outraged by an institution that was still very prevalent around the world at that time, also fight slavery today. You can't change the past but certainly you could stop it today. Why aren't these same people across the pond fighting to end slavery in north Africa now? Do they show the same animosity towards south America countries who made up 75 percent of the slave trade at the time of the war of northern agression. They dont care and they wouldn't care about it here either if they didn't think they could use it to push their revisionist agenda.

The corwin amendment

Crickets??? You're only furthering my point.

Todd Kern

Hey Slow , as I've said, you just can't get past your preconceived ideas.. and what you call facts are mostly opinions that overlook the whole story and facts that counter your agenda. And to limit the black perspective the way you do ...hmmm. None are so blind as those who refuse to open their eyes. It seems to me you are the one full of hate...for Christians , for Southerners, for white people, for early America. You justify rape, murder, and violence on innocent people bc of a societal element that most had nothing to do with.

jps320161

And had the Confederacy never existed whose flag and heritage would you be condemning then? No problem with the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owning slaves, or the 8 U.S. Presidents who owned slaves while in office? Total of 12 at some point in their lives, including one named Grant. OK with the capital of the U.S. named after the most prominent slaveowner of all, or the fact that the Confederacy came and went while slavery was still legal under the United States constitution? Confederate soldiers fought because their homeland was invaded and ravaged, and when Lee went north twice he prohibited any retribution to northern civilians.

The corwin amendment

I feel like some of you here have never heard of me.

Todd Kern

Corwin amendment! If all the South wanted was to protect slavery then why did they reject the corwin amendment and leave anyway.

ShruggingAtlas

The Corwin Amendment that was endorsed by Lincoln, who by the way said nothing against allowing slavery in his first Inaugural Address, fugitive slave laws still enforced while the war was being fought, slave states being part of the union, West Virginia being allowed to secede, but somehow the revisionists believe secession amounted to being traitors and slavery was the cause of the illegal and immoral war.

Netskers

First of all , my name is Kelly Ford, and I am a member of SCV Turner Ashby Camp 1567. I am not a faceless coward like CRT who hides their name. I stand by what I say and who I am. It is completely fitting and just to honor the Sons of the South who answered their call of duty to their state, some gave their lives, all made sacrifices and endured hardships. Those who call for their removal must be ignorant to the fact that they are protected AMERICAN veterans. Shame on them. Secondly, our right to fly the Confederate Battle Flag is protected by the First Amendment, and shame on those who would violate The Constitution of the United States in the name of political correctness. These people are the true enemies of freedom and liberty, not those of us like the Sons of Confederate Veterans who seek to preserve our history, our heritage and our freedoms under our Constitution.

Todd Kern

Why do I not see the tolerance, inclusiveness, and multiculturalism the cultural Marxist preach in these comments? Hypocrisy or bigotry? This is another example of the difference between us and them, the hate that is caste towards those who honor their ancestors, while we do not preach hate against anyone. If you really want to have your head explode come to our meeting next month when a woman of color defends the Confederacy and Confederate memorials. Don't project your hate on us when you weren't their to hear what was said. Nor should you put words in dead men's mouths when they aren't here to defend themselves, it doesn't take a brave man to do that, but read what those men said in their writings, you might be surprised.

jc9478

We have a flag that unites us. Let's unfurl that flag instead. "United we stand, divided we fall."

Connie Chastain

If you are talking about the US flag, sorry, it does not unite us. In multicultural America, the US flag is scorned and hated by people who don't even follow our laws for coming here. There are many dividing flags in the 21st century USA -- the rainbow flag, the antifa flag, the flag of ISIS, Heaven help us. All of those flags, and more, are visual symbols for forcing change on our government and culture that are detrimental, even dangerous, to people. The Confederate flag, even when the country that originated it was still viable, did not threaten the USA or its form of government, except to reduce the number of states in the union. And today, it is used by heritage organizations as a symbol of commemoration for those men who fought a force of barbarians wearing military uniforms who invaded to kill them and their loved ones. It is ludicrous to imagine that the union army invaded the South to free slaves.

slowe

" It is ludicrous to imagine that the union army invaded the South to free slaves." Nobody made that claim. The Union army came to put down a rebellion of traitors. Period. To save the Union of all the states.

ShruggingAtlas

Secession was not outlawed, Lincoln just wanted to keep the Union together. If Southerners were traitors, why were none of the leaders of the Confederacy convicted of it?

Connie Chastain

Yes, that claim is made, repeatedly. Maybe not in this comment thread, but people genuinely believe it. Many, many lies like that about the South and the war.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson established that people are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are instituted to secure those rights. One right he specifically identifies is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and create another that suits them better. This right both pre-exists and transcends the U.S. Constitution. How grotesque, then, that the only time Americans have attempted to exercise this right, the government that was supposed to secure it for them made brutal war on them instead.

jps320161

And why do you suppose the British marched up Bunker Hill and why the men who opposed them were there?

Todd Kern

Another example of us vs them , which was the whole point, we don't try to force our beliefs on anyone else. We have been threatened and attacked without attacking anyone else. Is this tolerance? We don't go to others meetings or seek them out for confrontation or to disrupt their meetings... And this talk of traitors, well no one was charged w treason after the war bc the chief justice of the supreme Court said a trial would show they were right. Teason would be fighting against their state not the US bc states were sovereign and people didn't think of themselves as citizens of the US until 1868.

Don Specht

"But as a political symbol, the flag was revived when northern Democrats began to press for an end to the South’s system of racial oppression. In 1948, the Dixiecrats revolted against President Harry Truman—who had desegregated the armed forces and supported anti-lynching bills. The movement began in Mississippi in February of 1948, with thousands of activists “shouting rebel yells and waving the Confederate flag,” as the Associated Press reported at the time. Some actually removed old, mothballed flags from the trunks where they had until then been gathering dust.

At the Democratic convention that July, nine southern states backed Georgia’s Senator Richard Russell over Truman, parading around the floor behind a waving Confederate flag to the strains of Dixie. The Dixiecrats reconvened in Birmingham, nominating South Carolina Governor Strom Thurmond for the presidency. Sales of Confederate flags, long moribund, exploded. Stores could not keep them in stock. The battle flag became the symbol of segregation."

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/why-is-the-flag-still-there/396431/

Connie Chastain

Where is the Dixiecrat party today? It was short-lived and had little impact. It was a segregationist party that focused totally on a presidential election. No political movement ignores state and local politics and remains viable. (Complete this adage: "All politics is ____.") And the fact that it was so short-lived and had so little impact should give you a clue that the portrayals of the South as rabidly segregationist are not accurate, or else that party would been long-lived and deeply impactful ... what a surprise that the South would be lied about, huh.... The revival of the Confederate flag in the middle of the 20th century had far more to do with the centennial of the civil war than politics of any stripe.

Jim McCarthy

A deplorable group to be sure. However, sunshine is the best antidote to such uncivil and immoral belief as the posts in this thread offer. The patience of the larger society is tested but not bent.

Todd Kern

Hey crt, maybe you should read the CSA Constitution and state declaration of secession before you makes statements out of ignorance. Please read Virginia's declaration, is does not even mention slavery but it does mention the Constitution. Only 4out of 11 states mention slavery, why do caste the sins of a few on all. Oh that's right bc you're a bigot. 2 out of 4 southern men either didn't come home or came home crippled but not for what you claim, why can't they be remembered by their ancestors. 95.2 percent of Southerners never owned a slave according to the 1860 census. And do tell me about the corwin amendment. These were someone's son, brother, father. It's ethnocentric and illogical to judge yesterday by today's perspective. It was different world you don't understand by your preconceived ideas. Maybe if you read the words of the men then instead of the interpretation of those w an agenda today.

slowe

"95.2 percent of Southerners never owned a slave according to the 1860 census." and yet the entire south, to a man and a woman, profited from the labor of 4 million enslaved Africans. They benefited from that economic system and so they, all of them are complicit in the attempt to preserve it and to fight and die for it. True, the North also benefited from the system of slaver for a long time, but, they eventually came to the conclusion that it was not worth it. That morally, freedom from slavery more valuable that the profits from it. Sadly, the South came to a different conclusion and fought and died and LOST for that cause. We need to acknowledge the sacrifice made by our southern, confederate ancestors to a VERY WRONG cause. That they were WRONG. We can mourn their passing but we can NEVER celebrate, condone, or deny that they were mistaken in the cause for which they fought. THAT fact must be accepted by us, their ancestors. Yes, I had ancestors in the Confederate army. So what. They were wrong. I do not glory in their error, or wish they had won. It is right and good that the Confederacy lost the war. We should rather celebrate that defeat. April 9 (1865) should be a national holiday of celebration.

Todd Kern

Hey slow, there you go again projecting your preconceived ideas on others. Your idea of facts is not the whole story...and the fact that your idea of facts "MUST be accepted" begins to sound like 1938 Germany and the national socialist workers party. The South's cause was independence, and slavery was only part of the issues. Slavery did not start in the South nor did it end with the war. Most historians agree slavery was on the way out, as it died in Brazil in the 80s. And do tell me why so many slaves stayed w their families after the war and why many blacks fought for the Confederacy. My family didn't own any slaves nor did most families, you really think they would storm those earthworks for someone else to own slaves. No, an invader is always resisted. Like we resist your revisionist views being pushed as the only views. Please Tell me about the northern states Black Codes. ... And just Who are you to tell others what we can honor or believe. Not very tolerant of you, again you begin to sound like that party in Germany with your narrow biased views being forced on others.

slowe

"The South's cause was independence, and slavery was only part of the issues."

Yes, independence so as to preserve and keep the institution of slavery. It was the MAIN reason for secession. And thus, it was an immoral reason. Secession itself was an act of treason and deserved to be stopped. The US did not invade the South, It simply was putting down an illegal attempt to secede.

"Slavery did not start in the South nor did it end with the war."
I don’t care where it started ( yes it started in Virginia in 1619). Official, legal Slavery ended in the USA with the defeat of the Confederacy insurrection in 1865.

“Most historians agree slavery was on the way out, as it died in Brazil in the 80s.”
It was not on the way out in the South. Indeed they wanted to expand it into other territories and states ! Brazil in the 80s? Twenty more years after the Civil War. A whole generation of people!. And is this really your defense of slavery and the war to preserve it, for another 20 years? WEAK!

slowe

“And do tell me why so many slaves stayed w their families after the war and why many blacks fought for the Confederacy.”

Probably because they had nowhere to go, no resources, no money, no property. Blacks in the Confederacy: rare and very exceptional. A losing argument again.

“And just Who are you to tell others what we can honor or believe” You may, of course, believe what you want, but I may challenge those beliefs with facts and arguments. Who are you to say I may not?
When you choose to honor bad acts, immoral acts, illegal acts, I choose to challenge what you honor. That is everyone’s right. I do not honor racism, rebellions, and the denial of facts.

Connie Chastain

slowe, attributing the north's abolishing slavery to moral concerns a Hollywood, mini-series viewpoint. Slavery would indeed have been quite profitless in an industrial society, because why pay for the shelter, food, clothing, medical care and what education was necessary for slave workers (man, would that eat into the profits, huh?) when you can pay them pennies just for the time they work? Pennsylvania journalist Douglas Harper summed it up nicely:

========
Greed hid behind anti-slavery morality. Practical selfishness and pious abstraction merged beautifully. The Lord's "terrible swift sword" that smote the South was made in some Connecticut mill whose owner piled up millions in the process. It is important to remember that outright anti-slavery work -- as opposed to a sense of sectional rivalry and resentment -- was limited to a very small class in the North. Prominent among that class were a great many leading capitalists.

In New York City during the war girls sewed umbrellas from 6 a.m. to midnight, earning $3 a week, from which their employers deducted the cost of needles and thread. Girls who made cotton shirts received 24 cents for a 12-hour day. One historian, after studying in intimate detail a cluster of Northern cotton factories, summed up the owners' abolitionism like this:

"By making chattel slavery the uniquely immoral form of human exploitation, abolitionism undercut the mounting working-class complaints about wage-slavery and beatified the capitalist order. These abolitionists hated slavery not just for its inhumanity but also for impeding their vision of a capitalist society of free individuals whose labor could be freely exploited."[1]

========

It does appear you've fallen deeply under the spell of the Victor Fables, particularly the fantasy about the righteous north.

Connie Chastain

slowe, please cite a source for this statement: "the entire south, to a man and a woman, profited from the labor of 4 million enslaved Africans. They benefited from that economic system and so they, all of them are complicit in the attempt to preserve it and to fight and die for it." And I don't mean some contemporary leftist professor. I mean an objective economics document from that time period.
(Paragraph) The purpose of this kind of blanket condemnation devoid of any objective substantiation is simply to foment hatred for Southerners. Your statement is akin to the idiotic claim that Southern soldier fought so their rich neighbor could keep his slaves. This makes those soldiers into soulless entities without natural human love for their families or concern that they were endangered by a military invasion. Do you really believe rebel soldiers didn't love their wives, children, parents, and neighbors?
(Paragraph) I've already posted information showing that the north benefitted from slavery when they had it, and continued to benefit from it after they sold their slaves and abolished slavery so no more blacks could come to their states in appreciable numbers. You need to make an effort to get over the Victor Fable trope of sinless yankees. (Paragraph) You aren't the universal declarer of what is good and right in the affairs of men. You can do what you like but you cannot condemn others based on your fallible human opinion.

stonewaller116

Hey Slowe - go read the history of the 26th NC Infantry (one example of many). You think men would willingly, and repeatedly, face certain death and maiming to free slaves? Indeed, you think these poor white farmers, who owned almost nothing, leaving their families at home would suffer that kind of horror to free any race for that matter? They sought one thing: to live in peace and push out the invading northern troops from their state, from their land, and to restore the constitutional rights which guaranteed liberty for themselves and their neighbors by putting the People and States before Federal. Lincoln and the Northern politicians wanted power and saw that in the South. That is the reason southerns chose to stand and fight. It was that simple. Your mind is bent, Slowe.

CRT

From the CSA Constitution: While the U.S. Constitution has a clause that states "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed"[31] the Confederate Constitution adds a phrase to explicitly protect slavery.
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.[14]
The U.S. Constitution states in Article IV Section 2 that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." The Confederate Constitution adds that a state government cannot prohibit the rights of a slave owner traveling or visiting from a different state with his or her slaves.
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.[32]
The Confederate Constitution added a clause about the question of slavery in the territories (the key Constitutional debate of the 1860 election) by explicitly stating that slavery is legally protected in the territories.
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.[33]

CRT

As for ignorance, have you ever read the Cornerstone Speech by the VP of the CSA? Here's a sample: But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

Todd Kern


As for Stephens, a scholar should know that there is no written copy of
Stephens speech, only the notes of a reporter. There is a theory that
Stephens "quote" -- incorrectly attributed -- was from an 1833 Pennsylvania
case presided over by US Supreme Court Justice Henry Baldwin. Alexander
Stephens referred to that case, and many others, to show that the US had
legalized and defended slavery in US courts for many decades. In Johnson
vs. Tompkins, 1 Bald., 597, Henry Baldwin says: "Slavery is the
corner-stone of the Constitution; the foundations of the government are
laid and rest on the right of property in slaves, and the whole structure
must fall by disturbing the corner-stone." Note this is 1833,
Pennsylvania, and Supreme Court not Richmond 1860s! Whether it’s his
words
and sentiments or not, the fact remains that there are volumes of
correspondences, speeches, and articles written during the war and after by
the men who fought it and led that rebellion that counter what today's
revisionist
claims as an absolute and singular cause, Slavery. I noticed you didn't include Virginia's answer to Lincoln's call for volunteers nor their declaration...I wonder why. Also, Did you also recognize the CS Constitution allowed for free states to be admitted. Either way your approach to history is narrow, bias, and from a modern perspective rather than taking into account the past was a different world. It's illogical and ethnocentric.

CRT

Yes, I'm sure Stephens was a victim of FAKE NEWS.

Connie Chastain

He was the flippin' vice president. Think Joe Biden (smirk). Think Al Gore. Think Dick Cheney. Think Dan Quayle.

"Abolitionist" Julia Ward Howe could have signed on as Stephens' speech writer...
BTW, everyone, north and South, thought pretty much the same thing back then. To illustrate, who said this?

From "A Trip to Cuba" by Julia Ward Howe.
Published 1859-60 by Ticknor and Fields, Boston

Wherein a famous "abolitionist" suggested "compulsory labor" (i.e., SLAVERY)
would be better for "the negro among negroes" than none....

Start on Page 11 of the chapter "Nassau"

----------

The earliest feature discernible was a group of tall cocoa-nut trees, with which
the island is bounteously feathered; -- the second was a group of negroes in a
small boat, steering toward us with open-mouthed and white-toothed wonder.
Nothing makes its simple impression upon the mind sophisticated by education.
The negroes, as they came nearer, suggested only Christy's Minstrals, of whom
they were a tolerably faithful immitation... There were many negroes, together
with whites of every grade; and some of our number, leaning over the side, saw
for the first time the raw material out of which Northern Humanitarians have
spun so fine a skein of compassion and sympathy.

Now we who write, and they for whom we write, are all orthodox upon this mighty
question. We have all made our confession of faith in private and public; we
all, on suitable occasions, walk up and apply the match to the keg of gunpowder
which is to blow up the Union, but which, somehow, at the critical moment, fails
to ignite. But you must allow us one heretical whisper, -- very small and low.
The negro of the North is the ideal negro; it is the negro refined by white
culture, elevated by white blood, instructed even by white iniquity; -- the
negro among negroes is a coarse, grinning, flat-footed, thick-skulled creature,
ugly as Caliban, lazy as the laziest of brutes, chiefly ambitious to be of no
use to any in the world. View him as you will, his stock in trade is small; --
he has but the tangible of instincts of all creatures, -- love of life, of ease
and of offspring. For all else, he must go to school to the white race, and his
discipline must be long and laborious. Nassau, and all that we saw of it,
suggested to us the unwelcome question whether compulsory labor be not better
than none....

http://books.google.com/books?
id=vgMZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=julia+ward+howe+a+trip+to+cuba&source=bl&\
ots=8Kf9Qjqrue&sig=x43ELKUN9Zavip37TqAutyqSRCQ&hl=en&ei=zanNTImtHYKKlwf3x5noCA&s\
a=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

----------

Establishing several things: (1) there was a desire for war among prominent
people in the north -- they wanted to "blow up the Union." Southerners, by
contrast, just wanted to take their states and leave. The rest of the Union
could have certainly remianed un-blowned up in their opinion. (2) That negroes
are inferior to the white race and (3) long and laborious compulsory labor
(i.e., slavery) is necessary -- not to mention "refining" by "white culture"
and "elevation" by "white blood" -- if "all else" is to be achieved by blacks
("all else" being everything BUT love of life, of ease and of offspring.)

And what kind of abolitionists would suggest compulsory labor -- i.e., slavery -- for blacks? Abolitionists were supposed to be opposed to slavery, right?

The Confederacy has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Whatever its sins, they were shared, sometimes in greater measure, by the North.

CRT

PS: It's "cast" not "caste".

Todd Kern

And yet you still caste the sins of a few on all...isn't that what you Marxist says we shouldn't do when it comes to Muslims or illegal aliens or races in general. Hypocrite much?

Connie Chastain

Quote: CRT Feb 14, 2019 12:27pm

Yes, I'm sure Stephens was a victim of FAKE NEWS.

He was. So was Jefferson Davis. There are ignoraumses today who actually believe he was captured wearing a dress. Others make this claim KNOWING that they are lying.

The whole Confederacy is lied about, to this day.

William Stone

“The idea that the cause of the South was right... she’s implying that slavery was acceptable,” Scott said.

She implied no such thing. I was there. She very clearly stated that she was referring to the fact that the South was a Christian nation, fighting for self determination. Shame on you people for trying to twist her words and make this into something it was not.

slowe

The Cause of the South was to preserve the institution of slavery, white supremacy, owning captured Africans in perpetuity and living off their free labor. Their Self determination: to determine for ourselves to keep enslaving Africans. Self determination is not a virtue if you are trying to "determine" yourself to be a slave holder, or a traitor.

Chrawprime

[thumbup]

Connie Chastain

slowe, let's inject a little historical accuracy here. Preserving slavery was the primary factor in the secession of SOME states, not "the South." Slavery was free labor? Man, that is a scream. Slavery placed upon the slave owners the total financial responsibility for a slave from cradle to grave -- that's housing, food, clothing, and education for those whose jobs required literacy (about 25% of slave occupations). Do you think the slave owner just waved a magic wand and those things appeared? On top of that, some state laws required that the slave owner provide care for sick or aged slaves who could no longer work. (Laws also mandated limited religious education and the right for slaves to bring suit and give evidence in special cases.)

Late in the war, the South poved -- PROVED -- that it put political independence above keeping slavery, by two events. The first was the debate about freeing slaves to fight for the Confederacy. There are those who claim today that the South would not even consider discussing such a thing, but when push came to shove, it certainly did discuss it.

"Let not slavery prove a barrier to our independence," intoned the Jackson Mississippian. "Although slavery is one of the principles we started to fight for ... if it proves an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of our liberty and separate nationality, away with it!" (Battle Cry of Freedom)

Freeing slaves for such a purpose would have been the end of slavery.

The other event was Duncan Kenner's mission to Europe, seeking to trade emancipation of the slaves for diplomatic recognition of the CSA from London and Paris. It as it occurred too late to bear fruit, was the war ended while he was en route. However, the very fact that it was undertaken proves again that when push came to shove, the South put political independence from the District of Corruption to slavery-forever.

silvius0307

You are crazy. I just read this article and your comments and I can't begin to wrap my mind around anything that you stand for. I guarantee I can guess your age demographic just as you can guess mine( millennial, I'll just tell you as you seem a bit dense) but here is an insight into the future. There are alot more people like me then you anymore. We are raising children that will never think the way you do... eventually you and your beliefs will only be discussed in history books or in a dark corner in a room that still allows indoor smoking.. just remember every night that you live in a democratic ( your welcome because a lot of us vote) state and that your belief system is antiquated.

Connie Chastain

Indeed, Mr. Stone...

Quote: “The idea that the cause of the South was right... she’s implying that slavery was acceptable,” Scott said.

This is the tunnel-vision view of a person who totally defines the South by slavery and racism. It is the same viewpoint that dehumanizes Confederate soldiers by implying they didn't have the normal, human emotion of love for their families, and thus did not care about defending their wives and children from a marauding army, but only cared about their rich neighbor getting to keep his slaves. This is the viewpoint that dehumanizes post war Southern women as not grieving over husbands, fathers, sons, brothers lost in war, but haters who erected statues only to intimidate black folks. This is what the leftist indoctrination of people of otherwise seemingly normal intelligence hath wought. A demonization mentality. You can thank the Victor Fables and Hollywood for the deterioration of human discernment about the war.

Valerie78

“Even though I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, it’s a racist and traitorous symbol,” Scott said of the Confederate flag. “Robert E. Lee himself said it should be folded up... and not waived to inflame old tensions.”
There you go sons of confederate veterans, listen to your pappy..

Connie Chastain

Lee was right, for the time that he said that. The South was oppressed under a military dictatorship and sham state governments defrauding citizens and laying on the debt they could never repay (mostly for the personal enrichment of the sham government officials). Inflaming old tensions could have given the oppressors an excuse to turn the screws even harder. Besides, today, the flag is not displayed by soldiers in battle. It is a commemorative symbol.

davism412

It is appalling that these types of meetings are taking place. Absolutely shameful.

CRT

So only those who want racist symbols have blood of honor? Only they are Christian? I would tell Todd Kern to read the CSA constitution and the articles of secession from each CSA state. What's the common theme, Todd?

Eredmon

Racism does not exist in a flag, a monument, or in the color of your skin. It is rooted in the brain and heart of people who hate, no matter what century they live in or what color they are. It is not just a white disease. Let’s let history stay where it is, and learn from it. How we all act today is what’s important.

CRT

I'm sure many who fought on the wrong side of WWII have family members who think they were honorable people. No monuments to that side of the war in Germany or Italy. The Civil War might be the only in history where the losers were allowed to write the history.

William Stone

Are you seriously attempting to compare the Confederate Army to the German army? This analogy can only be based on ignorance or a desire to incite. At no time in its existence did the Confederate Army take part in the murder of 6 million people because of their race. Any comparison is an insult to Holocaust victims, survivors, and their families. The grandsons of the same Confederate soldiers we honor, fought and defeated the German army, many of them carrying the Confederate battle flags of their grandfathers with them overseas.

slowe

"[ the South did not]... take part in the murder of 6 million people because of their race." Oh, But enslaving 4 million captured Africans is OK? Fine, the South did not murder them in gas chambers but kept them, owned them, forced them to labor, unpaid, prevented their free movement, sold them as capital..... THAT was not murder but, it was OK !!! ? The comparison made is the racism, the white supremacy involved in BOTH situations: Hitler's and the Confederacy's. You cannot slice and dice these events as you wish to disassociate yourself from the racism and white supremacy, the Christian white supremacy, that was the engine and fuel behind both Hitler's holocaust and the South's war of rebellion. Yes, the analogy is apt. Your refusal to see that is the disease from which you suffer. How can we vaccinate ourselves against such despicable ideas? By opposing your claims in the public arena. By calling them what they are. By exposing the facts and denying your prefered, slanted, biased, and selective interpretation of the facts of history.

Chrawprime

I mean, how many blacks were enslaved in the south and would have remained enslaved had the south won? I know it's not exactly the Holocaust, but to believe it's radically different is foolish at best.

Connie Chastain

There is no option for me to add a reply to slowe's comment below, so I'm posting it here.

Nobody said enslaving 4 million captured Africans was OK. Where did you get that bizarre idea? Nobody is saying ANY of it is OK. That is a deceptive conclusion you are drawing.

No, the CSA and its flags are not analogous to Hitler and the swastika. Not even close.

There were nine million targeted people in Europe before the Third Reich -- three million afterward. By contrast, the black population in the United States, before the war, during it, and afterward -- both during slavery and after emancipation -- grew at basically the same rate as the USA's white population.

For the CSA to be analogous to the Third Reich, 66% of the black population of the South, or 2,640,000 individuals, would've had to be killed between 1861 and 1865. Obviously, that did not happen because by 1870, the black population was 4.9 million. An increase of 900,000 is clearly not the same thing as a decrease of 6 million.

There were no concentration camps that slaves were herded into in the Confederate states. Inmates in European death camps were worked to death and/or given rations scientifically calculated to starve them in three months. By contrast, American slaves ate much the same thing white people ate -- at least, in the South. What they ate is called "soul food" today.

Laws in various states mandated that slaveowners support aged slaves who were no longer able to work and that pregnant slaves be given lighter duties. I could go on, but I think this is sufficient to demonstrate those who would claim Confederates were on a par with the Third Reich are engaging in hate speech.

The Third Reich came into existence to eradicate a certain group of people from the face of the earth. If you think American slavery is the same thing as that, I think you are in dire need of taking your moral compass in to be recalibrated.

Connie Chastain

The losers didn't write the history. The history is written by the victors, and in this case, it is liberally laced with falsehoods. The Victor Fables about the war hold sway in classrooms, in the government, even business and industry, of course in Hollywood, and the entire popular culture. The Victor Fables are the tool of indoctrination about the war, and you have to get past them, go back to historic documentation about the war and its causes to find the truth. Almost nobody ever does that. They're content to get their "history" from movies and TV miniseries.

Chrawprime

Racism absolutely exists in flags and symbols. What does a swastika mean to most? What does a burning cross mean to most? Building monuments to those who wanted to divide the USA and keep the enslavement of blacks isn't something that should be prominently feature for it to be a teachable lesson to learn from.

Connie Chastain

No, neither racism nor any other ism exists in an inanimate object. You have touched on the issue without realizing it when you asked what do these symbols MEAN. Human cognition is what imparts meaning to an inanimate object. You think a Confederate flag means one thing. The SCV and Ms. Lee think it means something else. You are condemning them based not on what they think, but what YOU think. In fact, there are people who would make it illegal for them to think differently about the symbols than you do. That is the essence of unAmericanism.

slowe

We should discuss the vaccine against this disease. She was right about one thing though: slavery was condoned and justified by Christianity in the Confederacy.

William Stone

What do you mean “she was right about one thing”? I don’t see anything in this article that suggest she said anything of the kind. She didn’t. I was there.

slowe

"The South was a Christian nation.” Christian ministers , white christian ministers, in the South preached about the rightness of slavery. The Bible condones slavery and instructs on how to treat your slaves.

pabtm

Please tell me, chapter and verse, exactly where the Bible "condones" slavery. I'll wait.

Todd Kern

Apparently you have a problem with white people, sounds a little well R.... and What about the black Ministers or were black folks not Christian? ...you sound a little bigoted against Christians. And what about black slave owners ,how does that fit into your preconceived ideas and narrative. Maybe you should come hear Teresa Roane speak next month to clear some of that up.

Connie Chastain

slowe, a lot of people considered slavery "right" because it exerted a civilizing influence on Africans whose culture was often breathtakingly savage. The need for slavery as a labor force was gradually replaced as the industrial revolution grew. There was no industrial revolution when the New Testament was being written. Today, a lot of Christian people apply the passages about slavery to employers and employees.

pabtm

"slavery was condoned and justified by Christianity in the Confederacy"

Yeah, and slavery was condemned and rejected by Christianity in the northern states. What's your point?

slowe

My point is that Christianity is a VERY poor system for moral guidance. if your sacred book, your god and his prophets instruct on how to treat slaves or do not even condemn slavery, then....... maybe you should look for a different bood, a different god, a different religion. That the north was able to work past the scriptures and come to the correct moral judgement about slavery in spite of scripture. Those in the south, probably because they had more invested in slavery economically, and had more to lose, used the Bible to justify their economic goals and came to the immoral position to fight for the perseverance of the enslavement of Africans.

Todd Kern

Spoken like true marxist. "Christianity is a very poor system for moral guidance"!! Wow! You do realize that Judeo/ Christian values is what this country was founded on and those protected individual freedoms is what set us apart from the rest of the tyrannical world and made us great. You really are either indoctrinated or ignorant as to the real history of early America bc you judge from a different, a modern agenda, perspective and are unable to recognize the past was different than today. Just wow. You really do hate us.

Connie Chastain

What different book, god or religion would you suggest? Islam, maybe? Read up on how ISLAM treated slaves (and still treats them in many places). Christianity did not transform the world overnight, but its principles have changed the world. Because of Christian compassion, not only were the poor and the sick -- once ignored and allowed to languish and die -- were seen as human beings with dignity, and compassionate care was provided for them. Before a Christian outlook gradually permeated human culture, women were considered chattel. Christianity taught that they were equal to men -- had a different role, but a role just as important. Christianity taught that Christian slaves and a Christian masters were spiritual brothers, and both were servants of the same master, Christ.

Some Southerners used scripture to justify slavery but some is not all, and many saw slavery as an opportunity to bring the salvation (and civilizing influence) of Christ to animists and Islamists whose inhuman treatment of each other was never even slightly approximated by the cruelest Southern slave owners.

Connie Chastain

Now, about the north -- what it came to see was that slavery was not needed in an industrial-based economy (it was cheaper to pay slave wages to laborers and not provide food, clothing, medical care, etc., to them). At a time when there were more slaves in the north than the South, they could foresee the time when slavery would no longer exist in their states, and all those free Africans would make up a huge portion of their population. So they came up with several schemes to reduce the black population -- mostly by selling their slaves while they were still slaves -- and the abolishing slavery, so no more could be brought in. It's interesting that in the debates about keeping slavery out of the new territories, the same people argued for keeping free blacks out.

As for the South having more invested in slavery economically -- New England's maritime interests had made a pile of money in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade. And when it was outlawed, many of them continued making money smuggling slaves, right up until the eve of the war. Northern ports also sucked up vast amounts of slave-grown cotton in the cargo holds of their ships for delivery to Europe. You think wool was the only material worked in northern textile mills? No, those mills also sucked up slave-grown cotton. Everyone from the mill owners on down benefitted economically from it. Since the financial industry was located in the northeast, northern banks made mountains of money financing the purchase of plantations and slaves, and northern insurance companies go rich insuring slaves.

So basically, the north and South benefited economically from slavery; by the time of the war, about the only difference was that slaves were no longer domiciled in the north.

silvius0307

Here here!!

slowe

In the NEW TESTAMENT even: In Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2 and Titus 2:9-10, 1Pet 2:18, instructs slaves to obey their masters. In Col 4:1 Paul instructs masters to "treat your slaves justly and fairly.

The corwin amendment

Do you also have the same animosity towards the other civilizations that had slavery? Or even towards the northern folks who did until after the war?

winchesterstar-reader

Slavery may have been rejected by Christianity in the northern states yet it is a proven fact that the north owned slaves. There was even a few wealthy black northerners who owned slaves. When Lincoln set the slaves free he only did so in the south. The north was allowed to keep their slaves and in fact, they did not free their slaves until months after the war had ended and it took an act of congress to force them to do so.

The corwin amendment

Shhhhh nobody is supposed to know that.

slowe

"it is a proven fact that the north owned slaves" I don't deny this. What does this matter? The south decided to rebel for the sake of keeping slavery ! THAT is the point.

winchesterstar-reader

slowe---The fact that the north did not free their slaves until after the war and even took an act of congress to force them to do it is acceptable to you?

Connie Chastain

New England's states abolished slavery early in the 19th century. You can say it was from "Christian" motives but it was mostly from economic and racial motives. Slaves weren't needed for industrial labor -- wage slaves were a lot cheaper -- but yankees did not want blacks making up a significant part of their populations, so they sold them while they were still slaves, and abolished slavery so no more could be brought in. Congress did not abolish slavery. That was done with a Constitutional Amendment.

Connie Chastain

What disease? Exercising your Constitutional right to free speech and free assembly?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.