Friday, September 1, 2017

What did slavery have to do with the Civil War?


I will let Paul Craig Roberts explain:

When I read Professor Thomas DiLorenzo’s article the question that lept to mind was, “How come the South is said to have fought for slavery when the North wasn’t fighting against slavery?”
Two days before Lincoln’s inauguration as the 16th President, Congress, consisting only of the Northern states, passed overwhelmingly on March 2, 1861, the Corwin Amendment that gave constitutional protection to slavery. Lincoln endorsed the amendment in his inaugural address, saying “I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
Quite clearly, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.
Here we have absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery.
If the South’s real concern was maintaining slavery, the South would not have turned down the constitutional protection of slavery offered them on a silver platter by Congress and the President. Clearly, for the South also the issue was not slavery.
The real issue between North and South could not be reconciled on the basis of accommodating slavery. The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have documented. The North offered to preserve slavery irrevocably, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.
Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln’s naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.
Today the ignorant morons, thoroughly brainwashed by Identity Politics, are demanding removal of memorials to Robert E. Lee, an alleged racist toward whom they express violent hatred. This presents a massive paradox. Robert E. Lee was the first person offered command of the Union armies. How can it be that a “Southern racist” was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?
Virginia did not secede until April 17, 1861, two days after Lincoln called up troops for the invasion of the South.

                                                        Read the whole article.


Anonymous said...

It is interesting that the Northern elite classes of banksters and industrialists had no serious objection to the continuance of slavery as an institution. The color of the slaves was of little importance to them, White would do as well as Black. The anti-war riots which broke out in New York city in 1863 indicates the working classes of NY understood what the war was all about, chattel slavery to be replaced by economic slavery. It took a while for the Robber Barons of NY to form a working alliance with the Boston Brahmans and the Jewish financiers, but when they did the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was the result. That Act coupled with high income tax constitutes a pretty effective form of modern slavery.
Also, the elite sponsored Afro-Islamic invasion of Europe strongly indicates the same elites haven't lost their taste for slavery and degradation.

Aged parent said...

Well said, Anon.

St. Benedict's Thistle said...

The winners write history.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...