Saturday, February 6, 2016

Southern states didn’t rise in rebellion


 1918 Tulsa, Oklahoma UCV Reunion Parade with an unidentified African American Confederate veteran. He has “Rome, GA” blazoned on his chest, and is holding what appear to be two chickens. Confederate Veterans Encampment Photographs, 2015.056.16

Editor, Richmond Times-Dispatch:

A Correspondent of the Day accused Dr. Walter Williams of mythmaking concerning black Confederates. I would like to point out some myths in this correspondent’s letter. The Southern states did not “rise in rebellion against the United States” in order to expand slavery. Quite to the contrary, in their attempts to peacefully secede from the union of states by the same method all states had originally acceded to it — through their respective sovereign conventions — the Southern states willfully gave up any opportunity of expanding slavery into the territories. In the process, they effectively removed slavery from the United States altogether. One would think the abolitionist North would have happily said “goodbye and good riddance” to them, but it did not. Why not?

With the Southern states out of the union, the North would lose its major source of cotton for its mills, its major source of markets for its manufactures, its major source of income from the tariff, and its control of the mouth of the Mississippi River. The Northern economy would collapse. So President Lincoln drove the Southern states back into the union at the point of the bayonet. The South was simply defending itself from invasion, conquest and coerced political allegiance — just as the 13 slave holding Colonies had done when they seceded from the British Empire in 1776.

No one can argue that slavery is not a coercive labor system, but many faithful slaves (some bearing arms) accompanied their masters to war, rescued them from their wounds, and got them safely back home.

H. V. Traywick Jr.
Richmond.

No comments:

Post a Comment