The fight to preserve Slavery !
Ya know what shaves my goat?
Yankees that claim that the South was primarily fighting for the right to continue slavery !
OK just for the sake of argument let’s say it’s true, That by a soldier joining the armed forces he was fighting to maintain slavery . But if we accept this we must also look at what the North was fighting for.
Now the Yankee’s will tell ya it was to preserve the Union and later the focus changed to freeing the slaves. Then they will throw in Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation
OOOOO-K, I’ve heard it all before. But lets look at it from the Yankees perspective and apply the logic evenly.
If the Confederates were fighting to preserve slavery, so were the Yankees!
The Yanks were fighting to preserve a Union that by law included slavery. So by fighting to save the union they were at the same time fighting to save slavery which was a part of the Union.
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation the yanks were fighting to preserve a Union that included slavery ! Lincoln stated- “Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
So slavery was still an accepted practice in the Union even after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
So the Yankees were still fighting to preserve a Union that included slavery.
As long as we all play by the same rules ya gotta accept the facts !
David,
ReplyDeleteLike I said on Connie's blog...you are correct. However, you still fail to understand either on purpose or by accident, that there is a difference between preserving a Union that had slavery and calling for its limitation if not outright abolition and founding a country whose cornerstone is that very same institution.
And like I said at Connie's blog,
ReplyDeleteLike it or not your ancestors fought for the preservation of slavery.
Mr, Meyer must be forgetting the decree of Supreme Court Justice Baldwin stating that that slavery is the cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution --
ReplyDeleteThus you see that the foundations of the government are laid, and rest on the rights of property in slaves—the whole structure must fall by disturbing the corner stones—if federal numbers cease to be respected or held sacred in questions of property or government, the rights of the states must disappear, and the government and union dissolve by the prostration of its laws before the usurped authority of individuals.
We shall pursue this subject no further, in its bearing on the political rights of the states composing the union—in recalling your attention to these rights, which are the subject of this controversy, we declare to you as the law of the case, that they are inherent and unalienable—so recognised by all our fundamental laws.
The constitution of the state or union is not the source of these rights, or the others to which we have referred you, they existed in their plenitude before any constitutions, which do not create but protect and secure them against any violation by the legislatures or courts, in expounding or administering laws.