The South Was Right

by James Ronald Kennedy

  Yankee apologists will assure us that these views somehow magically changed during the war. But the facts demonstrate otherwise. Ohio, in 1867, at the very time that Congress was forcing the South to accept unqualified suffrage, rejected by popular vote a law allowing blacks to vote.125

  The arrogant and racist Yankee attitude was not limited to blacks and crackers but included Native Americans. In 1862 the United States government sent Gen. John Pope to Minnesota to suppress an uprising. In one of his orders he described Native Americans thusly:

  They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made.126

  Gideon Wells, United States Secretary of the Navy, admitted that the war waged against the Native Americans in Minnesota was racially motivated. He stated that the Native Americans in Minnesota “have good land which white men want and mean to have.”127

  The Yankee establishment works overtime painting the South with the tar brush of slavery and racism. It does this while wrapping itself in robes of self-righteousness and declaring to the world how glad it is that the Yankee is a pure soul never having indulged in any such form of evil. Historical facts tell a different story!

  This “holier-than-thou” attitude is evident throughout the history of the North/South struggle. It continues even today. When the national news media needs an example of racism, you can rest assured that the first place they will look will be down South. Yet, in the late 1960s, it was places like Newark, New Jersey, and Detroit, Michigan, that experienced bloody race riots. Who remembers the violent resistance to forced busing, not down South but in Boston, Massachusetts? Howard Beach and Yonkers, New York, are hardly bastions for redneck Southerners. More recently, social analysis has demonstrated that the North is more segregated than the South.128 Yet, we are still confronted with the Yankee myth of the egalitarian North versus the hate-filled, racist South. The historical record speaks of a different reality, but reality, these days, is only the vision which those who control the media allow the average American to hear and see. The liberal establishment puts its spin on reported “facts” and then carefully controls access to the media to prevent the Southern point of view from being expressed. The press is only free for those who control access to it!

  SUMMARY

  These are only a few of the Yankee myths of history used to justify their crimes against our people. It began with the North’s attempt to influence foreign nations not to recognize the Southern nation. It has been used ever since to convince both Northerners and Southerners that the war was fought for moral reasons, and that the North was the champion of that morality. Of course, that leaves the South in the position of championing immorality. Today when a television or movie producer needs someone to stereotype as ignorant, evil, or racist, we can expect to find a convenient redneck, hillbilly, or cracker emerging from the wings. This fictitious character will usually have a “rebel” flag on his pick-up truck, hanging behind the bar, or tattooed on his arm.

  The myth is taught in every Southern school. Every new generation is conditioned to respond appropriately, and those who dare challenge the myth will face the wrath of the liberal wordsmith in education, in the media, and in politics. As long as we accept this myth, the Northern liberals can justify any of their actions used to repress the rights of Southerners. If the South is the center of evil and racism in America, then the South-only Voting Rights Act is necessary. Forced busing is needed, reverse discrimination only proper, and never will the liberals allow a pro-Southern conservative to sit on the United States Supreme Court. It is time to reject Yankee myth and march forward to a reality of Southern freedom!

  CHAPTER 2

  Slavery: The Yankee Flesh Merchants

  Thus it will be seen that the last capture of a slaver was by a Southern officer and the good people of Massachusetts were engaged in this nefarious business at the beginning of our unhappy war.1

  J.Julius Guthrie

  INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS

  The Yankee myth of history teaches Southerners that our ancestors are the villains of American history. It teaches us that we are descendants of cruel slave masters and must remain forever upon “the stools of everlasting repentance” because of the sins of our ancestors.

  Perhaps no other point can better demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Yankee myth of history than the issue of who was responsible for slavery in America, who made the profits from slavery, and who treated the slaves more compassionately. In this chapter we will explore these questions and, in so doing, explode a few more Yankee myths.

  SLAVERY: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

  Nothing in American history has stirred, or continues to stir, more passion than the institution of African servitude. With the mention of the word “slavery,” rational thought disappears only to resurface after the South has been thoroughly flailed, kicked, and punished for the sin of involuntary servitude.

  Conventional wisdom (i.e., Yankee myth) maintains that the entire burden for this institution should be carried by the people of the South. Conventional wisdom states that the “Civil War” was fought by the noble and freedom-loving Yankees to free their black brothers from cruel Southern slavery. The Yankee myth of history attempts to justify the North’s criminal invasion of the South by claiming that the South was fighting to protect its slave property. Unfortunately, many Southerners have fallen victim to this Yankee propaganda. Only those who accept the Yankee myth of history without question and who refuse to read impartial historical evidence succumb to such shallow thinking.

  George Clark, Edgefield District, South Carolina, member Company G, Seventh South Carolina Volunteer Infantry. Clark had this picture taken shortly before he died of typhoid fever. The number of deaths attributed to disease during the war was as great as that resulting from battle. Was the bouquet he holds for his mother, sister, or sweetheart? (Image courtesy of South Carolina Confederate Relic Room and Museum, Columbia, South Carolina)

  Because of the manner in which true Southern history is treated by our educational systems, the electronic media, and the print media, the modern-day Southerner does not possess the truth regarding the history of slavery in America. Because of some imagined guilt of their forefathers, Southerners feel that they must hang their heads in shame and accept their punishment. As “living history” enthusiasts, the authors of this book have had the opportunity to talk with school children about the War for Southern Independence. All too often, when asked why the South fought the War, the children reply, “To keep their slaves.” If these children were from homes in Massachusetts or New York, this answer would at least be understandable. But when we realize that these Southern children are only four or five generations removed from the generation of Stonewall Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis, we begin to understand how effective the Yankee myth-makers have been. This is why we must come to a proper understanding of the slave question in America. Then, and only then, will Southerners no longer feel compelled to “hang their heads in shame.” Instead of shame, we will once again become proud of our glorious heritage and demand the respect of our fellow Americans.

  A study of the facts will show that the North was co-equally responsible for the system of slavery in America. The facts will demonstrate that Northerners were less humanitarian in their treatment of slaves than were the Southern slave owners.

  To understand the subject of African servitude in America better, we shall seek the answers to the following questions:

  Who first legalized slavery in America?

  Who first attempted to prohibit the importation of slaves?

  How was slavery abolished in the North?

  How were the freed blacks treated in the North?

  Once we resolve these questions, we will be able to answer the larger question of:

  Who deserves the burden of guilt for the institution of African slavery in America?

  We will demonstrate that the South does not deserve the burden of guilt for African slavery in A
merica. When this fact is established, it is only natural for us to ask:

  Why has the South been forced to carry this unfair burden?

  When these questions have been answered, you can then decide for yourself who deserves the burden of guilt.

  Who First Legalized Slavery in America?

  To the average American, the word “slavery” conjures up visions of antebellum homes, mint juleps, and the taskmaster’s whip. All of these visions can only be found in the South. Ask any American where slavery as an institution was practiced, and the answer most often heard is “in the South.” Few, if any, will even stop to think of the North as the cradle of slavery. All too often we are bombarded with stories of the righteous Yankee toiling to make a “free” land out of the United States. This righteous crusade for freedom, we are told, was constantly hampered by the South’s attempt to keep our country half free and half slave. Even when Northern slavery is mentioned, it is quickly claimed that the virtuous North freed its slaves because it was too humanitarian to suffer the existence of slavery within its boundaries (another Yankee myth).

  The existence of African slavery in America can be traced directly to the commercial interests of Europe.2 The first English colony in America was founded in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. Approximately thirteen years after Jamestown was founded, a ship claiming to be Dutch brought twenty Africans to the colony.3 The slaves were not requested by the colony but were offered for sale and were subsequently purchased.

  Most people concentrate on the fact that this was the first time African slaves were brought to America. Another equally important point to realize is that property as well as commerce in slaves was considered legal by the European powers. The Spanish, Dutch, English, and eventually the Yankees would take part in this “legal” commerce. The slave trade and ownership of slaves was protected by international law. Indeed, the slave trade was introduced into the New World in 1503 by the Spanish and in 1562 by the English. Today we find it hard to understand this system of forced labor. However, two hundreds years from now, future generations will probably find it hard to understand social conditions that we take for granted today. Slavery existed in other parts of the New World before it was introduced into the English colonies. So, the purchase of slaves in Jamestown was not an unusual transaction. The African slave trade was so lucrative that the English strove to gain the largest share of the trade, which they achieved with the signing of the Asiento Treaty with Spain in 1713.4 This near monopoly was to be held until the Crown opened it to all Englishmen in 1749. At that time the New England Yankee quickly joined the ranks of the most infamous traders in the world—the trans-Atlantic slave trader.

  The African slave trade has a long and bleak history, and, for the most part, Americans have very shallow knowledge of it. If anything is said about the slave trade, it is said only to implicate the South as the chief villain of that nefarious commerce.

  The forced movement of Africans to various parts of the world began in the ninth century and continued legally until the late nineteenth century, or for about a thousand years.5 Two major waves of the slave trade occurred during that time. The trans-Sahara and trans-Atlantic waves would be responsible for the forced movement of just over twenty million Africans from their native soil. Another five million would die in transit.6

  The trans-Sahara wave carried Africans from their homeland to be sold at markets by Arabs and Berbers in the Mediterranean Sea area and in the northern countries of Africa.7 The trans-Sahara wave was responsible for selling over ten million Africans into slavery, and lasted from the ninth until the fifteenth century. These slave traders were non-European Moslems.

  The second great wave of African slave trading began in the mid 1400s. Around 1460, Portugal established posts along the coast of western Africa to trade in African slaves.8 This was the beginning of the European slave trade that would be carried on legally and illegally until the end of slavery in the Western Hemisphere in 1888, the date Brazil banned the practice.9 Although this ended slavery in the Americas and the trans-Atlantic slave trade, slavery was not halted legally worldwide until 1962 when it was outlawed on the Arabian peninsula.10

  These two great waves of slave migration are very similar. Each wave, lasting around five hundred years, was responsible for approximately ten million Negroes being taken from Africa. Both were carried on by religious people, one Moslem, one Christian. Both were sanctioned by international law. There are also some differences between the two great waves. The earlier wave followed a land route across the Sahara. The other was an ocean route, across the Atlantic. Nevertheless, Arabs and Berbers were the first to become involved in the slave trade, and they influenced the Europeans who became involved several hundred years later.

  Those who place the burden of guilt upon the Europeans for slavery will not find the previous paragraph to their liking. But even more shocking is the fact that, within many African societies, slavery was an accepted way of life. In his book, Prince Among Slaves, Terry Alford chronicles the life of a young black warrior who was sold into slavery by his fellow black Africans.11’ Abd Rahman Ibrahima was the son of a great warrior chief and king of the Timbo Nation, now part of Guinea. These people were fierce fighters and made slaves of many of their prisoners of war. These black Africans owned and sold other blacks.12 They had no more qualms about this practice than any of the Arab or European slave traders had. Unfortunately for Prince Ibrahima, the system of slave trading worked as well for his enemies as it did for the people of Timbo. When captured in a battle, he was sold to a Spanish slaver, and ended up as a slave in Natchez, Mississippi. Ibrahima became overseer of his master’s plantation during the next forty years, before gaining his freedom and returning to his homeland. This most unusual story is instructive because an African tells how slavery was a part of his life while in Africa. African slavery was not an invention of the European. As we have just seen, this institution existed and was practiced by both the black African and by the Arab long before the European became involved.

  As shocking as the fact that black men owned other blacks in Africa is to some people, the fact that black Americans owned other blacks is even more shocking.

  Larry Koger, in his book Black Slaveowners,13 has documented the account of blacks owning other blacks in America. According to the 1830 census record, more than ten thousand slaves were owned by free men of color.14 In Sumter, South Carolina, in 1860, William Ellison, a free man of color, had seventy slaves working his plantation.15 In Louisiana, in St. Landry Parish, a free man of color, Auguste Donatto, held seventy slaves to work his five-hundred-acre plantation.16 Even in New York City, eight free men of color owned seventeen slaves in 1830!17

  When these facts are brought to light, most black and left-of-center “leaders” will tell us that these black slave holders were only doing this for benevolent or kinship reasons. According to Roger’s study, “the local documents could not demonstrate the dominance of the benevolent or kinship aspect of black slaveowning.”18 He goes on to show that, according to the census records, eighty-three percent of the black slave masters were of mixed ancestry. Also he noted that ninety percent of these slaves were dark-skinned, pure Negro. Roger goes on to state that “free Negro masters were similar to white slaveowners. Both exploited the labor of slaves with the desire for profits.”19

  As we have shown, African slavery has a long history. We cannot accept the whine of the liberal and the black militant when they try to blame this institution on the people of the South. Nor can we accept the idea that it was a European institution. The system of African slavery goes back to the ninth century with the Arab Moslems being one of the first groups to become involved in the trade. Also when it comes time to point a finger of blame for African slavery, let us not forget those Africans who owned and sold their fellow blacks into slavery, and by all means don’t forget all those other slave traders—Arab, Spanish, English, and Yankee.

  The pious New Englander had little problem enslaving those whom h
is religious leaders would describe as savages. Listen to the words of one of New England’s great founding fathers, the Reverend Cotton Mather: “We know not when or how these Indians first became inhabitants of these mighty Continent, yet we may guess that probably the Devil decoy’d these miserable Savages hither, in hopes that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ would never come here to destroy or disturb his Absolute Empire over them.” (Magnalia, Book III, Part III)20 These Native Americans were the same people that the New Englanders were enslaving and trading for black slaves in the Caribbean islands. The pious fanatics sold not only Native Americans into slavery, but also children of those who did not agree with their form of religion. On June 29, 1658, the county court at Salem, Massachusetts, set into motion the sale of two children whose parents were fined for attending a Quaker meeting and for siding with the Quakers. The parents became destitute and died within a year. Before they died, they were caught again with several Quaker ladies, all of whom were given a good public whipping and thrown into prison. (How often have you seen a picture of a man or woman who had been whipped by a Yankee? The Yankee establishment seems to delight in showing off pictures of poor slaves whipped on Southern plantations, but never seem to get around to showing us similar pictures of those whipped by Yankees.) The children of the whipped and imprisoned parents were to be sold into slavery in Barbados.21 In grief and anguish the Quaker historian Bishop declared, “O ye Rulers of Boston, ye Inhabitants of the Massachusetts! What shall I say unto you? Whereunto shall I liken ye? Indeed, I have no Nation with you to compare, I have no People with you to parallel, I am at a loss with you in this point.”22 And the people at the South say, “Amen!”