The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United StatesEarly, Jubal Anderson
History
The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United States
Early, Jubal Anderson
Slavery -- United States; United States -- Politics and government -- 1861-1865
The unfortunates are
kidnapped, then with ghoulish ceremony and weird incantations they are
frightfully mutilated; while life still remains a demoniacal feast is held
and human flesh consumed to offset the "Ju-Ju" or spell of evil omen. Then
the victim is put out of his misery and buried so that the white man shall
know nothing of the mysteries ages old, which the tribes of Africa revere;
many of the victims are young women and girls, captured by members of
secret societies and taken to some remote spot in the bush.
Whatever of eminence any individual of the race has attained, is due
directly or indirectly to the civilizing influence of the institution
of slavery. It was the master of slaves who accomplished the greatest
missionary success and the progress of his ward since is due to the
training and influence of the past.
Foreign people have said that if the Confederate Government had freed the
slaves, it might have been recognized by European nations. Such persons
should recall that when Don Quixote freed the galley slaves he had then to
defend himself against them--they would see the absurdity of such an idea.
What could the people of the South have done in the prosecution of the war
if 3,000,000 slaves had been turned loose among them and the whole labor
system of the country deranged?
Our victors say that having submitted "to the arbitrament of arms," and
having been overcome, the question of right has been decided against
us, and that we are a conquered people who must submit to the fate of
the conquered; but though the gordian knot was cut with the sword,
constitutional questions cannot be solved in the same way, such a
view would but prove the wrong of the whole doctrine of coercion. The
Constitution created by sovereign states, whatever the powers delegated,
could never have contemplated the possibility of one of those states
being reduced to the condition of a conquered province. That Constitution
was as binding in those states, which remained after the secession of
the Southern states as before, and it was as much an outrage to make war
upon those latter for the act of secession, as it would have been to have
destroyed their existence as states while they remained in the Union.
It is true that the South claimed to be a sovereign independent people
after their withdrawal, and were so by every principle of right and
justice, but that position did not authorize the making of war against
them. A counter-claim was that the seceding states had no right to
withdraw, and therefore those arrayed in opposition undertook to compel
them to submission to the rule and laws of the Union: upon that ground
alone could they justify the war. They were the aggressors and disregarded
the Constitution and the Union and they also were the ones who violated
the principle and precept of that Constitution, which they were sworn to
support and defend.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account