Death has been hallmark of our story, the story of mankind. _____________
The story of mankind is full to overflowing with violence. The story of "us" is a rough one. Attempting to investigate each mass crime or justified use of force has filled libraries for centuries and built many a professor's career. Truth is the byword for any ethical academic researcher or writer, but of course that is not always the case. In our era the rise of the political left has distorted all that is true around us, and we are in a period of history when things seem a bit creepy. One thinks to one's self that to even have to suggest the previously stated thoughts echoes the imbalance of the current age.
The wrongs that the whining leftists and descendents of slaves vicariously claim victimhood for are dwarfed by history's wrongs. The historical deaths they ascribe to America and whites are fractional parts of not only the history of death in total but of any number of history's many individual mass death sagas or death cults. Left out of the discussion is the fact that some victims were great and scandalous perpetrators themselves. Leftist professional vicarious victims and victim advocates holds up some advanced native societies that were destroyed by European whites but who were among the greatest death cults themselves, such as the Aztecs. They criticize people of Western Christian culture who have an aversion to Islam while we are, right now in the current 'enlightened' age, watching the very evil acts of Islamist before our eyes, acts that have characterized and defined that group throughout their history. These professional agitators attack the Catholic Church for the poor treatment of native peoples in the colonial era but fail to acknowledge that the story of Islam is a story of conquest, mistreatment of women, savage punishment, brutal executions, and slavery. Who is to say that the only reason we do not now see those things (including slavery) in Western nations is because the Muslims there are presently in the minority.
And slavery is the issue here and now. Once again the Confederacy is under attack and slavery was an issue in the conflict that followed the short lived Southern nation's founding. But slavery would not have lasted there and it was not the primary issue. The issues were state and regional control, pride, and competition. And the Southerners thought they needed slavery to compete with the North economically. They feared as well being outvoted nationally if only free states spread across a developing America. But I do not want to defend the indefensible, and slavery is that, indefensible.
I will defend the legacy of the Confederacy, for I grew up learning that the CSA was the correct side with a noble yet partially flawed sense of purpose (the slavery being the one and only flaw). I also grew up thinking, and still hold, the view that the actions of the United States in the Civil War were illegal. The states had the right of secession and still do; the actions of the Northern military was aggression, illegal under the Constitution. When I was older, I flirted far too long with the idea that Lincoln was some great hero who freed the slaves. Yet he only issued the Emancipation Proclamation later in the war when news was desperate for the U.S. and he needed headlines. Lincoln was the consummate and sometimes underhanded politician who drove our nation ever closer and deeper into the quagmire world of statism, of a strong dictatorial national government. He is perhaps, even without realizing it himself, the father of American socialist/fascist tyranny. I have met good and holy men in the Catholic Church who espouse views similar to that previous statement, and I have been told by them that the Vatican State was the first and perhaps only foreign power to recognize the Confederate States of America because of that brief nation's principles and values (except for slavery).
Few think of the South as a Catholic region, except for significant populations along the Gulf. If true, that political act of recognition was glaringly significant. The Catholic principle of subsidiarity (in simple words local, home rule) may have been most in play at that time. The Catholic held economic view of distributivism may as well (in overly simple words a sort of wide spread capitalism that encompasses the masses and does not favor large corporations). The Church favors agrarianism as well.
But the Leftist Nazis of our age want to destroy the memory of the South while we hear nothing negative from them about the Islamist movement that is a real and present danger now as it seeks to spread with protest, intimidation, and violence a code of law and ethics based on rigid and corrective scripture. The Leftist Nazis say nothing about that and sometimes seem supportive of Islamists while denigrating Christian moral beliefs such as letting babies grow up and reverence for normal, natural marriage. Only the occasional, semipatriotic pronouncement from the White House is heard when it seems the administration has to pretend once in a while to be against radical Islam.
Why this writer's comparison (and contrast) of the CSA and Islam? __________
The reason for such juxtaposition of the two societies for comparative discussion is the clear and unavoidable fact that modern slavery, that of the modern era of history which began with the discovery of the Western Hemisphere by Europeans and Asians, is an Arab and African Muslim thing. They were doing it, had done it for centuries (when Europeans were only practicing the more benign serfdom), continued it throughout the Colonial American era, and captured and sold the slaves that were sent to the Americas. And somewhere in Islam there are slaves now, have always been slaves, and always will be. In the American Civil War and prewar years, Arab and African Muslims provided the slaves. They were slave traders practicing an accepted business profession in their place and time. Granted the Southern American states provided the markets for slave at a time when much of the world had learned better; but the Africans (Arab and Negro), through war and violence, provided the sorrowful product for that American market. Slave history dramatic productions often show white seamen go ashore in West Africa and attack villages to capture slaves, and I'm sure it happened. When it did they were not always or usually American seamen. Rather they were most often Europeans and even pirate types. The British author of "Amazing Grace" was a slave ship captain who later reformed. He may not have been a slave capturing captain or harvester. But most slaves were 'harvested' by African and Arabs who were very often Muslim. These were professional slavers and their people had been for centuries. Why not verbally (and otherwise) assault the Muslim world, the Arab and African history with your vitriol rather than the Americans of the South who sacrificed not for slavery (though some did for that) but for their rights, values, and freedom?
As for this writer, The illogical and unfortunate flap over the Confederate flag, which was unrelated to the church shooting in South Carolina, has rekindled my Southern and Confederate pride and my historical interest (as a historian) in the war itself. After all, history always repeats itself. Maybe it will end differently and more positively the next time. My many black Conservative Southern friends often have an interesting take on such things. One jokingly (yet perhaps seriously) requested this morning on social media that the U.S. kick us (the South) out of America as well as our flag, in other words let, us secede.