Americans fought and killed each other during the Civil War because, among other causes, the Confederacy believed rich, white southerners had the right to buy and own blacks, ripped from their homeland by mercenaries, to treat them as property and force them to work as slaves. The Union called that inhuman and inhumane. It was worth going to war over.

No one is arguing that chattel slavery was ever “right,” but let’s be clear that slavery was NOT the issue over which the war was started or carried out. When the war began, the Union contained eight (8) slave states whereas the Confederacy had only seven (7). Lincoln made it clear repeatedly that his primary interest was in “preserving the Union” by which he meant preserving his revenues from import/export tariffs. That’s right, the war was really over money and political dominance.

The editorial’s use of the “among other causes” qualifier does not “cover” the writers nor does it do justice to the truth, for in the end, this paragraph states point blank that abolition was the Union’s primary purpose for war. Pure horse feathers.

Slavery was something Lincoln was more than willing to overlook. As a political opportunist, his primary motivation was acquiring and holding political power for his party. The tariffs were the primary means by which northern states exploited the southern states to rob them of money to improve northern ports, canals and build railroads---and his party held power by distributing subsidies and political patronage for these “internal improvements.” Lincoln advocated his corrupt system throughout his entire career in politics. Southerners and the U.S. Constitution obstructed and delayed Lincoln’s corrupt system until the Southern states withdrew from Congress (due to secession), after which Lincoln proceeded to trample the Constitution and consolidate power in Washington.

Lincoln himself was a noted racial supremacist and his writings and speeches reveal these facts in detail. Lincoln expressly and repeatedly supported the concept of “colonization” for all blacks, that is, deportation. His dream was an all-white America with his party in power.

But in no event did Lincoln deem abolition worthy of war. The Emancipation Proclamation was merely a desperate political ploy to keep England and European powers from entering the war to re-open trade with the Confederate States. By the 1850s, most of Europe had abolished slavery. Publication of this new purpose for war, 21 months into the war, ignited draft riots in northern cities. During these riots, the “liberating” northerners set about beating and murdering every black person in sight. The ugly truth is that very few were willing to die for abolition.

General U.S. Grant, the future president, did not free his slaves until the 13th Amendment was ratified in December 1865. Grant was quoted as saying, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side." The war was never really about freeing slaves; it was always about “preserving the Union.”

“Ripped from their homeland by Mercenaries?” Africans were captured and sold into slavery by their own brethren, not by any external “mercenaries.” You apparently believed the ridiculous scene in the movie ROOTS where white slave-traders went cavorting through the jungles in search of victims to capture. That concept is a bold-faced lie.

African empires were built on the slave trade over centuries starting in the 13th century. For centuries, the chief export of Africa was human slaves. Of the estimated 13 million sold into slavery by African merchants, less than five percent (5%) were transported to what is now the United States. The others were carried to Caribbean and South American colonies of the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and other European and Arab powers.

Given the above facts of history, it’s rather ridiculous that southern Americans get 99% of the blame for a world-wide atrocity perpetrated in collusion with African chieftains selling their neighbors into bondage. The most fitting symbol of slavery is the African continent and African flags, not the Cross of St. Andrews.

The Confederate flag is a symbol of that stance on the part of the South in the 1860s. To many today, it glorifies the notion that one group, merely by the accident of their nativity, is justified in suppressing another in the most reprehensible way.

Wrong! The Confederate flag is a symbol of the South’s resistance to tyranny and economic oppression. The battle flag is viewed around the world as a symbol of independence and resistance. That’s why the Confederate battle flag has been seen flying over Quebec, Canada, and in Eastern Europe before the fall of the Soviet Union and by the Zulus in South Africa. They all want their independence and resent conquering rulers in distant capitols. Again, the most appropriate symbol of slavery is the African continent. America was a relatively insignificant player in a worldwide injustice. But if a flag must be targeted, remember it was the British Union Jack and the U.S. flag that flew over every ship to transport slaves across the Atlantic to North America.

So, when couple of dozen students at Saranac Central School chose to brazenly flaunt that flag by proudly wearing it as a shirt last week, naturally, black students took it as a supreme insult.

Which is more important? The intent of the wearers? Or the feelings of the offended? If the offended students understood American history more completely, the symbol would be regarded in its proper historic context and would be offensive to no one.

Given the literally thousands of photos of KKK members parading with U.S. flags, do these same students take offense from the U.S. flag on the campus? If not, why not? The U.S. flag is the symbol displayed at every KKK march and rally. Why doesn’t the same standard of “offensive association” apply to the U.S. flag?

School Superintendent Michael Derrigo took the only measure he could take: He sent the flag wearers home. It was most assuredly the appropriate action in sympathy with the students so affected by the affront. To their credit, the students abandoned their offensive clothing, and the controversy quickly evaporated.

I wonder if you would describe similar measures to suppress the symbols of other cultures (e.g., Hispanics, Africans, Native Americans, Asians, etc.) as an “appropriate action.” I suspect not.

The State of South Carolina has been debating the issue of the Confederate flag and its implications. We trust — at least, we hope — the offending students and their parents were unaware of the historical context in which the flag had its genesis. We are confident that no informed, thinking individual in this region of the country would intentionally brandish a symbol so understandably vile to so many.

Perhaps the “offending students and their parents” are more aware of America’s true history than are you and the offended students. Again, if the offended really understood American history, there would be no perceived offense or insult. Why not simply ASK the “offenders” about their motivations?

If you editors were more aware of history and flags, you would already know the the Cross of St. Andrews did NOT have its "genesis" in America or the South. It originated in Scotland. Look it up sometime. Your ignorance on this subject is as appalling as it is pathetic.

This is not a question of freedom to express a thought. It is a question of freedom to humiliate and demean an entire group of fellow students and friends. It was difficult to believe that, thought of in those terms, the students would continue to cling to such a strategy.

Bingo! It probably never occurred to you that others may not think exactly as you do. It probably never occurred to y’all to simply ask the students themselves about their motivations. It seems that you don’t favor freedom of thought and expression so much when said thought and expression are contrary to your own. Apparently, you value "tolerance" only when it's directed to ideas you support.

Would these people think, for example, they would be justified in waving Nazi symbols in front of a local Jewish congregation? What is the difference between defiling the heritage of the two groups? While the slave owners didn’t herd their chattel into ovens of death, they certainly employed tactics that would have extinguished the spirit of a group less resilient than the blacks imported to toil without hope of liberation.

This offensive Nazi analogy is standard fare for demagogues, but no thinking person would offer it. It's completely "out of left field" in the context of your editorial. Only demagogues, unimaginative parrots and cruelly insensitive dolts advance this comparison.

Thousands of Jews served honorably in the Confederate armed forces---not to defend slavery, but rather to defend their homes and families against invasion----- and all of their descendants universally take offense at your comparison. Hundreds of thousands of Confederate descendants answered the call of the United States government and performed their duty to defeat the Nazis. Many thousands of these Southern Americans made the ultimate sacrifice. Every American veteran of any ancestry could justifiably take outrage at your insulting and ridiculous comparison of Americans to Nazis. Your insensitivity and ignorance definitely offends me.

We applaud Derrigo for taking immediate, decisive steps to defend the school’s black students from further degradation. We assume the offending students were promptly educated as to the harm they had done — unwittingly, we hope.

The defense is not what is intended in the wearing of the shirts. Intention has nothing to do with it. Regardless of the intention, a real, palpable insult was felt.

Insult is not defined by the intention of the issuer but by the effect on the recipient. If the target feels the sting, it makes no difference whether one was intended.

Here your editorial concludes with the ultimate farce presented as logic. It would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. To follow your logic to its extreme, the thousands of descendants of Confederate veterans and all American veterans who have been offended by your insulting editorial should have some relief. Why not have the U.S. military seize your property to prevent any further expression of insulting and vile editorial ideas that might inflict the “sting” of insult on more innocent readers. It makes no difference that you did not intend the reprehensible insult, the effect on the recipient readers is all that matters.

No, I cannot endorse your idiotic concept. Even though I despise your ignorance and the damage it can inflict on less informed readers, I believe in the Constitutional principles upon which our country was founded. The government has no more right to shut down your newspaper than it did to invade the southern states to preserve its revenue base. Thomas Jefferson said it well, “It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others.”

One final thought for your editorial board. Ask yourselves, why did Lincoln find it necessary to shut down dozens of newspapers and imprison hundreds of newspaper editors and publishers? Any entity that published views or news adverse to Lincoln’s war policies were subject to indefinite imprisonment without trial. Suspending the writ of habeas corpus, Lincoln locked up state legislators, reporters and other rabble that dared to question his wisdom.

The people of that time had a more valid excuse for being ignorant about the War of Northern Aggression and its true causes and purposes. You editors do not. I invite you to do some research before you embarrass yourself any further on this subject.

Sources:

• The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War - Thomas J. DiLorenzo
• Was Jefferson Davis Right? – James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy (Pelican Press)
• The South Was Right! – James Ronald Kennedy & Walter Donald Kennedy (Pelican Press)
• The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government – Jefferson Davis
• Facts Historians Leave Out – John S. Tilley
• The Living Lincoln - The Man, his mind, his times and the war he fought, reconstructed from his own writings – Edited by Paul M. Angle
• The Slave Trade - The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade 1440-1870 – Hugh Thomas (Simon & Schuster)