Slavery played role in Civil War

Dear defender of the great Lost Cause, Andrew Samples:

The Red & Black may be in need of a history lesson or two, but certainly not from the revisionist history that you, Mr. Samples, drew upon (Letter to the Editor, March 21).

The reasons for the Civil War are varied and complicated, but the platform of states’ rights is perhaps one of the most flimsy reasons thrown into the mix, especially when coupled with the idea that the reasons for the Civil War should be divorced from slavery. What exactly was the particular right of the states in question? A quick look at South Carolina’s Declaration of Secession reveals that the state was mostly concerned with the right to have escaped slaves returned to their owners.

The platform of states’ rights was championed most loudly after the Confederacy had already lost the war. The deep shame of defeat over the struggle to retain the right to hold slaves was at the root of this. Even Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens called slavery a “cornerstone of the Confederacy,” and later reneged after defeat to trumpet states’ rights as the cause. Is it any coincidence that the deep Southern states, which had far more plantations than border states, seceded first?

Mr. Samples also mentions that the “average Joe” didn’t own slaves, so he had no vested interest in fighting to preserve it. The Civil War governor of our very own Georgia, Joseph E. Brown, gave plenty of reasons why the average Joe would not want slaves to be freed in a letter to the public in 1860. Among them, increased taxes used to recompense the slave owners (like himself) and the fact that poor whites would be forced to compete with newly freed black slaves. If slaves remained slaves, even the poorest white person could claim social superiority (that could be called racism).

The Southerners may claim the Ivanhoe-esque claim to God, hospitality, honor and pride, but not without claim to the dark racism and stake in chattel slavery at all levels of society that comes with that heritage. Northerners’ religious fervor over the immorality of slavery fueled a lot of the abolitionist movement: they gave hospitality to slaves fleeing, honored the U.S. Constitution and had pride in not stooping to slavery. Mr. Samples pointed out that many slaves were sold by other Africans, but neglected to mention how many were forcibly seized and/or born into slavery without recourse.

Isn’t an apology due? Denying the past is a great injustice to the Confederate soldiers (they were Americans, too) who died in the Civil War just as it is to the innumerable slaves forced to serve.

MATHEW C. BRAUN
Senior, Lawrenceville
Japanese Language and Literature

Anti-abortion signs vulgar, disturbing

I wholeheartedly support freedom of speech and the right to protest, but the massive anti-abortion poster display in Tate Plaza Wednesday crossed the line of public decency. It was vulgar, disgusting, disturbing and in absolutely no way appropriate for public display. I’m not angry about their opinion; I’m infuriated with the graphic, in-your-face way in which they protested, and I’m infuriated that such a display was allowed. I would be equally outraged if anti-war activists began showing extremely graphic and disturbing war images on unavoidable 20-by-20 feet posters.

I’m sure they choose these graphic images for shock value, but their display went too far and violated my right to be able to walk down the street without becoming sick to my stomach. The University should be ashamed of itself for allowing this disgusting and intolerable display.

ALEX SHARENKO
Sophomore, Roswell
Undecided