Wednesday, May 30, 2001

MHS student defends his Confederate heritage

Upon reading Marc D. Michael's controversial and highly misinformed letter that was printed in the May 2 edition of The Citizen, I have taken it upon myself to defend my Southern heritage and rectify the many mistakes that were present in his letter.

First of all, let me state that although you are free to interpreted this letter as you like, I am, and always will be, emphatically antislavery. I feel that slavery was, and still is, one of the most degrading and inhumane acts of man that has ever been committed. The benefits of slavery will never overshadow the horrors of one man being held in bondage by another.

Mr. Michael's entire ideal regarding the Confederacy, and the era leading up to the War Between the States, is horrifically flawed. To begin with, he stated that slavery in the South was in fact a free labor source that Northern factories were unfairly forced to compete against. If there is any labor source that is further from free labor than any other, it must be slavery. Slaves are not free to own; they cost money to buy, to feed, to house, and, if the owner is humane, to clothe.

Let's say you own plantation A, and I own factory B. You have just purchased a male slave for $2,500. Do you have any idea as to how much $2,500 was worth in the 1850s by today's standards? This slave is your property, as much as a mule or a house. I do not intend to come across as racist and bigoted by stating that slaves were property; I am merely stating a fact, a cold, hard, inhumane fact.

Would Mr. Michael be upset if someone were to rear-end a new car of his or spill paint on the carpet in his house? Of course, for that is his property. And just as we try to protect our property today, so did the plantation owners of the aristocratic South.

Many slaves did, in fact, lead better, healthier lives than did some of the poorer, "white trash" Southerners of that era. The slaves were protected from harm (other than the lash), they were fed, and they were given other necessities of life. I know hardly anything about Mr. Michael, but I will venture to guess by the style of his writing that he is a grown man, and, since he seems to be a well-intentioned Christian, that he has a family. Perhaps he can relate to the cost of supporting a child until adulthood. The cost is staggering. Now, imagine supporting over 100 slaves for the entirety of their lives. Slavery does not seem so inexpensive, does it?

In the North, there did not exist the form of slave labor that has blacklisted the Southern states, but there existed another form, "wage slavery." The Northern factories were not run by blacks, but instead they were run by other ethnic groups. These ethnic groups tended to stick together once they reached America, and therefore, often entire factories were worked by the Irish, the Italians, or the Polish.

These factory workers lived a life that was hell. They often worked for wages that would starve any other man, and as a result of a sickness of a family's primary bread winner, many families did starve. The Northern poor lived in conditions that were repulsive, unsightly, and highly inhumane. Yet they worked, and worked hard, for the chance to better themselves.

However, many factory workers decided to try to better themselves by strike and rebellion. The United States government of the antebellum era was harsher on unruly workers of the North than it was on the slave owners of the South. Workers were actually forbidden, by law, to form labor unions, for such activity was regarded as a criminal conspiracy.

Now, let's suppose my factory B is worked by Irish workers for 50 cents a week. Do you really believe that Irish Catholics, who are known for their large families, can survive on 50 cents a week? They did, though.

Now, suppose my factory workers decided to strike for better wages. The Irish won't work for 50 cents a week? Well, the Italians will work for 30 cents a week. So I fire all of my Irish, and bring in the Italians. The Irishman, who now has no job, no housing, and, most horrifically, is starving, seems a far cry worse than his Southern counterpart, who is fed, clothed, and housed.

What I am trying to say is that not all slave owners were the cruel, vicious, murderous Christ-forsakers that you portray them to be. Many were kind, loving, and generous people that, when the time came, their slaves refused to leave because the slaves loved their owners.

You portray the Confederacy as an uncivilized, inhumane, and backwards country, and the Union as a country that does the will of God, fights for justice, and protects the afflicted. The entire basis of slavery was a circulation of goods that profited both the North and the South. The Southern cotton was shipped to Northern textile mills, where it was made into clothing, and then the clothes were shipped to Europe, particularly England.

Since Northern shippers profited from slave labor, and English families wore the clothing that was made from slave-picked cotton, should we also renounce England and the Republic? Should we renounce the England that was intensely against slavery, or the "boys in blue" that died fighting for the Union? By Mr. Michael's logic, we should.

Addressing his statement that "the Egyptians, Romans, and Nazi Germans built entire empires at the hands and on the backs of enslaved persons that caused them to be wiped from the face of the earth [by] their hardened hearts that refused to repent and turn to God," I would like to state this. He wrote that the Roman empire was destroyed by God. The Roman Empire is now the largest empire in the world, for the modern Roman Empire is the Holy Catholic Church. Perhaps you should read the history regarding Emperor Constantine and his becoming a Christian.

My grandfather fought in the 85th Infantry division during World War II, he saw combat action at Anzio and Monte Casino, and I would appreciate it if you would show him, and the millions of others who fought Axis tyranny, significantly more respect than you do by stating that the Nazis were wiped off the earth because of their refusal to turn to the Lord.

It was also brave men and women who were willing to die, and did die, to preserve the freedom that permits you to pen such disrespectful letters as the one I am responding to. And, this may come as a shock to you, but not all German soldiers during World War II were the godless, Satan-loving anti-Christs that yearned to do the will of the dark one that you portray them as.

Many were, in fact, Christians, just like you and me, who desired to be home with their families, and who celebrated the birth and resurrection of our Savior with just as much reverence as you or I do. They were boys who wished the war to be over, so they could grow old with the ones that they loved and enjoy the life that the God they loved had given to them. They went to war because they felt it was their duty to their country and their families. Your point of view is one that often results from reading only one point of view of the history books, and only one side of a war.

Mr. Michael asks where are the soldiers of God? I can tell you that in Jonesboro, at a certain Confederate cemetery, where there is an arch with the poetic words "Confederate Dead" inscribed in its stone, an unknown number are buried.

Matthew Bryan Roberts

Junior, McIntosh High School

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page