Posted on 03/28/2015 5:52:00 AM PDT by C19fan
This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments re Texas’s refusal to allow Confederate flags to be stamped on license plates as part of a “Sons of Confederate Veterans” design. I wouldn’t ask sons of Confederate veterans to disown their ancestry; in fact, my mother’s mother’s family was Southern, and four of my great-great-grandfathers fought in the Confederate army. And I know that lots of Americans sincerely see the Confederate flag as a symbol of states’ rights — particularly because virtually no Confederate soldiers actually owned slaves. But, personally, I see the Confederate flag as the symbol of men who, as Lincoln put it, wrung their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; who, “to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend” slavery, were willing to “rend the Union, even by war.” And I’m a very reasonable man.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
The problem is that slavery was NOT withering away in the late 1850s. It was by all evidence thriving, with slave prices hitting their absolute highest point in 1860.
The price of any capital investment is based on the general perception of its future profitability. Therefore, by definition, in 1860 slave buyers did not expect slavery to begin withering away.
That is simply a projection into the past of post-war attitudes.
Isn’t the Texas state flag a knock-off of the Confederate flag?
Lincoln was not on the ballot in southern states because southern states refused to put him on. Why this should be considered Lincoln’s fault in some way or impact the legitimacy of his election, as you seem to imply, is beyond me.
Let us assume CRuz is nominated, and a number of blue states keep him off the ballot. Which I think they could do constitutionally, at least in theory.
If he nevertheless wins a majority of the Electoral College, is his election somehow less valid or legitimate?
Lincoln won an absolute najority in the College, an impeccably constitutional result. The southern states just didn’t like that result, so they took their ball and went home.
Well you will admit Lincoln was in the great compromise camp and willing to go the status quo.
I guess my question is this ....if the Supreme Court had not stuck their nose in this in other words no Dred Scott or similar ruling....
And Congress had continue to handle issue of “the peculiar institution” as they had..as Lincoln, in his Cooper Union address say they had the right to do under the Constitution....
What would have been the eventual outcome in regards to slavery?
Lincoln himself, using the fact the Constitutions had a provision banning the importation of slaves to point out from day one the framers of the Constitution wanted and thought a federal right to slowly dry up slavery...else why the interfering in legal importation of slaves if was the same as any other trade???...
Because slavery was not normal business it was a uniquely “peculiar institution”..acknowledged by all as such ....hence the nickname “peculiar institution”
Don’t think TX is. More an homage to the Republic of Texas.
But several other Deep South states certainly are based on the Confederate battle flag.
BTW, take a look at the flag of SC. Remarkably Islamic!
Misleading statistic. Over 30% of Southerns came from slave owning households. The 6% figure comes from the fact that the 'ownership' of the slaves was overwhelmingly the name of the head of the household.
Lincoln wanted to end slavery. He just recognized that he (and Congress) had no power under the Constitution to do so.
The core principle of the Republican Party was no expansion of slavery. Lincoln never wavered from that.
Since southerners demanded expansion, there really wasn’t much room for compromise. In fact, a compromise had been in effect for 30+ years, 1820 to 1850 (or 54). It was overturned by southerners working with northern collaborators.
For some obscure reason, both sides believed that if slavery were kept within its existing bounds it would gradually withr away. I’ve never really seen this as a fact, but it was certainly believed to be.
The problem for the South was that it had reached its natural expansion. Plantation slavery simply wasn’t practical anywhere else in the territories. Possibly a few slaves could have raised hemp in eastern KS, as they did in MO, but that was about it. And northern antislavery types outcompeted the South in KS, despite the presence of MO just across the border. (A portent the South should have pondered deeply.)
No, if slavery had to expand to survive, as most southerners fervently believed, it could only expand southward. Mexico, Caribbean and the rest of Latin America.
I suspect that if there had been no abolitionists in the North, the South would have started demanding expansion south as their price for remaining in the Union. As with the infamous and embarrassing Ostend Manifesto.
The problem is that given the tech of the time the only way to carry out such invasions would be by sea. The sea was controlled by the Royal Navy, serving a violently anti-slavery UK. It seems highly unlikely to me Britain and the RN would have stood aside and allowed slavery to expand south from the USA. Also that conquest and exploitation of these areas would not have been nearly as fun and profitable as southerners expected. As William Walker discovered.
A fina point. The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate trade between the states. I see no major constitutional reason it couldn’t have prohibited interstate trade in slaves.
I’ve never seen this discussed, but it would have been a devastating blow to the institution. The Border and Upper South states had an economy based to a considerable extent on exporting slaves down the river. While Deep South states needed the fresh labor to expand production.
Penning slavery up within the southern US might not have destroyed it, but penning it up within each state might very well have.
Yes, I’ve always wondered about that SC flag :-)
After past extended discussion with those claiming emancipation was only a late desperate move because the Union was losing, I put together the Timeline below.
To my mind it indicates that Emancipation was a continuous process starting within weeks of the beginning of the war and continuing pretty steadily through to the ultimate end of slavery.
1861
May General Butler refuses to return three slaves being used to build CSA fortifications to their owner. Concept of “contraband of war” originated.
August Confiscation Act of 1861 declares that any property, including slaves, used by CSA could be confiscated by military action.
September “Contrabands” employed by US Army and Navy paid wages, in addition to rations
November Nathaniel Gordon convicted and sentenced to death in NYC for slave trading (classified as piracy)
1862
February Nathaniel Gordon executed
March Washington, DC slaves freed by Congress, with compensation
Return of escaped slaves to their owners prohibited by Congress
April Congress offers compensation to any state that emancipates
May Lincoln publicly entreats border states to free slaves
Slavery prohibited in all territories
July Lincoln appeals again to the border states
September Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation
1863
January Final Emancipation Proclamation
July WV slaves freed by state action
1864
January 13th Amendment introduced
March AR slaves freed by state action
April 13th Amendment passes Senate
June Congress repeals Fugitive Slave Law
September LA slaves freed by state action
November MD slaves freed by state action
1865
January MO slaves freed by state action
13th Amendment passes House
February TN slaves freed by state action
April Lee surrenders
December 13th Amendment ratified
Slaves in KY (50,000) and DE (200) freed
As a proud Ohioan, I will not disavow the Ohio military men, who basically made the difference in the terrible War; even though I sincerely believe that the war could have been avoided. I honor those brave Ohio military men, and I also sincerely respect those unashamed Southerners, who honor their Confederate traditions.
All of that said, it is a completely dishonest tactic, intellectually, to denounce anyone's ancestry, because at some time, their ancestry lived in a country that had some form of involuntary servitude. Frankly, I have tried to think of five countries in the entire world, that never had some form of involuntary servitude, and I do not believe that I can.
Rather than dreaming up reasons to divide American Conservatives in 2015, why doesn't someone actually try to identify countries that never had involuntary servitude? It might start to put the divisive device, back in Pandora's box.
Can you name even one Southern newspaper that opposed slavery or advocated for abolition?
“As mentioned above, I realize troops under Lincoln’s authority burned towns and districts, although they seldom, if ever, massacred civilians.”
You are wrong.
“After the War, the federal government returned (mostly) to its previous limited role for several decades. The rapid and continuous expansion of federal power we all know and love began only in the 1890s as the Progressives gained influence.”
Once they recovered from the wounds of war and got back to their previous objectives.
You are clearly intelligent and obviously well studied on this issue however you certainly reflect a bent to only believe one side.
If you believe in limited fed gov you would have been on the Confederates side.
I don’t put the blame only on Lincoln although he clearly was a progressive.
And when did Stonewall Jackson say that?
It is a fact that much of the North including the beloved Lincoln was racist and wanted the “negros” returned to their homeland. Lincoln himself advocated this.
And it is also a fact that virtually all of the South including the beloved Robert Lee wanted blacks kept where they were, in the South, in slavery. So weren't they just as racist as you claim the North was?
For a healthy counterbalance I recommend a book called “The Real Lincoln”.
And I recommend Carl Sandburgs five volume biography of Lincoln. One book has just as tenuous grasp of the truth as the other one does. And both are equally unbiased.
Lincoln set the stage, Obama is now playing the part as well as many others before him Democrats and Republicans included.
LOL.
In what units?
Can you point me to a source that names those 300 newspapers?
The colonists in the 1700s weren't about "self-determination." They had specific grievances with the crown and wanted a voice in making the laws and setting the taxes they'd have to live under. Only after fighting had started did independence become an issue.
The slave states were represented in Congress in the 1800s. They did have a voice in the government and a say in forming the laws they'd have to live under. They could have used that voice in Congress to renegotiate or to dissolve the union. Instead they decided to break away on their own and form a new country opposed to the US.
That was a spectacularly bad decision and different from what the colonists were doing during the Revolutionary War era.
How did the witnesses know that?
What were they doing fishing around in the black Confederates' pants?
So the “rapid and continuous expansion of federal power we all know and love began only in the 1890s” - long after Lincoln was dead yet you consider him a progressive? How does that work?
“Is that a bullet in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?” LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.