What did the Confederates agree on with Lincoln? That the Founders opposed slavery of course.

PGA Weblog ^

[ProgressingAmerica]

In his 1861 "Cornerstone Speech", Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander H. Stephens said the following:

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other — though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.

Now you know that if the VICE PRESIDENT of the Confederacy was saying this about the Founding Fathers rejection of slavery, he had plenty of agreement on it. In other more detailed(line by line) words, Abraham Lincoln agreed that the Founders rejected slavery. In his Peoria Speech, Lincoln said the following:

AT the framing and adoption of the constitution, they forbore to so much as mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. In the provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a "PERSON HELD TO SERVICE OR LABOR." In that prohibiting the abolition of the African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States NOW EXISTING, shall think proper to admit," &c. These are the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus, the thing is hid away, in the constitution, just as an afflicted man hides away a wen or a cancer, which he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to death; with the promise, nevertheless, that the cutting may begin at the end of a given time. Less than this our fathers COULD not do; and NOW [MORE?] they WOULD not do. Necessity drove them so far, and farther, they would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress, under the constitution, took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.

In 1794, they prohibited an out-going slave-trade---that is, the taking of slaves FROM the United States to sell.

In 1798, they prohibited the bringing of slaves from Africa, INTO the Mississippi Territory---this territory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi and Alabama. This was TEN YEARS before they had the authority to do the same thing as to the States existing at the adoption of the constitution.

In 1800 they prohibited AMERICAN CITIZENS from trading in slaves between foreign countries---as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil.

In 1803 they passed a law in aid of one or two State laws, in restraint of the internal slave trade.

In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance to take effect the first day of 1808---the very first day the constitution would permit---prohibiting the African slave trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.

In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they declared the trade piracy, and annexed to it, the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in the general government, five or six of the original slave States had adopted systems of gradual emancipation; and by which the institution was rapidly becoming extinct within these limits.

Thus we see, the plain unmistakable spirit of that age, towards slavery, was hostility to the PRINCIPLE, and toleration, ONLY BY NECESSITY.

Now isn't it interesting that the New York Times in its 1619 project disagrees with both the Confederates and Lincoln? What must it be like to have such a low quantity of shame?

This "Cornerstone Speech" does many things, but most importantly, it shows quite distinctly that there is a lineage break from the Constitution to the Confederacy. Not that the New York Times cares for facts, anyways. But I know that you do.

[FLT-bird]

Cannoneer: The historical cause of the Civil war is a well discussed and argued subject. If we posit the idea that if there had been no slavery in America from the beginning, I argue that the foundation for the Civil War (and for that matter secession) would have been greatly different.

The South was going to have an economy based on growing cash crops for export no matter the labor system. Had Blacks been sharecroppers, those crops were going to be produced. Had they been wage laborers those crops were going to be produced. Had the labor force been indentured servants from poor places in Europe (like Ireland) those cash crops were going to be produced. Had it been all yeoman farmers and their families producing 100% of the crop, those crops were going to be produced. They were lucrative. There was a market. The Southern states had the right soil and climate. It was always going to happen. With that established....the labor system wasn't the issue. No matter the labor system, the Southern states were always going to want decentralized power, low taxes and low tariffs. That was in their economic interest. The Northern states which were industrializing - particularly the Northeast - were always going to want high protective tariffs and they were going to want to offload as much of the cost for the necessary infrastructure to support a manufacturing economy (canals, roads, railroads, etc) to be offloaded onto the Government. That is particularly so when somebody else ie, Southerners were paying the overwhelming majority of the tariffs that filled government coffers.

The specialization of the economies in the two regions meant they had diametrically opposed economic interests. As it turns out, they had major philosophical differences about centralized vs decentralized power as well.

[Cannoneer]

"The specialization of the economies in the two regions meant they had diametrically opposed economic interests. As it turns out, they had major philosophical differences about centralized vs decentralized power as well."

Seems like your arguments try to negate slavery entirely from the discussion. I am sure that not one historian, no matter their loyalty, would go that far. The idea that slavery had no bearing on the civil war or secession or even the foundation of the country is troubling.

I am interested if you even think that the institution of slavery had anything to do with the civil war and it's outcome. Can you even defend the institution of slavery at any point.

[FLT-bird]

Seems like your arguments try to negate slavery entirely from the discussion. I am sure that not one historian, no matter their loyalty, would go that far. The idea that slavery had no bearing on the civil war or secession or even the foundation of the country is troubling.

I just point out that slavery was not what drove either secession or the war. I didn't say it had "no bearing". I've argued that it was not the driving force....the sine qua non as PC Revisionists would have it.

I am interested if you even think that the institution of slavery had anything to do with the civil war and it's outcome. Can you even defend the institution of slavery at any point.

Anything to do with? Sure. It was an issue. I'll even agree that it was an important issue in that it animated folks on both sides. I do not think secession or the war were "about" slavery and think the same would have happened even had there been no slavery. Do I "defend" the institution of slavery? Of course not. I would point out that there was nothing new or uniquely American or uniquely Southern about it, but that's not to defend it.