Posted on 08/28/2019 7:21:47 PM PDT by 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.
I’m trying to focus on the relation to the ideas of the Founders.
What you are saying is incorrect.
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/ruffdrft.html
Here is the audio if you prefer. First link is a direct mp3 download.
http://www.archive.org/download/nonfiction066_1907_librivox/snf066_originaldeclarationofindependence_jefferson_hh_128kb.mp3
https://librivox.org/short-nonfiction-collection-vol-066-by-various/
I don't agree. The Southern states would have had an economy that was substantially the same had there been no slaves. Its climate and soil were well suited to producing valuable cash crops. Those crops were going to get produced given the demand for them. In addition to having an export/import based economy, the Southern states had a similar view of the constitution and the nature of the relationship between the states and the federal government. They were all Jeffersonian Democrats. That is, they believed in limited government and decentralized power and balanced budgets and very limited government spending. The ethos in the North was entirely different. They looked to a stronger federal government (which they could dominate) from the start.
true. They were making a lot of money from slavery.
In the 1850’s America had a one party Democrat controlled government. The Democrats were trying to create a slave based economy in the midwest and the west. Most Americans did not want a backward, slave based economy.
False. Trying to create a slave based economy in the Midwest and West? Pure fantasy.
The idea that the slave based south was the primary source of American wealth is simply not true. The manufacturing and innovation in the north made it far more prosperous.
Simply not true. The South had always been the wealthiest portion of the country. The industrialization of the North had allowed it to make up considerable ground....that along with economic policies that benefited the North at the South's expense such as high protective tariffs paid overwhelmingly by the South and grossly disproportionate federal government expenditures for infrastructure and corporate subsidies, but the South was still a bit wealthier than the North even in the mid 19th century.
During the Civil War the south was unable to adequately supply their army. The South was mostly poor, backward and uneducated. There were a few wealthy plantation owners but there was not the level of prosperity that was in the north and the midwest.
Most of the country was poor, backward and uneducated. The South was not moreso than the rest of the country in that regard. The South was unable to adequately supply itself. It did not have a navy and thus found it difficult to import things it needed like the North could. It also had an economy that was geared toward producing cash crops for export. That was the highest return on capital. Thus they did not build as many factories and their agriculture was not geared toward food production. It is not because they were especially poor or backward that they could not supply themselves. Their economy was not geared up to do so. It was far more efficient to produce tobacco, cotton, indigo, sugar, etc and import what they needed.
Most southerners opposed secession. It was pushed through by a small group. By the end of 1864 there was no support left in the south for the Confederate government and soldiers were deserting in large numbers.
False. Pure fantasy. Some Southern states held referendums on secession. Some elected delegates to secession conventions. There was widespread public support for secession. To claim that by 1864 there was no support left for the Confederate government was also false. Somebody was mowing down hordes of Yankees in 1864....
Lincoln and most Americans would never have gone to war just to end slavery. The Republicans did not want to abolish slavery. They wanted to prevent a slave based economy in the Midwest and west. And they wanted to preserve the union.
There was never any danger of a slave based economy in the Midwest or the West. They wanted to keep their cash cow - the Southern states - from leaving. That was their overwhelming motivation.
“The Southern states would have had an economy that was substantially the same had there been no slaves. Its climate and soil were well suited to producing valuable cash crops. Those crops were going to get produced given the demand for them”
Have to disagree. In 1860 about 2 million slaves were directly involved with cotton agriculture. Without them, where would the 2 million white workers come from to replace the labor necessary to produce the 5.3 million bales of cotton that were produced that year. Without slaves, that would not have happened.
Suppose they had been sharecroppers instead - as they were after the war. Suppose they had been paid a wage. There were markets for those crops and those crops were valuable. They were going to get produced. If not Africans, then there were plenty of dirt poor Europeans who could have been brought over for periods of indenture (as was common in the early colonies) or for wages. They would have been able to offer a wage to attract the labor necessary to produce those crops.
Also, it should be noted that plenty of cash crops WERE actually produced by yeoman farmers and their families. It wasn't all large plantations. It was a standard practice to devote a portion of their land to growing cash crops to raise the money for all the things they could not produce themselves. Some entirely farmed cash crops because it was more profitable than subsistence farming.
Trying to drag slavery into the document distracts and waters down it's central focus, and that is why the other members of the committee struck all that anti-slavery language out of the document.
At the time, all 13 colonies were slave states, and i'm confident the document would never have been signed if that anti-slavery language had been left in it.
The civil authority behind the declaration were the States themselves, not Thomas Jefferson, who was only part of the Virginia delegation.
Anyone knows more than you. The Constitution was ratified as it was, imperfect but done for the sake of political expediency in favor of bringing the Southern states on board and throwing off the English Crown.
“Anyone knows more than you. The Constitution was ratified as it was, imperfect but done for the sake of political expediency in favor of bringing the Southern states on board and throwing off the English Crown.”
It is my understanding the Constitution was written and ratified some years after the states threw off the English Crown. Yours is the first account I’ve read that says the Constitution was a factor in the Revolutionary War.
By Lee's own written accounts, he was a sinner redeemed by a loving God. As for the supposed eye witness accounts to slave punishment, Lincoln must have considered them before offering Lee command of Union forces. This says something good about Lee; or something bad about Lincoln.
From the Bret Kavanaugh hearings, we are reminded that it is not always possible to learn the truth from just a tearful one-sided “eye-witness” story of this-monster-did-that-to-me.
If there is a copy of a bill paid to the Sheriff for slave whipping services I'd like to see it. I'd like to see the purchase order too.
You are conflating a multitude of reasons for the top reason and concluding that the other multitude from #2 down must not then be relevant anymore. Try to remember that the "solitary" Declaration is a container for 27 grievances.
It doesn't matter if slavery was #4 on the list or #24 on the list, the fact remains that it was there.
And as for "dragging" slavery "into the document". Not only was that done by Jefferson himself in the original draft, but the British Empire responded in kind. They too recognized that the colonists were upset over it because the colonists spent years lobbying the king to stop the trade.
The British government in 1776 funded a response to the Declaration(which I recently wrote about), titled An Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.
The New York Times uses the British Empire's propaganda in order to smear the US (1619 Project)
Even the king and his men recognized that slavery was somewhere on that list of reasons for the separation.
Why should Lincoln consider give that any thought. Several Generals in the Federal Army owned or had owned slaves during there term of service, it was not against the law. Whipping a slave was legal in the eyes of Virginia law. It was an acceptable form of corporal punishment. Lee was in a position to have such punishment carried out. Why would having a couple of recalcitrant runaway slaves whipped be out of the realm for Lee to do. He had many men in the Army of Northern Virginia shot for the exactly same offence, running away.
What percentage of the 5 million bales of cotton produced in 1860 were produced without the use of slaves.
You make a point. Not only was whipping legal under Virginia law, it was legal under federal law. The United States Navy flogged many until the practice was outlawed by Congress in 1850. These were U.S. service members being flogged under the aegis of the United States government.
To my knowledge, prior to Congressional action, the U.S. Supreme Court never ruled the practice prohibited under the eighth amendment.
I'm not sure what punishment was available to runaway slaves who may have worked building the U.S. Capitol.
Some sates continued the practice of whipping well beyond slavery days. Take Delaware for example. They whipped prisoners up until about 1952 and formally abandoned the practice in the 1970s.
The reason I question the claims concerning Lee is that the accounts conflict.
Not recorded. Thus nobody will ever know.
The Constitution was ratified in 1787. The war had ended in 1783.
Says the mouthpieces of the people who were saved by the war from huge economic losses and who have been running the nation ever since keep telling us, but the evidence doesn't really support this claim. Liberals today are still calling anyone who disagrees with them a "racist", which is just a left over from the propaganda of the Civil War.
As has been mentioned countless times, slavery was legal in the Union, and Lincoln offered to protect it even more than it had ever been protected before by urging the passage of the Corwin Amendment.
Throwing off the chains of a tyrannical hereditary monarchy is in no way the same as taking up arms in a violent secession against a duly elected government...
A tyranny through democracy is no different than a tyranny through monarchy, if you are one of the people who are suffering under it. Also, the secession wasn't violent until Lincoln sent warships to Charleston with orders to *FORCE* them to accept his diktat that their land would remain occupied by *his* forces.
The truth is that New York and Washington DC had rigged the laws so that New York controlled almost all of the Southern export trade, and Washington DC was receiving 73% of it's total tax (tariff) revenue from the Southern states. These two cities were making more money off of the Southern export trade than the people actually growing, harvesting, and selling the product to Europe.
I've read articles that said nearly 60% of the money went to New York, and of course Washington DC took it's bite right out off of the Top.
They would have us believe that the war was about something that was going to continue indefinitely without the war, because the truth, that they launched that war to protect the financial interests of the wealthy and powerful in the North East, doesn't sound so good to the average person.
And those same arrogant bastards in the North East who buy congressmen by the dozen, are still funneling all the nation's money through their pockets, and they are *still* controlling the media to spread their propaganda.
You are correct, nobody will ever know. But I bet those 2 million slaves tied to cotton production produced the vast majority of the cotton that was grown in the South.
And you don't think getting into a completely unnecessary philosophical discussion about slavery when all 13 states were slave states would cause any problems for "unity"?
Be for real. The dumbest thing anyone could have done would be to bring up some irrelevant extraneous issue when you are trying to make an argument that you deserved independence from the King.
Whatever was the individual delegates opinions on the issues of slavery, they correctly saw that it was foolish to make a document about INDEPENDENCE wade into the debate on slavery at that time. They sensibly removed Jefferson's attempts to distract from the central point of their document, which was Independence.
It doesn't matter if slavery was #4 on the list or #24 on the list, the fact remains that it was there.
The part that references slavery is the lament that King Georges' officers were fomenting slave rebellions by promising freedom to those slaves who would take up arms against the colonists.
I'm not sure you are grasping the fact that this reference to slavery in the Declaration argues completely against the point that you are trying to make. (That the founders intended for it to be some sort of statement on the issue of slavery, which they did not at all intend it so to be.)
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.