Alabama Governor's Slavery Blunder

CBS News ^ | 4/5/05

[Crackingham]

Confederate heritage groups got excited when Gov. Bob Riley's annual proclamation designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month dropped a paragraph saying slavery was the cause of the Civil War. The groups were pleased because they consider that description of slavery historically inaccurate. Their excitement, however, was short lived.

"It was a mistake," said Jeff Emerson, the governor's communications director, on Monday. He said he did not know how the mistake was made.

Emerson said the governor was unaware of the deletion until The Associated Press contacted his office. The governor quickly reissued the proclamation with the paragraph on slavery restored, and posted it on his Web site.

"That makes Bob Riley look very inconsistent and inept," said Roger Broxton, president of the Confederate Heritage Fund.

State Rep. Oliver Robinson, House chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, was pleased that Riley withdrew the version of the proclamation that makes no mention of slavery.

"To me, the members of the Black Caucus, and the majority of black citizens of Alabama that would be a disgrace," he said.

For many years, Alabama governors have signed proclamations designating April as Confederate History and Heritage Month. When Riley became governor in January 2003, he used the same proclamation as his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Don Siegelman.

It contained a paragraph that says "Our recognition of Confederate history also recognizes that slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "

[Restorer]

Aww come one.

Except that it doesn't say slavery was "the cause" of the war.

It says "slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "

Presumably even the Confederate apologists won't argue with that statement.

[Restorer]

Make that "come on."

Beware spell check.

[brownsfan]

I am not a historian. But I was taught that slavery was brought into the dispute between the North and South simply as a matter of political opportunism.
The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing. The North moved to create tariffs in their favor, and the South moved to suceed.

[Ditto]

Presumably even the Confederate apologists won't argue with that statement.

Some of the more moonbat variety will.

[Centurion2000]

It says "slavery was one of the causes of the war, an issue in the war, was ended by the war, and slavery is hereby condemned... "

Presumably even the Confederate apologists won't argue with that statement.

Not this one. It was not THE cause for war, but it was certainly an important issue in the day.

[Ditto]

"The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing. The North moved to create tariffs in their favor, and the South moved to suceed."

Who ever "taught" you that, did you a major disservice, not just in American history, but in Economics 101.

[HostileTerritory]

simply as a matter of political opportunism.

Have you studied much about the abolitionists? They were people of true and passionate faith in God who were doing His work on Earth.

[brownsfan]

"Who ever "taught" you that, did you a major disservice, not just in American history, but in Economics 101."

Care to illuminate?

[brooklyn dave]

Well, when are they going to get their history straight. Slavery wasn't a cause for the war. If it were, the North would have been at war with the South far sooner. True, abolitionist groups were gaining more influence in many circles but most were apathetic in their attitude to the Negro in bondage. The Democrat party in the northern cities had too much invested in the immigrant vote (esp Irish) to be concerned about black people. Please educate me! Were black folks allowed to vote in the free states before 1863?
Even if they were, they were not living the life of Reilly just because they were not enslaved.

[stainlessbanner]

b-u-m-p

[brooklyn dave]

I thought that Lincoln and others thought that the whole idea of states wanting to separate from the Union was unthinkable. True the south was getting a better price on cotton from the Brits but I doubt that would have been reason alone to go to war.

[brownsfan]

"Have you studied much about the abolitionists? They were people of true and passionate faith in God who were doing His work on Earth."

Not an expert, but I know that there was a movement. I know of the underground railroad. I know John Brown lived in this area. I know slavery was obscene.

I also know it was economically beneficial to the South, and that caused many to turn a blind eye. I am pretty sure that the movement was not strong enough on it's own to create a conflict as big as the Civil War in 1860.

We all know that what is right, and what is economically efficient isn't always the same thing. And those in power tend to choose efficiency.

[A Cyrenian]

I'd like to hear this history lesson as well.

[HostileTerritory]

Slavery wasn't a cause for the war. If it were, the North would have been at war with the South far sooner.

Tariffs weren't a cause for the war. If they were, the South would have seceded much sooner.

Nope, doesn't work.

Slavery isn't why the North went to war. It is why the South seceded, and it is why no peace was possible until unconditional surrender, because Jefferson Davis insisted on the right to own slaves until the very end.

[brownsfan]

"True the south was getting a better price on cotton from the Brits but I doubt that would have been reason alone to go to war."

I think the key is tariffs. The North tried to legislate economics. The South would have none of it. The South saw sucession as a legitimate, viable option.
That would be enough to generate a war.

[Littlejon]

Go to the local library (you may need to hold your nose!) and check out "The Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. While this book will give you the impression that slavery was the root cause of the war, it makes up for that in going into the social/economical aspects of the war. Make no mistake about it, the author has a DEFINITE bias against the South. If you take the economic/social issues part of it and factor out the author's obvious bias AGAINST the South, then you will have a better understanding of the other factors for the war.

I read this not knowing about the author's biases, but since I was somewhat of a Civil War buff, I was able to look past that and found his analysis of the economic factors and political issues to be pretty good.

Let me reitterate: DO NOT BUY THIS BOOK as it would give money to an atni-Southern college professor. Check it out form the library and ignore the anti-South bias.

[Crackingham]

At the time secession began, tariffs in the United States were governed by the Walker Tariff Act of 1846, a law championed by the South and pushed through by pro-slavery President James Polk of Tennessee. The Walker Act led to an economic boom in the South which lasted until the country broke apart. Revisionist neo-Confederate "historians" would bizarrely have you believe that Southern states seceded over tariffs and did so at a time when the nation's tariff policy was one which the South supported. How these people can believe their own revisionist drivel is beyond me.

[HostileTerritory]

I think the key is tariffs. The North tried to legislate economics. The South would have none of it. The South saw sucession as a legitimate, viable option.

We can speculate, but it might be better to let the historical figures speak for themselves. Here is what the political leaders of Mississippi wrote in their Declaration of Secession:

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact, which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

It knows no relenting or hesitation in its purposes; it stops not in its march of aggression, and leaves us no room to hope for cessation or for pause.

It has recently obtained control of the Government, by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.

Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity. We must either submit to degradation, and to the loss of property worth four billions of money, or we must secede from the Union framed by our fathers, to secure this as well as every other species of property. For far less cause than this, our fathers separated from the Crown of England.

Our decision is made. We follow their footsteps. We embrace the alternative of separation; and for the reasons here stated, we resolve to maintain our rights with the full consciousness of the justice of our course, and the undoubting belief of our ability to maintain it.

[Ditto]

"The real cause of the Civil War was the South selling raw materials to England, (where they got a better price). This had the result of depriving the North of much needed raw material for manufacturing. The North moved to create tariffs in their favor, and the South moved to suceed."

Surely.

Aside for the recommending that you familiarize yourself with the forty years of escalating sectional tensions arising from slavery beginning with the Missouri Compromise, followed by Texas Admission, The Wilmont Proviso, The Compromise of 1850, The Kansas-Nebraska Act, The Dred Scott Decision, the Fugitive Slave Act, "Bloody Kansas," Harpers Ferry, and culminating in the election of a president representing the "Free Soil Movement", you need to understand that tariffs, under the US Constitution, can not be and have never been applied to exports, from the South or anywhere else. They are only applied to imports, and had existed since the first days of the Republic, and were at their lowest levels ever in 1860 when secession began. You also need to understand that one of the first acts of the Confederate Congress was to enact a set of tarrifs nearly identical to the set that applied before secession.