Posted on 06/13/2005 6:08:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
Everywhere you turn it seems there is a concerted effort to erase part of America's past by stamping out Confederate symbols. Why? Because no one wants to take the time to truly understand history. The general consensus is that Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and ushered in a new era of freedom by defeating the evil, slave-owning South. Therefore, Confederate symbols have no place in an enlightened society. Most of this anti-Southern bigotry stems from an ignorance regarding the institution of slavery. Some people cannot grasp the fact that slavery was once a social reality in this country, and at the time of the War Between the States it was practiced in the North as well as the South. In fact, the slaveholding states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union during the war. It should also be pointed out that, in our history as an independent nation, slavery existed for 89 years under the U.S. flag (1776-1865) and for only four years under the Confederate flag (1861-1865). I have often wondered: If slavery is to be the standard by which all American historic symbols are judged, then why don't we hear more complaints about the unfurling of Old Glory? To begin to fully understand this volatile issue, it is important to keep a few things in mind. For example, Lincoln (a.k.a. the "Great Emancipator") was not an abolitionist. Anyone even remotely familiar with Lincoln's speeches and writings knows that freeing the slaves was never one of his primary objectives. In 1862, he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery…" It wasn't until his war against the South seemed to be going badly for the North that slavery even became an issue for him. Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was merely a public relations ploy. It was an attempt to turn an illegal, unconstitutional war into a humanitarian cause that would win over those who had originally been sympathetic to the South's right to secede. It was also meant to incite insurrection among the slaves as well as drive a wedge between the Confederacy and its European allies who did not want to be viewed as supporters of slavery. A note of interest is that the Proclamation specifically excluded all slaves in the North. Of course, to say that Lincoln had the power to end slavery with the stroke of a pen is to assign dictatorial powers to the presidency, allowing him to override Congress and the Supreme Court and usurp the Constitution--which he did anyway. Another thing to remember is that the Confederate states that had seceded were no longer bound by the laws of the United States. They were beyond Lincoln's jurisdiction because they were a sovereign nation. Even if they weren't--and most people today deny the South ever left the Union--their respective rights would still have been guaranteed under the Constitution (see the 10th Amendment), denying Lincoln any authority at all to single-handedly free the slaves. This is only reinforced by the fact that he did absolutely nothing to free those slaves that were already under U.S. control. Slavery had been around in the North for over two centuries, with the international slave trade, until it ended in the early 1800's, being controlled by New England. When abolition finally came to those states--mostly due to the growth of an industrial economy in a region where cooler climatic conditions limited the use of slaves in large-scale farming operations--Northern slaves were sold to plantation owners in the agrarian South. In essence, the North continued to benefit from the existence of slavery even after abolition--if not from free labor, then from the profits gained by selling that labor in areas where it was still legal. It should be noted that the abolitionist movement had little to do with taking a stand against racism. In fact, many abolitionists themselves looked upon those they were trying to free as inferior, uncivilized human beings. Yes, racism was rampant in the northern U.S. as many states had laws restricting the ability of blacks to vote, travel, marry or even own land. Joanne Pope Melish of Brown University, in her book Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860, points out that some militant groups even made a practice of "conducting terroristic, armed raids on urban black communities and the institutions that served them." This animosity exhibited toward blacks in the North may explain why the Underground Railroad, long before passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, ran all the way to Canada. Despite the wishes of a select few, slavery had already begun to disappear by the mid- to late-1800s. Even Southern leaders realized slavery wouldn't last. In language far more explicit than its U.S. counterpart, the Confederate Constitution included an outright ban on the international slave trade: "The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." Clearly, there is no reason to believe that slavery wouldn't have died of natural causes in the South as it had in every other civilized part of the world. I'm sure we can all agree that there is no place for slavery in a nation founded on liberty and equality, but that doesn't mean that the South should be written off as an evil "slaveocracy." For one thing, the vast majority of slave owners were not cruel, a stark contrast to how slaves were treated in pagan cultures. In many cases, slaves were considered part of the family--so much so that they were entrusted with helping to raise their masters' children. This is neither an endorsement nor an excuse; it's just a statement of historical fact. Yes, one could argue that the act of one person owning the labor of another is cruel in and of itself, but the same could be said of indentured servitude and other similar arrangements so prominent in our nation's history--not to mention the ability of our modern government to claim ownership of over half of what its citizens earn. If we are to conclude that antebellum Southerners were nothing but evil, racist slave owners who needed to be crushed, then we must operate under the assumption that the Northerners fighting against them were all noble, loving peacemakers who just wanted everyone to live together in harmony. Neither characterization is true. Slavery, 140 years after its demise, continues to be a hot-button topic. Yes, it was a contributing factor in Lincoln's war, but only because the federal government sought to intervene on an issue that clearly fell under the jurisdiction of the various states. Trying to turn what Lincoln did into a moral crusade that justified the deaths of over 600,000 Americans is no better than defending the institution of slavery itself.
There were islands of quiet opposition but any public notice and they were doomed. Eastern Tennessee was also relatively slave free and pro-Union but these are exceptions which prove the rule.
Well, as a North Carolinian by way of Maryland, I wouldn't have any reason to keep it secret. =]
Well, as a North Carolinian by way of Maryland, I wouldn't have any reason to keep it secret. =]
"Gone With the Wind amply illustrates that."
Yes, all you'll ever need to know about "those people" in the south can be learned from Gone With The Wind. You need to stop while you're ahead, LOL.
Some of my ancestor suffered under the same delusions as yours. So what? There was NOTHING under attack by the Union prior to the Revolt. If people didn't see what the realities of the time were they often simply did not have the education sufficient to understand what was happening.
RAT propaganda was just as effective in 1860 as in 2004 and gulled millions to move against their best interests.
We would simply prefer that sanctimonious Ynakees quit meddling.
As for fighting, Southern white boys disproportionately have always fought in our nations wars and continue to do so today.
If you'd like a link on that go to my links page and scroll down. It's a USA Today report, hardly a NeoConfederate organ.
The immigration problem is so thorny precisely because of the recent tone that has swamped all reasonable discourse in this country, in that all issues must be addressed through race. The fact that you clamour for the Minutemen who themselves have been called racists by important folks on this board and at the same time admonish Southerners and others here who reject South bashing for the exact same reason is part of the problem.
That's just my take. I can't speak for others here.
Just ask for Hannibal.
True, perhaps...but most such interventions happened after slave-owners became a manageable minority in terms of political and economic power, having been reduced to such status through market forces.
Who has ever said on this debates here that the North's hands were clean? Confederate sympathizers have used the idea of a perfect North as a strawman.
*applause*
I am seeing so many aleged facts from one group of posters, that are entirely the opposite of aleged facts presented by the opposing side, that the more I read, the more confused I become.
We are on a topic here that genuinely needs to be discussed in detail, with links to unimpeachable sources. God only knows where we can find the real nitty gritty and how we will separate it from the pure unadulterated, self serving, citizen dividing bull sh*t that is being flung in our faces from the manure spreaders of history.
Let's try to keep this hot topic thread smoking with facts, rather than burning it down with flame wars.
For the sake of the salvation of this wonderful land and it's citizens and for our children and grandchildren, American's all, let's devote ourselves to searching out the source of the wound from which this scar came, and ask ourselves why the scar is causing us more pain and conflict than we felt while the wound was still raw and our life blood was draining away?
Actually most of those defending the RAT Rebellion take their arguments right from Margaret Mitchell. Her book does an excellent job of examining the Insanity which destroyed the South. It contains many truths as you know.
I would not cite it as a text but, like all good fiction, contains valuable insights.
It's more of a stones and glass house thing.
Somthing Yankees have never been concerned with since the Puritans.
So how long do you suppose it would have been before slaveowners in the south became a 'manageable minority'? How long before they would have lost their political and economic power?
The policy was falling out of favor, & the blacks that were there were free people who worked the land for part of the crops, and a sense for belonging. Was it right to own another person, NO it is not, and this way of living was coming to an end befoe the war had started. It was only the extermly large plantions had owned slaves, but that was costing more money to keep them there forcefully, but instead if the had wanted to stay that made the job easier. Why whip a person into submission, when you could entice them into staying by choice. They would produce much more in the way of crops, timber ect... by choice not by force.
"There was NOTHING under attack by the Union prior to the Revolt. If people didn't see what the realities of the time were they often simply did not have the education sufficient to understand what was happening."
The reality of the time was that their homes, land and possessions were threatened by hostile invasion. That they had no hand in provoking the invasion is immaterial; you defend your home and family. Simple as that. If I am following your logic, I suppose my family should have abandoned all they had and fled across the Blue Ridge and kept on going. Not really practical, and fraught with more potential peril than staying and fighting. As I said, things were far from monolithic, and it is very easy for you to sit in judgement 150 years after the fact. You've fallen prey to a class warfare mentality, much like modern Democrats, in their attempts at maintaining control over the minority vote... all African-Americans think the same, according to Democrats, and all want the same thing. Sound familiar?
That they were comfortable with that "incompatibility" for another 70 years?
It was about State Rights with the South.
Nope. The colonial Georgia government under Oglethorpe abolished slavery circa 1745.
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.