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.
I think Lincoln would agree.
There are those determined to defend the indefensible. Lincoln was faced with determined and powerful men who had been working for years to destroy the Union even from within the Congress and from within Buchanan's cabinet and advisors.
There is nothing which can justify the Slavers' attempt to destroy the Union. There are many lies spread attempting to do just that but they are easily seen through.
There is also nothing which can justify the incredible damage the Slavers did to their own Region, the region of my birth and unbringing, damage which lasted a hundred years.
"Who has ever said on this debates here that the North's hands were clean?"
More importantly, who has ever admitted that they weren't? Very few. It's petty regionalism, using history as a weapon to marginalize. How many threads have you ever seen on the subject, whose main thrust is that northern interests began the African slave trade in the American colonies and the early US, and profited the most from it? None. And, that is my point, and it is why I am relieved that someone finally came out and said so. Now, that's progress.
So large number of plantation owners were freeing their slaves and allowing them to work as free laborers prior to 1861? Where in the South was that occurring?
The point I was trying to make was not to share blame equitably, but to try to get to the root causes of the war. The distribution of slave owners across northern and southern states is a clue in this regard. See, if the North really wanted to go to war in order to free slaves, don't you think it would have started by freeing the slaves within its own borders? Don't you think it might have outlawed the slave trade aboard New England-flagged shipping?
Do you suppose Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation might have freed the slaves in every state, and not just the southern ones?
If as a Union president at the time you really cared about slaves, these are the steps you would take. If, on the other hand, you only wanted to bring the southern states back into the fold under the aegis of abolition, you would behave as Lincoln did.
What happened? Did they miss it?
Nonsense. Sojourn/travel with slaves/servants, but not move into a Confederate state that banned slavery and keep their slaves.
Union slaves on Union ships? Assuming such an incident occured, how could the confederate congress require a Union governor to free a slave?
You mean a Union governor wouldn't? If Lincoln could (allegedly) free slaves in the Confederate states, why could they return the favor?
"That they were comfortable with that "incompatibility" for another 70 years?"
Yep, which is exactly the length of time that Union states were comfortable with that "incompatibility." Your point being that all states were equally hypocritical, I take it?
Just long enough for someone to invent the tractor, planter, picker, cotton gin,milking machine, lawn mower, hedge trimmer, edger and fast food restaraunts.
Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say.(Rhyme time)
Documentation?
PING
Playing TAPS for the south. The south lost the war, get over it. The winners of the wars write the history books. That is just the way it is.
When the Constitution was ratified, it was strictly a Southern phenomenon. Deal with it.
Never enforced and officially repealed in 1750.
Can you tell me what that amendment would have been?
I've no idea. It's all conjecture.
It still could have been resolved without a war. Maybe.
Ideally, the practice of slavery would never have been introduced to the colonies to begin with. How did that happen, anyhow?
Nope. Economically they couldn't compete with South Carolina.
The problem wasn't how many owned slaves, but how many were willing to allow that great evil to remain in their midst and to allow it to continue.
If people could not see the Union for what it was and swallowed the bilge of those who were determined to destroy it that is a sad commentary on human folly. But hardly defensible. Life is a series of difficult choices.
Many Southerners made the RIGHT choice and enlisted in the Union army. Tennessee formed units from Eastern Tenn. which fought for the US.
Class warfare not what is going on here since the Wealthy did not fight against the poor but rather the Wealthy Slavers provoked a war with the Nation which was defended by other Wealthy and the poor in Blue fought the poor in Grey. There were Ruling Classes recognized long before Marx and his writings did not mean the concept was suddenly of no use or invalid.
If you want to speak of DemocRATS then you should recognize that the Rebellion was STRICTLY fomented by DemocRATS. No Republicans fought against his nation just as NO republicans were in the Klan or lynched Blacks. Anti-war opposition in the North was DemocRAT inspired and lead. Pre-war encouragement of the Slavers and the desire to mollify them was also DemocRAT instigated. The best descriptive term for the War was the Democrat Rebellion another in the long history of anti-American actions the party has produced.
The North did end slavery in its states by 1860 (The North, as correctly defined as those states above the Mason-Dixon line between PA and MD). And the U.S. Constitution protected slavery, hence the 13th Amendment after the end of the war. Lincoln could not free the slave in border states like MD or KY if he wanted to, but he could free slaves in those states which were in active rebellion against the Union.
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.