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 would like to know more about the antebellum South and North. What was life like for a black slave, a freed black, a white with "one drop" of black blood? An article on FR got me interested in this several weeks ago. It was about Jews in the South, and I intend to do more research on these subjects.
And it was also A Northern phenomenon. It merely ended sooner in the North.
You missed the point. Every single constitution that I've seen - Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Texas - specifically stated that the legislature could pass no laws impairing the ownership of slaves. And even if they overcame that hurdle the confederate constitution still placed limits on that. A person living in a slave state could buy a plantation in a non-slave state and send slaves to work there, protected by the constitution.
You mean a Union governor wouldn't? If Lincoln could (allegedly) free slaves in the Confederate states, why could they return the favor?
No, we're looking at it from your point of view. Your (unsubstantiated) claim was that the confederate congress legislated that Union slaves would be returned to Union states and freed. Where did they get that power?
in 1619 Dutch privateers captured a Spanish ship with a cargo of slaves destined for the Spanish colonies. They couldn't sell them in the Netherlands, so they came up with the idea of taking them to Jamestown and selling them for cash.
And so the first black slaves were introduced to the English colonies.
Well, no, not likely. But the same influences that ended slavery in New Jersey would have ended slavery in the southern states as well, given time.
Again, this is not a defense of the practice, which I will not defend in any case. My point is to show that the issue is not nearly as black-and-white (so to speak) as some folks seem to believe.
Nonsense. The US Supreme Court had long since held that such could ONLY be accomplished by compensating the owners.
Tell that to the millions that yankees threw overboard during the Middle Passages, or sold to Yankee and Southerner alike.
However, the Supreme Court had upheld the legalility of the confiscation acts. Freeing the slaves of those supporting the rebellion could be seen as a logical extension of that.
Learn how to read the English languange. The court held that the federal government could not extend them citizenship, specifically due to the federal congress' naturalization laws extending citizenship only to whites. The court did NOT find that blacks were "non-persons".
"And so the first black slaves were introduced to the English colonies."
Guess who the first slaveholder in VA, and hence the entirety of the American colonies, was?
"My point is to show that the issue is not nearly as black-and-white (so to speak) as some folks seem to believe."
The belief is rooted in petty regionalism, an attempt to use history to marginalize.
The North did not go to war to "free slaves." It went to war to preserve the Union. There were no slaves in any "Northern states" in 1860. There were 4 Southern states where slavery was legal that refused to go along with treason.
Don't you think it might have outlawed the slave trade aboard New England-flagged shipping?
The Slave Trade had been outlawed for over 50 years by the time of the Civil War. It was against Federal law to import slaves. It was literally a "hanging offense", (piracy), albeit Lincoln was the first to impose the justified death penalty on a ship's Captain. The US and British navies patrolled the West African coast together beginning in the 1820s capturing Slavers, seizing their ships (from many nations and many states, North & South) and returning the captives to the African coast. Those slavers who avoided the "African Squadrons" did not put in at any US ports in New England or elsewhere. They mostly went to Brazil or Cuba where importation was legal, but those who decided to chance the United States, offloaded the cargos in along remote barrier island areas of South Carolina, Georgia and Texas coasts where there was a brisk market for slaves and where they were not likely to be observed by Federal officials.
Of the total number of Africans brought to US shores, less than 10% were brought by "New England" ships. Most were from British or Dutch ships.
Do you suppose Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation might have freed the slaves in every state, and not just the southern ones?
Lincoln's emancipation Proclamation made no mention of Southern states. It was a military order from the CiC and legally could only free slaves (technically seize property) in areas in rebellion. By Jan of 1863, many areas of the Confederacy were under Federal control, and the EP did not even apply there. Try reading the Constitution first to understand why Lincoln could not do what you demand. He did not have that power. Ending slavery could only be done by the states individually, or via an Amendment to the Constitution.
I'm well aware of that. Somebody tell frgoff!
" It was a military order from the CiC and legally could only free slaves (technically seize property) in areas in rebellion."
So my understanding is correct, that Emancipation was a military ploy, hatched in the hopes of fomenting a slave rebellion in "rebel" states. Not so high-minded.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
Really? Slavery in the North ended largely because it was no longer profitable. Southern slaveowners were making millions of slave labor due to the cotton gin. In addition, slaves made up a third of the population of the South, while they were far fewer in the North. Ending slavery meant dealing with a freed population competing for jobs, which no one wanted. Even Northerners hoped that somehow freed slaves would remain in the South or be deported, so they would not be competition.
LOL
I was picturing the next best seller as I read that.
All I Ever Knew about the South, I learned from Reading Gone with the Wind.
What will the readers know? FICTION!
Lincoln was opposed to sharing the continent with blacks. He never thought blacks were his equal.
The 10th Amendment does not provide for a right to secede from the Union;
It doesn't prohibit it does it? Specifically, it prevents the Federal government from claiming such (no delegation of any such power), and specically it reserves such to the states (not being prohibited to them).
... it [the Constitution] is a contract between the people of the United States, all the people of the whole nation.
Not as an amalgamtion of people - the motion to submit the Constitution for ratification to the people en masse did not even receive a second.
Thank you.
No? You don't think that anybody whose opinion mattered wanted 20 applicants for every farm job, all competing to see who would pick cotton for the lowest wage?
Cheap labor is the biggest reason today's farm lobby loves Mexicans. It would have been the same then (and was, under the sharecropping system).
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.