- But the truth is that it was a war-time tactic designed to motivate the north, depress the south, encourage slave uprisings - basically to twist the knife.
Exactly. A PR move.
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.
Unfortunately, the image in many Northerners minds is that the major component of Southern heritage is racism. People are not going to applaud that or secession. You have a big PR problem.
BTW, about three years ago I visited the Museum of the Confederacy and Confederate White House in Richmond. Even I, a Northerner, thought that it was disgraceful that the museum had sold off virtually all the surrounding land so that the buildings of a university hospital now loom over the site. It appears that some Southerners are extinguishing their own heritage.
YOU act as if every person from the South had slaves. They didn't and you really need to check and see how many of those slave owners were black. Changing history won't make you right.
See post 145 and the Corwin Amendment supported by Lincoln, referenced in his inaugural speech. Specifically, a Constitutional amendment to abolish slavery requires 2/3rds of the states to agree - such did not have enough votes. If slavery was all the Condfederacy wanted, all that was necessary for legalized slavery to continue was to remain in the union.
Davis simply states that the Union should provide (economically) for the slaves, not of any Lincolnesque dreams of mass deportation.
You got that right. Of course firehoses, dogs and church burnings didn't help either.
Agriculture production. With SC having slaves, Georgia planters - small and large - were no longer competitive. Just as northern manufacturers wanted tariffs to improve their position with foreign products, the planters of Georgia wanted to level the economic playing field.
You're welcome.
ping
What - you didn't read it a few weeks ago?
Where did they get that power?
Same place as Lincoln did obviously.
Davis clearly states that if the Union wishes emancipation then they can take the slaves off the southern hands. And prior to the rebellion, Davis did opine that if slavery was to end then he would hope that the freed slaves could be exported to Central and South America. ("Jefferson Davis, American" by William J. Cooper, Jr. pg. 239) He was the only person I'm aware of advocating mass deportation, not once but at least twice.
Weren't the competing with South Carolina planters before 1745 when this ban is supposed to have been put in place?
You have not read the Linocoln-Douglas debates, or you would not impart to Lincoln sentiments he did not have or voice.
The tenth amendment does not give the power of seccession to the states because it does not change or diminish the sovereignty of the United States as a whole, as a unified nation; which is sovereign over the limited sovereignty of the states; limited by the very existence and ratification of the constitution.
The Union cannot be unmade by any state, it can only be unmade by acts of the Union. Any other acts at unmaking it are acts of rebellion, no matter what cause someone uses for that rebellion. The tenth amendment concepts are applicable to the normal course of government of the nation and the states, and do not apply to any question of whether or not a state is or is not part of the nation.
While we were discussing the Civil War era it is irrelevant to drag in events earlier than that. If you want to discuss the earlier slave trade you will not find me defending anyone involved in it. The point is that the Northern states recognized its evil and took steps to stop it. Southern states and slaveholders at the time of the Revolution also recognized its evil and had every intention of letting the instition fade away. Almost every slaveholder felt that way especially men such as Washington, Jefferson and Madison.
But that attitude changed and slavers began to defend it and make plans to expand it. Eventually the principal leaders began to defend it as a POSITIVE good. Such an attitude led to their determination to destroy the Union if necessary to preserve Slavery.
I care and always will.
This was the beginning of the end for the rights of states. Textbooks have had the northern view of Reconstruction in them for years. It is time for the truth to be told and taught as such.
There is so much bullshit in this article, I couldn't get through it. But here are two whoppers:
"Contrary to popular belief, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was merely a public relations ploy."
Baloney. What it was was this: a strategic, war tactic. It's no secret that it wasn't a humanitarian cause. We're adults here; we can handle the truth. But the truth is that it was a war-time tactic designed to motivate the north, depress the south, encourage slave uprisings - basically to twist the knife.
It worked.
Exactly. A PR move.
I act in no such way and never believed such a ridiculous thing. There was a TINY minority which owned the VAST majority of slaves. They were the power which controlled the South and were able to brainwash the poor slobs who had nothing to go fight to keep the rich masters' slaves. They were the ones plotting and scheming to destroy the Union.
You cannot point to ONE statement backing up your claim about how I "act."
BTW any black slaveholder was never free from the suspicion of being a slave himself and was subject to the same indignities which could be visited on a slave. Outside of the area within which he was known trouble was always close at hand.
"For one thing, the vast majority of slave owners were not cruel, a stark contrast to how slaves were treated in pagan cultures."
This may well be true about southerners, but it is total rubbish about pagan cultures.
In fact, southern slavery is one of the worst forms ever. Greco-Roman slavery was not based on race, but other factors (including voluntary ones) and one could leave slavery from time to time. Obviously not so with southern slavery.
"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."
This is such piss poor moral reasoning that I am shocked to see it posted at FR. We need conclude nothing of the sort.
It is perfectly acceptable to conclude that all slaveowners are evil while understanding that those who fought them were only slightly better. Does the author think that since we conclude that the Nazis are evil, that we must also conclude that our allies in WWII the Soviets were good?
This is so childish it is embarrassing.
Personally I don't feel the need to conclude that all slaveowners were completely depraved. You can't subjectively judge anyone...that is not our place. But what we can do is objectively judge their actions and the culture. Owning another human being is simply intrinsically evil, end of story.
What's so f***ing difficult about that?
That doesn't mean that dismantling those institutions will be easy. It might involve bloodshed; let's hope not. But let's not confuse the difficulty of freeing slaves with the moral condemnation that slavery deserves and which we are obligated to continue even to this day.
This type of essay reminds me of people who are pro-life "but" with various "exceptions". Folks, there are no exceptions. Does that mean that we can't at some level understand and empathize with people who make tragic choices? Of course not. But there are no exceptions. Some moral absolutes exist.
Now that I think about it, I'm glad this essay was posted because this type of moral reasoning needs to be slapped down often.
***
On a final note....let's not also not confuse condemnation of slavery with embracing with a top down, litigious, federal government run "civil rights" program. That is a whole nuther ball of wax.
"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."
The ratification process is not the contract. The contract is the Constitution and the Constitution is between "we the people" (as a whole) not "we the people of the states" or "we the states". The constitution is a national contract between all the people of the nation, not between the states. As of the ratification of the Constitution, the states became sub-political units of "one nation"; no totally distinct and continuing with 100% of their prior "independent" sovereignty.
A state, acting alone, is not empowered to deny the soverignty of the nation to any of its citizens. To do so is a claim that the Constitution itself is no longer in affect, which is a claim that the nation under that constitution is not SOVEREIGN. Lincoln was right and he rightly defended the soverignty that the constituion stood for.
The south could have attempted to enter into any number of "legal" routes to changing the union and seeking an "independent course". It chose rebellion because it did not have a political majority of the nation on its side. It chose rebellion because the democratic political will of the nation was against it. It reminds me of what the Marxists do now when they don't have the votes; they resort to force - the force of judicial dictators. Same idea, different means.
"A question solved by violence must remain unsolved forever.
- Jefferson Davis-"
Yeah, that's really deep. Things like totalitarian Japan, American independence, Argentina taking over the Falklands, repulsing the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan, the very existence of Carthage....are of these are still live hot issues that will NEVER be solved by violence!
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.