Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

EverVigilant.net ^ | 06/09/2005 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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.

[veeceeque]

You are not versed in history enough to be making desultory comments towards others.

The Constitution guaranteed the States the right to freely enter and LEAVE the Union. It also spelled out the right that they did not have to ratify any amendment they disagreed with and said that they could not be compelled by federal government to do so. Also, check your history lessons to find that four of the Confederate States succeeded only AFTER the federal goverment raised the threat of military action. They strongly believed in states' rights enough to defend them.

Hmmmmm.....the federal government compelled them not to leave the Union. This entire struggle was for the consolidation of federal and economic power.



You keep saying that we must focus our attention on terroism. I agree that that is one area that must be observed. Also, the power of the federal government must be carefully checked. That is the heart of this entire debate. If the federal government takes over all power, then the door is open towards a gross abuse of freedom.

There are more problems facing our country that are just as devastating as terrorism.

IMHO

SGT C.
Baghdad, Iraq

[ConservativeDude]

"Exactly. A PR move."

Uh...no. It's more like the CIA encouraging an overthrow in some third world country. My idea of PR is holding press conferences and sending out press releases. It doesn't usually include armed resistance, killing people and encouraging the same from others. That's how war is waged. And it is far different from public relations.

[Ditto]

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.

No. Your "understanding" is ridiculous. The EP was indeed an order of military expedience in that removing "property" from Confederate service it helped shorten the war. Slave labor was used extensively by the Confederate forces for everything from food production to construction of fortifications. It also had a 100 day notice before taking effect, in the hope that rebellious states would reconsider and return to the Union fold before they lost their "property"

As to inciting "slave rebellion" which was every Southerner's worst nightmare, it in fact had the opposite effect. Instead of slaves taking their lives in their hands by revolting while most of the white men were off at war, they understood that they need only walk to the sound of Union guns to gain their freedom. Over a million slaves did that in the months after it was issued, and over 100,000 of them joined the Union Army once they crossed the lines. The EP probably prevented slave uprisings that would have been far more disastrous to the civilian population than anything Sherman did.

[TexConfederate1861]

Ridiculous.....I won't even dignify such a assinine statement with a rebuttal.

[TexConfederate1861]

Economically, slavery was almost at an end, even though the planters didn't want to admit it. The Industrial Revolution would have forced an end to slave labor.

[TexConfederate1861]

The basic premise of freedom is to live and let live.
And Southerners are certainly anti-abortion, for the most part.

[TexConfederate1861]

I would say that by the 1870's, it would have happened. The Industrial Revolution would have made slave labor obsolete.

[Ditto]

If slavery was all the Condfederacy wanted, all that was necessary for legalized slavery to continue was to remain in the union.

Keeping slavery was not what they were concerned with and the Corwin Amendment simply reaffirmed the existing status quo --- i.e. slavery was constitutional, and the political reality that there was not a sufficient constitutional majority to change that dynamic. It was a meaningless Amendment.

What the Slave Power demanded was expansion of slavery to all states and territories, and on that point, Lincoln refused to budge an inch.

[TexConfederate1861]

Well, slavery WAS legal. And moral or not, men who owned slaves had a huge economic investment for not ending it. The bottom line is that slavery or not, states-rights dictated the right of the states to decide the issue, NOT Abe Lincoln, and a Republican Congress.

[x]

How can Lincoln claim that he had the moral high ground, while sending troops to kill and maim fellow Americans in a civil war?

He could claim that he was standing up for the country and the constitution against an illegal and unconstitutional rebellion.

We can see that it was wrong now, and it was wrong then. Lincoln may have won a war, but he inflamed passions that run deep even until today.

You are kidding, right? Passions were inflamed before he came on the scene, and more inflamed in the South than in the North.

This whole "Blame Abe" thing has gotten pretty tiresome.

[TexConfederate1861]

Not in every state. One of my ancestors was a Texas rancher, who fought for the Confederacy. He had no use for slavery, so why do you suppose he risked his life?

Simple: He felt that coercion and invasion by the Federals was going too far.

[TexConfederate1861]

After such persons as John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison, what would you have expected?

[x]

They couldn't have cared less what race the slaves were. They were trying to stop domination by Northern interests.
whitebyrd

Senator, I don't think that's quite right. If Whites were slaves, I doubt your ancestors would have fought on the same side as the slaveowners. They had the right idea about freedom. They just didn't carry it far enough.

[sheltonmac]

You can't subjectively judge anyone...that is not our place.

No, but that is exactly what is happening with each attack on Southern culture and heritage. People are making subjective judgments based on a minunderstanding of history.

Owning another human being is simply intrinsically evil, end of story.

Slavery was once part of the social construct. The institution itself was neither evil nor good. If it was inherently evil, then how would you explain the fact that the Bible, while not endorsing slavery, doesn't condemn it? The Apostle Paul even sent a slave back to his master.

And the point about pagan cultures is spont-on. Pagans, by definition, don't follow biblical guidelines, and slaves were (and in some countries still are) often worked to death, starved and brutalized in any number of ways. Scripture recognized the reality of slavery, but gave specific instructions as to how slaves were to be treated.

The problem in understanding the historical reality of slavery is that we're separated from it by 140 years. It's difficult to comprehend a society in which one person "owns" the labor of another. It's like women's suffrage. We find it hard to accept that women were denied the right to vote, but they were. Was that evil as well? Or was it simply part of the social construct that we eventually moved beyond?

[TexConfederate1861]

I must tell you that honestly, I don't believe the preamble or the Declaration were including blacks, because in the view of most people, they were not considered humans, as wrong as that belief was. Hell, they were only counted as 3/5 of a person for the purpose of representation according to the Constitution. I don't hold my head up high regarding anything about slavery. My Georgia ancestor freed all 50 of his slaves in Oct. 1861, before he went to war. He thought slavery was morally wrong, and was trying to prove a point.

As for Dred Scott, it is always hilarious to me how some on this board will condemn THAT decision, and say that it is invalid, yet in the same breath defend Texas vs White....

[Ditto]

Economically, slavery was almost at an end, even though the planters didn't want to admit it. The Industrial Revolution would have forced an end to slave labor.

Nonsense. The Planters couldn't even conceive of the industrial revolution reaching the deep south, and it basically didn't until well into the 20th Century. Hell, share cropping (defacto slavery) still existed into the 1960s.

BTW. What about industrialization is incompatible with slavery? Slavery can be very profitable in any task requiring large amounts of non-skilled or semi-skilled labor. (See China). The largest iron works in the South (Tredgear in Richmond) profitably used slave labor -- Picking cotton in Mississippi or mining silver in Nevada or packing beef in Kansas, slave labor would have been just as profitable for the few.

[TexConfederate1861]

While you ramble on about the South threatening Secession, don't forget that New England was the FIRST to try that tactic.

[LWalk18]

It's difficult to comprehend a society in which one person "owns" the labor of another.

An owner did not just own the labor of a person, but the person him or herself could be bought, sold, mortgaged, or traded. If a so-called "good" master went into debt, his slaves could be sold to the highest bidder irregardless of family ties. As a woman, the idea that my offspring could be sold away to who knows where at my master's whim or misfortune illustrates slavery's evil. And unlike many pagan cultures, it was a condition you were born into, died in, and was the fate of their children.

[TexConfederate1861]

I have to disagree about "sharecropping" being slavery. My Great-Grandparents, were very poor sharecroppers, but were very proud people. My Grandmother has told me that if the landowner treated his croppers fairly, it was ok.

[Non-Sequitur]

Economically, slavery was almost at an end, even though the planters didn't want to admit it. The Industrial Revolution would have forced an end to slave labor.

Sheer idiocy. The industrial revolution had been going on for 35 years and slavery had thrived throughout. It wasn't almost at an end. There was nothing to replace it with.