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.
" If Whites were slaves, I doubt your ancestors would have fought on the same side as the slaveowners."
I really do think that something more than just a quick, PC perusal of American history would be in order, prior to making such sweeping statements. IF whites were slaves? You do mean "when," don't you? Look into the Palatinate of Maryland, and the various Puritan incursions into that "colony." And, once you have, tell me about the behavior of indentured servants at that time, and for whom they fought. It wasn't for the Puritan outsiders, that's for sure.
The states with large slave populations wanted them to be counted as a "whole person" even though they had no rights as citizens in those states. The purpose was to gain more seats in congress and additional electoral votes. The states with small or no slave populations felt they should not be counted at all since they were not considered citizens. They argued that if your are to count "slave property" for apportionment purposes, why not count animal property as well?
The 3/5 compromise was the first of many compromises made with the Slave Power which eventually culminated, as Jefferson and others had predicted, in civil war.
"don't forget that New England was the FIRST to try that tactic."
Vermont, over maple syrup or something like that, wasn't it? Vermont secession must not have been viewed as too a serious blow, because I don't recall anyone bellowing on and on about it, and trashing the ancestors, of living Vermonters, who may or may not have been involved.
The emanicpation proclamation in 1865 only "freed" slaves in the rebel states, not the slaves in the loyal slave states. This is indicative of the author's looseness with the facts and selective use of those facts which suit his agenda.
But it is educational to compare this article, and our view of the civil war in general, with the current war in Iraq. In both wars, it was necessary to create a coalition of support by giving different people in the coalition different reasons to join and support the coalition.
The original members of both coalitions are the ABOLITIONISTS.... those true believer Republicans who see slavery, and the Sadam-Baathist regime as evil. For them the war is a moral crusade to make the world a better place and to bring freedom to people who lack freedom.
But the abolitionists alone are not enough to make it happen. So the abolitionists expand the reasons for the war to include preserving the union and preempting a WMD first strike and enforcing UN resolutions and many other rationale that bring in enough supporters to make it happen.
But compare this: In the civil war, the first wave of Northern fighters were abolitionist motivated volunteers. But they died in huge numbers, leaving few additional abolitionists available to volunteer for the fight. Thus the draft was begun.
In the South, the death toll was also high. But they were defending themselves from the war of Northern aggression and could call on more volunteers with that rationale and not just on defending slavery.
In Iraq, the death toll on both sides is miniscule compared to our Civil War. Unlike Southerners, relatively few Iraqis opposed the influx of troops from outside their area. In fact, it would appear that most Iraqis welcomed the alleged liberators and the freedom that they brought.
Despite that difference between the two wars, another similarity exists in that the "freedom fighters" in both wars are plagued by small highly motivated bands of guerilla fighters or swamp foxes or whatever you want to call them. After the civil war, those fighters who just like to fight... it was their culture... fled West where they either seldom saw others with whom to fight and thus avoided fights, or became transients always looking for a fight.
"There was nothing to replace it with."
And all the fields in the south lay fallow for decade upon decade, never to be harvested again, LOL. Ever heard of sharecropping?
What does sharecropping have to do with the Industrial Revolution? Several posters have asserted that the Industrial Revolution would have ended slavery. But use of machines to harvest cotton did appear in the South until the mid 20th century. That's a long time to wait for slavery to "naturally" end.
And are you suggesting that sharecropping was as profitable for the southern landowners than slavery had been? Where is your support for that?
"What does sharecropping have to do with the Industrial Revolution?"
I suppose one pertinent interdependency would be cotton, but what does your question have to do with the price of tea in China, otherwise?
"are you suggesting that sharecropping was as profitable for the southern landowners than slavery had been?"
You suggested that there was nothing to replace slave labor. I said nothing about profitability.
Maybe they could have salted the land and destroyed everything? That would have really cost them.
FYI: the Emancipation Proclamation was issued on Jan. 1, 1863. Slavery officially ended with the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865. Hence, it is correct to point out that slavery existed under the U.S. flag from 1776-1865.
"Maybe they could have salted the land and destroyed everything?"
Had salt not been in such short supply at the time, I'm quite certain that that homicidal nut, William Tecumseh Sherman, would have done it.
Salt wasn't in short supply.
No there is not right to own a slave. It is an impossibility and God certainly does not give any of us a right to own another.
As others have mentioned Abe was not going to free the slaves but that didn't matter to the Conspirators who were determined to destroy the Union.
slavery was what was needed for agricultural society at that time--it would have stopped as science and machines took over--nobody in a moderen society would use slaves for work when machines can do a better job..what i am trying to say it was what it was because of TIMe..just as backward land s today still have cheap workers or slavery that will dissapear with time it's not inherently in bred "lets have slaves because it's a great thing" more of a necesity in TIME--i hope i am clear
"Salt wasn't in short supply."
Google is your friend. EVERYTHING was in short supply, in the south, by the time of Sherman's march through Georgia and into the Carolinas.
"As others have mentioned Abe was not going to free the slaves but that didn't matter to the Conspirators who were determined to destroy the Union."
So, you concede, and are falling back on conspiracy theories? I can live with that, LOL.
Sherman and his men didn't seem to have any problems finding enough to eat, so EVERYTHING couldn't have been in short supply. Besides, had the Davis regime not virtually nationalized the salt industry there might not have been any shortages.
"Sherman and his men didn't seem to have any problems finding enough to eat"
Ahh, yes, that harmless "foraging" in the countryside that we've all read about.
"A question solved by violence must remain unsolved forever.
- Jefferson Davis-"
Gee, Mr. Davis, maybe you should've meditated on that bit of wisdom BEFORE ordering the troops to shell Fort Sumter.
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.