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.
War is hell.
Or at least listened to members of his cabinet.
"Firing on that fort will inagurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North...You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it put us in the wrong; it is fatal." -- Robert Toombs
So he just ignores illegal attacks and seizure of federal property? Smart real smart.
John Brown was HANGED by the federal government. But that has nothing to do with the FACT that there was a decade long conspiracy to destroy the Union fomented in the South.
"War is hell."
Thus saith the certifiably "luney" Sherman, who, by the way, was also the author of "forty acres and a mule."
No NE didn't TRY secession it merely TALKED about it. Fortunately there were too many sensible Federalists who stopped such talk.
Alexander Hamilton gave his life to stop that insanity. His efforts against Burr's election as NY governor were to prevent secession. The idea was that Burr would become governor and turn NY to the side of those desiring to split the Union. However, H's success in defeating him when it seemed a sure victory infuriated B to such an extent that he determined to kill him and challenged him to the duel.
NO...during the War of 1812, or shortly before, the New England States were considering secession because of the disruption of shipping, etc. Secession wasn't just a Southern idea.
"Secession wasn't just a Southern idea."
I realize that.
I agree that slavery was and is wrong, but you won't find a scripture that condemns it.
Gee, Major Anderson, maybe you and your Yankee Army should have skidaddled out of Ft. Sumter, when you were told to, and there wouldn't have been a NEED TO SHELL.
We were wrong, folks. The south was wrong morally. My ancestors died for the Confederacy also. My people were too poor to own slaves. They worked in the cotton fields with them.
I still believe that the south is the greatest region of our country, but we have to admit our mistakes. The Civil War was a big one. Slavery is indefensible. So is segregation. We kept that going a hundred years after the Civil War. We have no excuse, folks. Long winded defenses of our position of one hundred fifty years ago won't cut it. Be it because of stubbornness, ignorance, pride, or fear, we blew it. All the historic things that happened that we abhor so much: Sherman, the Radical Republicans, rule by former slaves and the resulting violence against our people, the ransacking and poverty of our region, all stem from that blasted war. We lost and we were wrong.
But there are people on these threads that bash and hate us to build themselves up. They didn't fight that war or spend an ounce of blood for it. It is historic to them as to us. I am still proud to be a southerner. Those here on FR that hate us so much had better realize that without the south, you and all you care for is finished. The liberal socialists would chew you up and spit you out. Only because of us have you won the last two elections. You owe us gratitude, rather than hate, not for 1860-65, but for your present and future. Try having an election today without the south and the US will be Canada.
The "wonderful" north is red today. Only in the south do you find the white and blue also.
As of Dec, 1860, the Fort was property of South Carolina.
"Gee, Major Anderson, maybe you and your Yankee Army should have skidaddled out of Ft. Sumter, when you were told to, and there wouldn't have been a NEED TO SHELL."
I take it that you believe your property rights to be conditional upon the whim of your neighbors--i.e., if they have enough firepower, you no longer own your property, they do.
John Brown was HANGED by the Commonwealth of Virginia.
And he was a major reason the South felt compelled to secede. Northern interference in matters that weren't their business.
"As of Dec, 1860, the Fort was property of South Carolina."
They had a bill of sale from the Federal government?
AMEN!
NO...they had a paper that said they had seceded from the Union.
No..I believe in the Sovereign rights of States. And in the right of secession. Once South Carolina left the Union, the Fort became their property.
"No..I believe in the Sovereign rights of States."
That would make sense if the Preamble of the Constitution said "We the States."
It is your logic that doesn't make sense.
Read the 10th Amendment. The whole concept is fairly simple: The states give a PORTION of their sovereign power to the National Government. ONLY those powers that are spelled out. The rest they reserve to themselves. If the Government abuses those rights, a state may take back that ower.
Read John C. Calhoun, the man was a genius.
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.