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.
Ping for later read
Wild overstatement. Contrary to the "John Brown" stereotype, a significant percentage of Abolitionists were also Pacifists who did not believe in war for any reason. (See the Quakers and the Seventh Day Adventists) Overall, there simply were not all that many Abolitionists. Their prominence, as mostly people of education and means who served as officers, and later wrote about their experiences is far out of proportion with their actual numbers. If you took all of the "Abolitionists" of military age in 1861, you would have been hard pressed to field a single division.
The Abolitionists, as a whole, did not especially care about the preservation of the "Union" either. They considered the Union with slavery to be an abomination and at least with the departure of the Southern states, they were free of slavery in "their" nation. They had little or no fondness for Lincoln and his willingness to tolerate slavery where it existed.
Contrary to what you wrote, the first waves of volunteers, both North & South were motivated by patriotism and "adventure". On the Northern side, it is impossible to overstate the outrage of people over the firing on the flag at Sumter. Ending slavery was not on the scope in 1861. People were slow to come to the conclusion that slavery had to end in order to preserve the Union.
As to the "draft", it was first instituted by the Confederate side. The Union draft impacted some states far more than others. Some states were able to reach their quotas without resorting to the draft at all and the so-called New York Draft Riots aside, even in states that conducted draft lotteries, the impact was minimal, especially after enlistment was opened for Blacks. The Confederate draft had a far greater impact across the South, especially in states where support for secession was tepid, at best. And even more than the draft, was the forced extension of enlistments for the "duration" by the CSA Congress which occurred early in the war. The Union side never extended enlistments yet did manage to have a high rate of reenlistment's even during the bloodiest years of the war. Some military historians credit the voluntarily mass reenlistment of those battle hardened Union veterans in 1864 with allowing for the successful ending of the war the following year.
Overall, there were a far higher percentage of "reluctant soldiers" on the Confederate side than on the Union side.
I can say all that because Greco-Roman slavery was much more like indentured servitude than American chattel slavery. That is why Paul doesn't condemn it outright. I agree with Paul. Paul would have condemned American chattel slavery.
To say that "Slavery was once part of the social construct. The institution itself was neither evil nor good" is one of the most profoundly deconstructionist, relativistic, anti-Christian things I have ever seen on Free Republic. Congratulations!
PS - To say that Paul didn't condemn the slavery of his day and therefore the slavery of American origin is also not to be condemned is to make the same mistake that American theologians who used the Bible to justify slavery did.
PSS - I have yet to subjectively judge anyone. I have not yet condemned a slave owner. Most of them were caught up in something in which they did not have the capacity to transcend. But we are certainly called to condemn or not condemn any person's actions, including entire cultures.
Southern slavery is worthy of condemnation and the fact that we still have people saying that the institution was a social construct neither good nor bad shows that we still have work to do.
PSSS - With regards to how slaves who are brutalized should be treated, you are right. Scripture gives guidelines on what to do. They should be let go or run the risk of getting the treatment of plagues from the Lord of Hosts. Let the people go!
Why is this so hard?
"The states give a PORTION of their sovereign power to the National Government."
And, arguably, the power to join into a separate confederation was in that portion.
"Read John C. Calhoun, the man was a genius."
Yeah. Real genius. Argued fervently that folks like me are too dark-skinned to exercise self-government--and that was at the core of his arguments regarding "state's rights."
The entire intent of secession was to set up a totalitarian state with but one goal--keep slavery viable by externalizing costs from those who actually owned slaves to the public at large.
I have no idea what you think I am "conceding."
Nor is there any conspiracy "theory" here simply a FACT which is known to anyone who has studied the era.
That is neither here nor there. Nor does it change the FACT that there is no RIGHT to hold another man in bondage.
Now why would any dutiful officer abandon his post and allow federal property to be taken by rebels. It also was not the only federal fort under attack.
It was never the legal property of South Carolina. No state ever had a right to secede hence this was nothing more than a seizure by bandits.
You are correct. However the point remains Brown was hanged for his crime against federal property.
Now he was doing nothing different than those attacking other federal installations in the name of secession.
Slavery was the REASON there was "interference" and it was a good reason being a crime against humanity. But rather than dealing with the CAUSE the slavers preferred to deal with the symptoms.
So if California's legislature Rat majority up and "seceded", Livermore Labs, Vandenberg and Edwards AFB, JPL, Camp Pendleton, Fort Ord, San Diego Naval station, and the bulk of our advanced military technology belong to Mexico?
Dang. Just like that -- from 3rd world nation to Nuclear Super Power.
I don't think so, Tex. I'd fight like hell for that stuff. It belongs to me too!
"which is known to anyone who has studied the era."
You've made a number of erroneous, broad sweeping statements which lead me to believe that you really don't have a clue, and are googling your @ss off just to keep up. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hitler was a genius too. So what? At any rate Madison said it very clearly. Once in the Union always in the Union. The only legitimate means of getting out is through an amendment allowing it. The tenth amendment has NOTHING to do with secession in fact ALL the Founders adhored the concept. Washington's Farewell Address was primarily a condemnation of the idea and it described exactly the kind of people who would push the idea.
How about the state of Montana, or Washington? Instant superpower, with Minuteman or Trident missiles that WE bought for them!
What would I have to Google? I haven't said anything not known to anyone who has studied history. Now if it were some fine detail or date I might do so and legitimately earn your insult. But for a "broad sweeping statement" LoL. If I were that much an idiot how would I have wound up on Free Republic?
My interest in the Civil War predates your birth quite likely and I was raised in the anti-Black pro-Slaver atomsphere which dominated the South.
Slaves could be "proud people" and slavemasters could treat his slaves "fairly" and it would be "ok". But I sure as hell wouldn't recommend being either a slave or a sharecropper. The major difference, especially for blacks, was that the landowner didn't own his children as well.
In the short run, cheap labor helps. In the long run, cheap labor keeps a society from developing competitive technology. It's why wine grapes are picked with machines in Australia and by hand in California.
Slavery hurt the South.
"But I sure as hell wouldn't recommend being either a slave or a sharecropper."
Or a sweatshop laborer? Suffice it to say that, in our past and in the past of every people and every nation, there have been episodes that do not bear up well in light of modern standards. The south was not unique by any standard in this regard.
Sherman also said "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out." So if there was anyone 'looney' in the picture then it was the southern leadership that started the war in the first place.
"So if there was anyone 'looney' in the picture then it was the southern leadership that started the war in the first place."
I was quoting Sherman's own Assistant Secretary of War, hence the archaic spelling "luney."
And how did that piece of paper give them ownership of something that didn't belong to them in the first place?
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.