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.

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you now arguing in favor of Confederate jurisdiction?

No, and I can't imagine how you could come to that conclusion. But how can someone be convicted of treason against a place he has never lived in? Could a U.S. soldier have been tried and convicted of treason against Germany in World War 2?

[justshutupandtakeit]

No there are none that back it up.

Secession makes the Constitution meaningless. With such a "right" there is no such thing as a constitution.

[Non-Sequitur]

Secession wasn't spelled out, because most considered it a more or less basic right.

Turns out they were confused, didn't it?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Could a U.S. soldier have been tried and convicted of treason against Germany in World War 2?"

By using this comparison in the context of US or Union versus Confederate jurisdiction, you're validating the CSA as a nation. For some reason, it strikes me as odd that you would choose to do this. John Brown very likely would have been convicted of treason by the United States, or Union, government. So, your beef with presiding Judge Parker is... what? That he didn't follow common law precedent?

[TexConfederate1861]

Your words: "It is an impossibility and God certainly does not give any of us a right to own another."

Seems pretty clear to me that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

The scriptures give instructions on how a slave must be treated.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Turns out they were confused, didn't it?"

They were only confused in the sense of "might makes right." They were quite lucid in a constitutional sense.

[TexConfederate1861]

4 CJ has plenty of documentation and research, maybe he can "enlighten" you.

[TexConfederate1861]

Not confused, just scr*wed by the Federal Government. Kinda set a precedence didn't it?

[Non-Sequitur]

By using this comparison in the context of US or Union versus Confederate jurisdiction, you're validating the CSA as a nation. For some reason, it strikes me as odd that you would choose to do this.

That could be because you haven't looked into the Brown execution. Brown was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, which was a crime outlined in the state constitution. The confederate states doesn't enter into it. And I still don't understand how someone who had neved lived in Virginia and who wasn't a citizen of Virginia could be convicted of treason against the commonwealth.

[sheltonmac]

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!

The Roman Empire was a slave society, one of the most slavery-dependent cultures in history. Slavery was everywhere and existed in many forms. Slave labor could be found in virtually every line of work: industrial, agricultural, military, domestic. POWs were routinely enslaved by the thousands, and, unlike the vast majority of Confederate soldiers, it was not unusual for low-ranking Roman soldiers to own slaves.

And Slaves were constantly brutalized. While there were exceptions, I would have to say that plantation slavery in the antebellum South was, on the whole, relatively mild compared to what many slaves had to endure in ancient, pagan Rome: drafted into military service, prostitution, mass crucifixions, fighting to the death in the Colosseum, etc.

[Non-Sequitur]

They were quite lucid in a constitutional sense.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Those who seek to defend slavery as practiced in the United States and Confederate States of America should, in the interest of leading by example, agree to become slaves themselves, and agree to have their descendants become slaves in turn.

[sheltonmac]

Those who seek to defend slavery as practiced in the United States and Confederate States of America should, in the interest of leading by example, agree to become slaves themselves, and agree to have their descendants become slaves in turn.

Who here is defending slavery? Seeking to understand slavery in its historical context constitutes a defense of slavery? You do realize that slavery was practiced throughout the American colonies since the 1600s, right? It wasn't unique to the CSA.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Those who seek to defend slavery as practiced in the United States and Confederate States of America should, in the interest of leading by example, agree to become slaves themselves, and agree to have their descendants become slaves in turn."

I've not read a single post on this thread in literal defense of the institution of slavery, as practiced in the USA or the CSA. Fact of the matter is that it existed prior to the formation of either; it was a practice of the European colonists as well as many of the native peoples present on this continent. Chattel slavery as it was understood legally was something of a throwback to feudalism. It was abolished, in large part, by Christians, both here and in England. Save the high-mindedness for those nations, such as Cuba and Brazil, where the vast majority of African slave descendants reside. Or, better yet, try it out on the Sudanese Arabs, who practice slavery to this day.

[Ditto]

Why?

BTW. The Confederates sure didn't think that. They sacked every armory in the South. And even before Lincoln's election in November of 1860, Northern armories were being systematically looted under the orders of Sec. of War, Floyd.

Floyd also spent the year before the war began assigning officers who were considered to be secessionist to command Southern forts so they would be turned over without resistance once the secession was declared. He assumed Major Anderson, a slave owner from Kentucky, was in favor of secession when he was assigned to command Sumter. He assumed wrong.

Floyd was a total mole for the Slave Power and spent his time in office activly conspiring to weaken the US Army. Only in December of 1860, after the citizens of Pittsburgh physically blocked a major shipment of large guns and ammo from the Allegheny Arsenal bound to a "Fort" in the South that was only in the planning stages, did Buchanan force Floyd to resign. He promptly accepted a commission in the Confederate Army.

They were conspiring for war and were convinced by their own BS macho rhetoric, that they would easily win because everyone knows that "Yankees can't fight". You still hear a lot of that regional nonsense on these threads. They were amply warned by some of their own including Toombs and Houston that they were getting into a war they could not win.

They were stupid, arrogant, greedy men who caused lots of poor, non slave owning Southern boys to die needlessly.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Floyd was a total mole for the Slave Power"

Like, totally 60's dude. Fight the power.

[RegulatorCountry]

" BS macho rhetoric"

And the picture gets clearer...

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"I've not read a single post on this thread in literal defense of the institution of slavery, as practiced in the USA or the CSA."

If you're defending the Confederate cause, you're defending slavery. I don't care if said defense is "literal" or not. Slavery was the cause of the Confederacy. Any effort to defend the one must necessarily defend the other.

So, if the Confederate cause was good, then slavery must, in turn, be equally good.

"Fact of the matter is that it existed prior to the formation of either; it was a practice of the European colonists as well as many of the native peoples present on this continent."

None of which actually makes slavery morally good in and of itself. But that's the case being argued by the Lost-Cause folks. So, which is it? Is slavery evil, or is it good?

"Or, better yet, try it out on the Sudanese Arabs, who practice slavery to this day."

If you're saying that the Confederate cause is good, then you're saying you have absolutely zero moral objection to slavery. So, if I just described you, get on a plane to Khartoum and volunteer for slavery.

Or is it a case of "slavery is good, as long as I'm not a slave myself?"

[Paige]

The North was as guilty of slave owning themselves. BTW, Slaves ownership was still very prevalent in the North after the Emancipation Proclamation. The Northerners were nothing more then Hypocrites. They were as guilty of the slave trade as was some Southerners. I find people such as yourself very difficult to have a discussion with when you won't adhere to all the facts involved in this particular matter. In other words, picking and choosing history to support some agenda you have is utterly ridiculous.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Or is it a case of "slavery is good, as long as I'm not a slave myself?"

This appears to be a case of your seeing only what you want to see. We have been debating back and forth on the causes and effects of the war. You cannot apply your own individual interpretation upon me by force, thank God. Now, that would be slavery.