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.
Brown could have also been tried in Federal court on Treason charges for his attack on the Federal Armory, but the Buchanan Administration, true to form, was more that glad to avoid any controversy and allow the state of Virginia to handle John Brown.
Slave Power was a recognized and often used political term in the 1850s --- sort of like "Pro-Choice" is today. It has nothing to do with the 1960s -- DUDE!
I'm glad you read my posts and keep up with the Dixie List. We enjoy your support!
Ya. Like "One Reb can beat and ten Yanks". You never hear any of that stuff around here, do you? < / sarcasm >
"Slave Power was a recognized and often used political term in the 1850s --- sort of like "Pro-Choice" is today. It has nothing to do with the 1960s -- DUDE!"
Careful, that's starting to sound like what Abraham Lincoln would have called "BS macho rhetoric," in his florid, mid-nineteenth century, archaic manner of speech.
In what Northern state was slave owning prevalent?
Oh and one other thing, New Jersey did NOT actually end slavery until 1865. Imagine that!!
BTW. The last census that showed slaves in New Jersey (1850) showed a total of 18 for the entire state. Jeff Davis had more than that living in just one shack on his plantation. When Northern states ended slavery, it was by gradual means with provisions that required owners to continue care for aged slaves who could not fend on their own.
So you are telling me your historical knowledge is so thin that you think I made up the term Slave Power?
Not as prevalent as in the south.
You're kidding, right?
Lincoln was standing up for the country so he killed and maimed hundreds of thousands. You'll have to do better than that.
Just what part of the Constitution says that secession is illegal? If you're going to use that clause in Article 8 about "suppressing insurrections"....don't. Secession isn't an insurrection.
But, what the Framers did intend was written into the Declaration of Independence. That part that goes: "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, begun at a distinguished period and pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to subject them to arbitrary power, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide new guards for their future security...
The states of the Confederacy did what the Framers of the Constitution intended for them to do. That Lincoln chose to make war on the Confederacy shows how much contempt he had for the intentions of the Framers of our Constitution.
Aside from distorted history, totally convoluted logic.
The Framers (and Founders) understood perfectly well they were engaging in Revolution. They made no pretense that it was "legal". They simply argued in the Declaration that Natural Law gave them the "Right to Revolution" when faced with "intolerable oppression" and they pledged their "Lives, Fortunes, and Sacred Honor," in its outcome.
The Slave Power made no such claims. The did not claim a "Long Train Of Abuses" because that would have been ridiculous on it's face since they totally dominated the Federal Government for 80 years up until the election of Lincoln who for the first time organized a coalition unwilling to compromise on slavery. They were not being oppressed in any way.
Their Revolution was over the fact they could not "tolerate" the results of a perfectly Constitutional election and in doing it, sepecifcally rejected the very authority of Natural Law which gave the Founders authority.
The exception, of course, is if the existing government is tyrannical and no redress of grievances is possible through peaceful and constitutional political action. That situation is what the founders were referring to when they justified a right of rebellion. They didn't intend for politicians in the states that voted for the losing side in an election to simply declare by themselves that they were no longer part of the country.
True... and false. The Wesleyand movement in Britain drove the anti-slavery agenda there during our revolution. Wesleyanism and its splinters now called Nazarene, holines, pentecostals, etc grew rapidly in the early 1800's, especially among the non-elite. Precisely over issues like slavery, many Quakers, Amish and Mennonites (my tradition) joined the Wesleyan type movements. Ronald Reagan's favorite movie is more than just symbolic. It conveys the hypocrisy of the pacifists many of whom had limits and exceptions for their beliefs.
I have not tried to verify the stories I read and hear. But those stories tell of every single able bodied man in a church congregation volunteering. Having been an ambi-valent person in Vietnam of pacifist roots, I often wonder if the reason the Confederates killed so many Northerners so quickly is because so many of those Northern fighters lacked the cajones needed to kill quickly and efficiently.
There is no question that the sargeant made me a personnel clerk because he doubted my ability to "kill". In hand-to-hand combat I could take every guy in my unit 20 lbs over me and put them in an amateur wrestling cradle. But I could not go beyond that.
And that long train of abuses and usurpations that justified the southern rebellion was what again?
A very well written article.
I don't know who the indentured servants fought for in colonial Maryland. I did find out that the Puritans won the battle. It was changing conditions in Britain, and the fact that the Maryland Puritans went too far in banning other religions, that led to their eventual downfall.
Had everyone been solidly behind the other side, the results in combat might have been different. One reason empires collapse, is because slaves and vassals aren't willing to fight for those who rule over them.
But the behavior of indentured servants who could one day hope to be free, would naturally differ from that of slaves, who had far less hope of freedom. Those who knew that they would be free, regardless of the will of their masters might be more willing to fight on the same side as those masters than those who knew that they would always remain enslaved.
Moreover, the response of slaves and indentured servants differed from that of free men, who were accustomed to freedom. Plenty of free Whites assumed that they could one day become masters, and fought for the Confederacy. If it were possible that they could one day become slaves, they naturally would have behaved differently. Slaves might be used to bondage, but independent freemen wouldn't look kindly on those who wanted to enslave them.
Indeed, in the months leading up to the Civil War, there was much concern in the Middle West, that slaveowners might come over the Ohio to take even free Whites South to slavery. That might seem paranoid, but it was well founded, for how could one prove that one was born free or White?
There is a recent book about a New Orleans slave woman who sued in the 1840s to establish that she was a free born White German immigrant woman, and not a "mulatto" slave, an indication of how complicated things could get.
Paranoid or not, it is a well-documented fact that Northerners travelling South were struck by the Caucasian appearance of some slaves, and that there was some fear that slavers might kidnap those who weren't noticeably African in appearance. It's not an illogical leap from such facts to conclude that if Southern Whites felt that they were at risk of becoming slaves, they would have thought differently about slavery and secession.
Worth repeating.
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.