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.

[Noachian]

Aside from distorted history, totally convoluted logic.

So, basically what you're saying is that once you become a state you have no right to leave the union under any circumstances? No matter how the people of a state may feel?

[mac_truck]

Careful with the company you keep.

Lol!

Hey Rusty, your PING list reads like a who's who of permenently banned kooky confederate freepers. Keep up the good work...

[Noachian]

Under those circumstances the union had to fight back.

So, what you're saying is that once a state joins the union it has no right to leave? Under any circumstances? Even if the people of that state no long wish to be a part of the union?

[Ditto]

So, basically what you're saying is that once you become a state you have no right to leave the union under any circumstances?

Didn't say that at all. There are a number of circumstances that could make secession constitutional. For instance, an act of congress (the Constitutional body that votes to admit states upon their request) could conversely vote to end statehood at request. Specifically, in 1860, the Southern States could have petitioned Congress to relieve them from their Constitutional obligations. They may well have been successful. But they chose to act unilaterally instead and shirk both their duty and debts to their fellow states.

Unilateral secession, or as Madison termed it, secession without cause, is only another name for Revolution. Revolution is, of course, justified when faced with oppression. But I have asked many times on these threads, exactly what intolerable oppression were the Slave States facing in 1861? I have yet to receive an answer.

And just use a little logic. IS a contract worth anything if any party to it can simply ignore their obligations when it is convient to them? If unilateral secession for any reason were Constitutional, the Constitution is meaningless since states could ignore it at will.

[Paige]

Never said it was as prevalent but hypocrisy did run amok with the Northerners.

[Paige]

Never said it was as prevalent but hypocrisy did run amok with the Northerners.

[TexConfederate1861]

Well, I certainly don't think they had the right to seize weapons....I don't approve of everything the Confederates did. But I do understand their thinking at the time.

[TexConfederate1861]

That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard. Even Robert E. Lee was opposed to slavery. He fought for his home. A much more basic reason. I can approve of the Confederacy, without agreeing with slavery. There were more reasons for the war than that.

[TexConfederate1861]

Maryland didn't secede, because Lincoln threw virtually the entire Legislature in jail. That is the ONLY reason. Missouri would have seceded, but for Lyons and his Army, running the legislature and Governor out of town.

[TexConfederate1861]

Welcome Back Mac.....

By the way, I hope you don't include me as a "kooky Confederate Freeper" LOL :)

[Ditto]

Maryland didn't secede, because Lincoln threw virtually the entire Legislature in jail. That is the ONLY reason.

That is a stretch of the truth. Some folks ended up being "delayed", but they weren't exactly in dungeons. As to the sentiments, the majority of Marylanders were definitely pro-Union, but as in most Southern States, the Slave Powers called a lot of shots due to their Gerrymandering of legislative districts.

Lincoln, and his men did what they had to do to keep Washington from being cut off from the rest of the Union. All in all, I'd say they were remarkable restrained considering the seriousness of the threat they faced in the Spring of 61. There were surly no mass hangings of secessionists as happened to Unionists in your home state at the same time.

[Non-Sequitur]

So, what you're saying is that once a state joins the union it has no right to leave? Under any circumstances? Even if the people of that state no long wish to be a part of the union?

There is no reason why a state cannot leave the Union in the same manner as it enters the Union. With the consent of a majority of the people of the United States, as expressed through a vote in both Houses of Congress.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"That is the most ridiculous theory I have ever heard."

Theory, my a$$. The election of Lincoln and the mere THREAT of closing off the expansion of slavery was sufficient to cause secession. Mind you, the notion of "states' rights" was invented out of whole cloth pretty much at that moment--Senator Jefferson Davis was quite adamant that any NORTHERN state that seceded over the Fugitive Slave Law would brought back into the Union at the point of a Southron bayonet.

"I can approve of the Confederacy, without agreeing with slavery."

From Alexander H. Stephens' speech of March 21, 1861, in Savannah, Georgia:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

Mr. Stephens was the Vice-President of the Confederacy.

[Non-Sequitur]

Maryland didn't secede, because Lincoln threw virtually the entire Legislature in jail. That is the ONLY reason.

If not for southron myth you people would have nothing to post, would you? Five minutes, five minutes on the web showed your post to be the lie that it is. Maryland didn't secede because the legislature, which met in May, refused to consider an ordinance of secession or call a secession convention to consider one. Winfield Scott proposed steps to prevent the Maryland legislature from voting on the matter, prompting this letter from Lincoln:

Washington
April 25, 1861

Lieutenant General Scott:

My dear Sir:

The Maryland Legislature assembles tomorrow and Anapolis; and, not improbably, will take action to arm the people of that State against the United States. The question has been submitted to, and considered by me, whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of necessary defence, for you, as commander in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest, or disperse the members of that body. I think that it would not be justifiable, nor, efficient for the desired object.

First, they have a clearly legal right to assemble; and, we cannot know in advance, that their action will not be lawful, and peaceful. And if we wait until they shall have acted, their arrest, or dispersion, will not lessen the effect of their actions.

Secondly, we cannot permanently precent their action. If we arrest them, we can not for long hold them as prisoners; and when liberated they will immediately re-assemble, and take their action. And, precisely the same if we simply disperse them. The will immediately re-assemble in some other place.

I therefore conclude that is is only left to the commanding General to watch, and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt, and efficient means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their cities - and in the extremest necessity, the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus.

Your obedient servant,
Abraham Lincoln

The arrest of members of the Maryland legislature did not come until September, when members proposed joining those in armed rebellion against the United States, and who were, in fact, proposing treason. Under those circumstances what response did you expect?

Missouri would have seceded, but for Lyons and his Army, running the legislature and Governor out of town.

More nonsense. The people of the state of Missouri, assembled in convention, voted against secession in Feburary-March, 1861. The governor and a minority of the legislature had no authority to take the state out of the Union once the people had spoken. Their actions were contrary to the will of the people of Missouri, and actions taken to keep the state in the Union were justified.

[Rebelbase]

"There are forces at work really, really pushing the whole "this country has a race problem" button. Maybe I'm missing the catalyst, but it seems odd to me."

Not odd at all when you consider that racism is an industry that empowers the likes of the ACLU, Rainbow Coalition, Al Sharpton and his gang, on the private sector level and hundreds of thousands if not millions on the on the Federal, State and Local levels of government through Affirmative action, EEOC, and the basic political correctness that has infected all levels of bureaucracy. Then there's the money to be made in racial lawsuits, thank-you ACLU. It's even infiltrated the school systems where "diversity training" is mandatory.

And at the local level, how many black politicians,(city council types) run on a platform of supporting such groups?--Almost all of them. And those who scorn such groups or talk about self reliance are shunned and called "uncle and aunt Toms".

There is HUGE MONEY and POWER in "opposing" RACISM, thus the emphasis on keeping it stirred up. So long as it's front page news these groups prosper. Let it die and they lose wealth and power.

[M. Espinola]

~Know Thy Thread Source~

Did you notice the source of this article? The original website lists such notable arch neo-confederates as 'Thomas DiLorenzo', who wrote the following on an interlinked website:

"Had the Confederates somehow won, had their victory put them in position to bring their chief opponents before some sort of tribunal, they would have found themselves justified...in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command..."

Lee R. Shelton IV also states:"The latest pro-war propaganda posters, obviously designed to guilt people into supporting the "war on terror," can be found here. I think the government is getting desperate.

(The Islamic terrorists operating in Iraq & Afghanistan supported by Iran, Syria, & the Wahhabists are not mentioned as getting desperate but the American government is? Absolutely incredible!

The article in this thread is also posted here.

Guess what? The web-site in question is a proud partner with the ............

"..Ronnie and Donnie Kennedy were right on target with the title of their book The South Was Right!" (By Jeff Adams)

Jeff Adams is a regular contributor to The States' Rights Journal, and occasionally his material is posted on Dixie Daily News. Source

Sponsored by the continuing neo-confederate agenda :)

[RegulatorCountry]

"Some folks ended up being "delayed", but they weren't exactly in dungeons."

LOL. Look who's an apologist for Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus. What were those folks in then, exactly?

[RegulatorCountry]

"There were surly no mass hangings of secessionists"

But there were mass hangings, lynchings would be more accurate, of blacks during draft riots in Union territory.

[Ditto]

Jeff Davis suspended HC as well, but I don't see you guys complaining about that. By all accounts, the treatment Unionists or even suspected Unionists recieved under the Davis government was far worse that anything the Union government did. No citizens were hung by the Union government because of their sympathies. The same can not be said about the Confederacy.

When Governments are threatened, they react --- it's as simple as that. I lived through martial law for a week, (the suspension of HC) back in the 60s when their were riots in the wake of King's murder. It wasn't nice to see armed troops on the streets, to have curfues, and to know you could be thrown in the pokey for looking funny, but order was restored, the city was not burned to the ground, HC was restored, and no one, other than the rioters and arsonists, was the worse for the wear.

[TexConfederate1861]

AGAIN: Robert E. Lee didn't believe in slavery, nor did Stonewall Jackson. I am familiar with Stephens Speech. He was ONE man, even if he was Vice-President. Not even the majority of people in the South believed in, or fought for slavery. "Senator Jefferson Davis was quite adamant that any NORTHERN state that seceded over the Fugitive Slave Law would brought back into the Union at the point of a Southron bayonet." DOCUMENTATION please!