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.
"Jeff Davis suspended HC as well"
You overstate the authority that Jefferson Davis possessed. Zebulon Vance did not suspend the writ of habeas corpus.
Neither man was much bothered by the institution, either. Both were slave owners.
Your earlier paraphrase is NOT what I said. When you quote it accurately you cannot show that God EVER gave such a right.
Scriptural prescription of maltreatment is not a statement of any RIGHT.
Hence my statement that there cannot be a RIGHT to hold a slave is still true. It is true that there is no prohibition but that is not evidence of the existence of a Right.
No he has nothing of value and has tried to pass off various out of context quotes and falsehoods before. It only works on those who are not aware of American history or who hate Lincoln and the Union.
Yes there were. And they were all hung by pro Confederate mobs incited by Copperhead NYC Mayor, Fernando Wood. Union troops restored order and protected the blacks of New York City. The troops should have hung Wood.
What a load of CR*P!
"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."
You know as well as I do that the question was going to be re-submitted AGAIN, once Lincoln had called for volunteers, and it WOULD have passed, but Nathaniel Lyons and his Yankee horde drove the government out and ocuppied the state BEFORE it could happen!
You're leaving out the part about those folks in the states who wanted to join the union in the first place. Don't they have anything to say about it?
First, the people of a state had to "want" to be a part of the union, and secondly the people of the union had to "want" the people of the state to be in their union. In each case the results were something both people "wanted".
What we saw in the Confederacy was the people of the southern states saying "we don't want this any more"...so they left. It was their right to do that, just as much as it was their right to join the union in the first place. As to why they wanted to leave is irrelevant.
The one thing that stands out about the Framers was their emphasis on the rights of the people of a state over the rights of any central government. Did the people of early America ask King George's permission to leave the empire?
What Lincoln did was to say to the people of the Confederacy "Oh, no you don't. You have no right to leave something you joined." This is the same mentality the Soviets had when they sent troops into Balkan countries that tried to leave the Soviet Union. The only difference being those countries never voluntarily joined anything. But, the rallying cry was the same: "We must save the union".
World history is replete with peoples who "wanted out", but were forced back at bayonet point. The Framers knew that, and gave us a document that allowed states the right to shed a central government if they disliked it without having to ask permission. That's what freedom is all about. If you have to ask to leave...you aren't free.
I agree, slavery as a right, is not from God. That right was given by the United States Government, and the Constitution, until the 13th Amendment ended it.
"pro Confederate mobs"
That's one way to deflect historical facts that do not fit with a given agenda. I've also been told that "those Irish immigrants" were to blame. It's always some sort of derogatory "other" with you folks, isn't it? Step down off your high horse, dispense with the denial and admit that your hands are not clean in this matter.
Well, I disagree. 4CJ is quite the scholar, even if you disagree with his viewpoints. I hold a Masters Degree in American and Texas History, and I detest Lincoln, but it doesn't mean I will revise History to back up my views.
You might try looking with an open mind.
" The Framers knew that, and gave us a document that allowed states the right to shed a central government if they disliked it without having to ask permission."
I thought it was hilarious, during the 2000 election recount fiasco, that Albert Gore (of all people) suddenly turned pro states rights. Any port in a storm, I guess. LOL.
When America is attacked those who defend it are patriots. Those who join the enemy are Traitors. Secessionists ATTACKED the US. Not the other way around. There is no doubt that the US has the right to suppress insurrections. It is clearly stated. Nor is there any doubt that this was an insurrection. Trying to cover that FACT with declarations from illegal assemblies would only work with Jackson jurors. No state can change the Constitution unilaterally. Nor can it withdraw without being allowed to do so via constitutional amendment.
James Madison explained to Alexander Hamilton that there could be NO conditional ratification of the Constitution with a right to withdraw later. He stated "Once in the Union Always in the Union." Otherwise it made no sense even to bother with creating a Constitution and a Union if it had no more legal standing than a Moslem marriage.
Your revisionism knows no end. No such convention was planned by the rebellion supporters. And you conveniently neglect to mention that in violation of the wishes of the state convention, supporters of the rebellion were getting arms and ammunition, including artillery, from the Davis regime as early as May 1861. Long before Lyons made his move.
It is even worse. The Slavers deliberately sabotaged the Democrat party spliting it into three pieces to ensure Lincoln's victory in 1860 and making secession palatable to most of the South. Had Douglas won it would have had a harder time demonizing him.
That is correct. Maybe you have finally got it. That is EXACTLY what Madison said.
That isn't surprising unfortunately.
"And you are under the curious delusion that those who could hate Blacks could not also hate Slavery."
You ignore at least forty years of propaganda created to undo the goodwill that the veterans, both north and south, managed to find for one another after the war was ended. The institution of slavery, despite being present throughout all recorded history on every continent and within every people, has been deconstructed into hatred of black people, unique to the United States and the United States only. But, to the contrary, human bondage was accepted as a societal norm leading up to that point, with the notable exception of outspoken Christians in England and the United States, including the much-reviled south. The rest of the world didn't appear to have any problem with it, and much of the world still doesn't. What is peculiar to me is, that these self-same deconstructionists seem to want to ignore Karl Marx on the matter of the erroneously named "Civil War;" Marx himself regarded the matter as being economic... in effect, a tariff war.
Those hangings were by anti-war Democrats and gangs only in NY city.
Good.
Now it is not even as clear as a "right" granted by the Constitution. The Founders NEVER mentioned the word NOR explicitly granted any right to slavery. They danced around the issue with euphemisms "importation" "bound to service" and such. But could not stomach saying "Slavery is legal in the United States." It just sounded too hypocritical for a bunch which based its existence on Freedom. Besides at that time they all believed slavery was something indefensible and eventually to be removed.
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.