Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

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.

The same enemy is working hard to destroy the nation as worked to preserve slavery- the Democrat party. There was no war between States rather a RAT rebellion.

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."

Hypocrits.

Unfortunately for your rosy thesis the Slavers were bound and determined that slavery not end. That is EXACTLY why they started the war.

And by selecting the boneheaded issue of slavery, they did irreparable damage to the 10th amendment. As stated, the danger came from within.

I totally AGREE! I'm so steamed by these wimps who give in to the PC crowd, changing school names, flags, cemetaries, etc. all in the name of diversity or our so-called dark past. Damn, it's our history, warts and all. We do indeed need to focus on the borders and the millions of illegals in this country right now! As far as the Civil War and slavery,over a half million soldiers paid that debt years ago. Time to get over it.......to see where we were and where we are NOW!

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.

This is the part that the anti-south crowd never seem to address.

How can Lincoln claim that he had the moral high ground, while sending troops to kill and maim fellow Americans in a civil war?

We can see that it was wrong now, and it was wrong then. Lincoln may have won a war, but he inflamed passions that run deep even until today.

When are we as a country going to get past this issue?

Something is up. Emmett Till is exhumed and autopsied. There's a 1964 Civil Rights murder trial starting up. I believe there is a bill to outlaw/apologize for lynchings in South Carolina(?) that NPR was talking about this morning.

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.

If I had to speculate, I'd say that the Democrats are losing black voters and are desperately trying to get the message out that America hates blacks and that blacks would be safest if they stayed on the plantation.

The biggest threat this country has ever faced or will ever face is the expansion of federal power over American lives and liberties.

Amen!

I'd say that is excellent speculation. Do the Democrats ever have a new idea?

We will get over it when Northerners quite trying to extinguish Southern heritage, and not a minute before.

It will end when my ancestors are no longer called a racist army. They couldn't have cared less what race the slaves were. They were trying to stop domination by Northern interests.

whitebyrd

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 have a hard time believing that they did this out of love for their fellow man. More likely it was the slaveowners wanting to maintain value of their slave capital by preventing new cheaper imports.

We will get over it when Northerners quite trying to extinguish Southern heritage, and not a minute before.

You might want to get out and about in this coutry a little more. We've got "southernors" living in the north and "northernors" living in the south. We've got "easterners" living in the west and "westerners" living in the east. My ancestors were proud people. Some of them wore blue and some of them wore butternut. Some were people you'd want to have a beer with and others were just plain a..holes.

"The biggest threats today aren't terrorists or illegal aliens, they comes from within, not unlike the causes of the Civil War."

Osama Bin Laden couldn't have said it better. Seems like you've been reading his playbook. If we continue to take our eye off the ball and focus our hate and distrust inwardly toward fellow Americans I guarantee we'll experience another 911 before another civil war.

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...

Bull. The same confederate constitution that protected slave imports also contained a clause that stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Slavery wasn't going anywhere if the confederate founding fathers had anything to do with it.

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.

More bull. There is not a single instance of slavery dying 'of natural causes.' In every instance in our history slavery was ended through government intervention and over the objections of the slave owners themselves.

Right. The biggest threat this nation faces is the one Americans themselves initiate, whether it's the slow chipping away of American ideals by the left, or those like you who ignore that in favor of an external foe, one easier to battle.

-When are we as a country going to get past this issue?-

I couldn't agree more, but if we don't keep slavery alive and well, the Rats will have nothing to speak to in the so-called black community.

However, if the MuSlums take over the planet, a little Southern slavery will be peanuts to what we'll all face then.

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.