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.
If you detest Lincoln you do not have an open mind in the slightest. That is like detesting Washington.
On Wednesday July 15, rioters continued to attack African Americans who had not fled the city. A group of white men pulled Abraham Franklin, a disabled African-American coachman, and his sister Henrietta out of their boarding room on Manhattan's West Side. Henrietta was beaten as Abraham was hanged. After his body was cut down by passing soldiers, the crowd hanged him again to loud cheers of "Jeff Davis!" Patrick Butler, a 16- year old Irish butcher, later cut Franklin down again and dragged his body through the streets.
Those riots, lootings and murders were as much about the Draft as the 1968 riots were about M.L. King's death. Like King, the Draft was simply a convenient excuse for lawless mob action.
"If you detest Lincoln you do not have an open mind in the slightest."
And, if you fervently think that Lincoln was a saint, beyond reproach, your mind is... what, then?
His daddy was pro states rights too --- when it came to the Jim Crow laws he always defended. Other than than that, he was a pure socialist, like his son.
"To give you a taste of your Draft Riot heroes"
They're no heros of mine... they're firmly in your camp. Deal with it.
"anti-war Democrats and gangs"
It's tempting to say that some thing never change. But, these lynchings were the result of draft riots in Union territory, and no amount of cynical deflection or demonization of some unsympathetic "other" can erase that fact.
How the hell do you figure they are in "my camp?" They suported the Confederacy.
The goal is to create a division. The race-baiters, liberals, jihadis, etc want to see America divided and weak.
Polybius has shared photos of the G'burg reunions where men in blue and gray embraced their old adversaries on the battlefields where they once fought. A number of the posters on FR have an intense hatred of the South, its people, and conservatives in general.
The name of the game is North = good, South = bad. They are splitting conservatives, they are splitting America. A few notable posters voted for Clinton and later for Gore.
Thanks for the link to shucks.net. I just visited for some great news and information.
These were not "Unionists" who were rioting but criminal elements and fifth columnists. Many were Irishmen fresh off the boats not even citizens. See "Gangs of New York" for an interesting display of the forces at work.
Accurate description is not "cynical" deliberate misrepresentation such as you try certainly is.
You try and set up a false dichotomy. There is no North=good, South=bad HERE. But rather Union= good, attacks on the Union = bad. Many of us arguing with those who support the attack on the Union are FROM the South and love the South. But we do hate it when people, for odd pyschological reasons, ignore history and fact to once again attack the defenders of the Union. Those are the true enemies of the South.
"These were not "Unionists" who were rioting but criminal elements and fifth columnists. Many were Irishmen fresh off the boats not even citizens."
I've been tarred with every brush imaginable for every single historical action that can even plausibly be pinned on "the south" and southerners. Fair is fair. They're yours, not mine. By mere virtue of geography.
You're cracked. No one here hates the South, it's people or conservatives.
What I intensly dislike, however, is the distortion beyond recognition of our common history and especially when done with the intent of creating division where none exist. That distortion comes from a very small, but highly vocal band of zealots like you who pretend to speak for millions of fellow Americans who happen to live in the South.
You don't represent their views in the least.
"I am sure your misstatements about Marx are equally invalid particularly since he viewed the conflict as changes occurring within the economic basis transitioning a semi-feudal economy to a capitalistic one. His view was that socialist Revolution could only occur after the stage of capitalist development had reached its peak. Hence he supported the North not for any love of Lincoln or capitalism but because it was a stage to be gotten through in order for socialism to eventually triumph."
You certainly know your Karl Marx. I bow to your superior knowledge.
Never claimed to. Since you are not familiar with Southerners, we are very individualistic folks. Even during the War, we disagreed with each other.
For an introdcution to the American South, UNC has a great collection of documentation about the American South. Enjoy.
Some of the more outspoken ones have been banned from FR recently.
Ask the Claremonsters.
Obviously it depends on what you mean by "basic." "Fighting for home" is a pretty primal reason, but if you hoisted the Jolly Roger right now and went to war against the US for your "home" it wouldn't make much sense. You wouldn't have much of a reason for fighting. Politically and historically, slavery was a more "basic" reason for war than "home."
In other words, if you love your home but don't have any more fundamental reason for fighting there's no war. If you have something else to fight over, people will line up on this side or that on the basis of where their home is. It may be a reason why a particular person fights or sympathizes with this side or that, but no, it's not a "more basic" reason for the war.
And no, Robert E. Lee didn't "oppose" slavery, any more than he "opposed" intemperate drinking or bad language. Even that is too strong, as he accepted slavery in a way that he wouldn't put up with rudeness or coarseness. "Disapprove" is too strong too. Maybe, "regret" is the best word for Lee's feelings about slavery.
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.