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.
"You don't represent their views in the least."
Rather presumptuous of you, to set yourself up as the final arbiter of just who represents whose views. I, myself, am tired of all the ahistorical, inaccurate (yes)propaganda being passed off as historical fact. There was no monolithic pro-slavery sentiment in the south, just as there was no monolithic abolitionist sentiment in the north. That is my primary complaint, the sheer, simplistic faux moralizing that goes on in these threads. You've been rather inflexible yourself in this thread, I've noticed.
Just because the people of a territory might "want" to become a state, they don't become one until a majority of the states agree to admit them, through a vote in Congress. So if the people of a state "want" to leave the Union there should be no reason why the other states would not "want" to let them leave if that state asked. But that second step was never taken. The southern states acted unilaterally and chose rebellion as their path.
It was their right to do that, just as much as it was their right to join the union in the first place.
I've read the Constitution end to end and I'm not aware of any "right" to join the Union. States are admitted, only with the permission of the other states. They can wait for years for that permission to occur. They have no more right to unilaterally leave the Union as they have to unilaterally join it.
Did the people of early America ask King George's permission to leave the empire?
Nope. And they didn't pretend that their actions were legal, either. They realized that they were entering into a rebellion and were aware that they would have to fight for their independence. The southern states, by comparison, chose rebellion and were outraged that their actions were opposed. And they also lost their rebellion. That's another big difference.
"Politically and historically, slavery was a more "basic" reason for war than "home."
And that is where analysis goes awry. Do you honestly suppose that my second great grandfather had anything on his mind, when he ran off and enlisted in the NC 21st, other than finding his older brothers? Do you think that, maybe, it just might have been more "primal," as you put it, rather than political? It certainly wasn't historical to him; it was contemporary reality.
Give them time. Pretty soon they'll trot out "Gangs of New York" as a reference.
This general attitude allowed all to leave the field with honor and remain valued members of their community.
The singling out to the battle flag has more to do with how it has been utilized in modern time, but it is also in conflict with that general respect to be afforded the various participants.
The battle flag serves little purpose today and its usage being more limited as time goes on shouldn't be read as a disparagment of the participants or their decendants. But some take it that way and I hope each would ask themselves privately if it is due to modern usage or historical usage in determining how important they wish to hold this issue.
I certainly respect the heritage of both sides, coming from a border state and having had forebears that fought.
Grotius' theory of Just War holds that self-defense against an invader is justification for the use of force.
"Give them time. Pretty soon they'll trot out "Gangs of New York" as a reference."
Run around in circles much?
No. Is it fun?
But Grotius did not consider a rebellion to be a Just War.
Sorry friend but people who act like that North South or in between are not "mine" in any sense. "Mine" were the Union troops fresh off the battlefield at Gettysburg who blasted these murderous A.holes into submission.
Unfortunately "mine" were those bravely dying on both sides not cowardly sneaks and thugs.
I made an effort to try and understand Marxist theory both political and economic. Only by doing so can one accurately take apart the theory but I must admit Das Kapital is very difficult sledding being extremely boring. Know your Enemy.
Maybe that's your problem. I, and many Southerners on FR respect ALL WHO SERVED.
"No. Is it fun?"
This is clever, in a prepubescent sort of way.
Not familiar with the term.
Why would that be a problem? Especially MY problem.
Not at all but very few detest Lee or Jackson in any case. They have recieved better press than ANY Northern general.
"Mine" were the Union troops fresh off the battlefield at Gettysburg who blasted these murderous A.holes into submission."
There you go again, as if being a murderous @sshole was wholly and exclusively a Confederate trait. If ever a murderous @sshole ever existed in US history, it would be William Tecumseh Sherman... thought to be an absolute nutcase by his command, his subordinates and his own wife, let alone those who were unfortunate enough to be in his path.
The reference was to the Draft riots not the battle of Gettysburg. Geez. Troops were transported to NYC to put down the riots.
General (The Rock of Chicamauga) Thomas was a relative of mine. My southern relatives respect (somewhat) his service. They afford him following his conscience.
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.