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.
And yet that 'absolute nutcase' beat every southern general sent against him. Bragg, Johnston, Hood, it didn't matter. Doesn't say much for your leadership, does it?
Does that mean other "folks" are not "individualist?"
Is your life so dull that you must seek some sort of group identity for fulfillment?
IMHO, the "groupism" you wrap your identity in is no different than the multicultural mumbo jumbo victimhood being pushed down our throats by the Cultural Marxists. It's all about divide and conquer.
Poor Stainless --- nobody can understand Southerners. You're just a victim of the big mean Yankees.
There --- does that make you feel beter?
LOL! Cry those alligator tears, Ditto.
If that's the case, then you should be criticizing the article at the top of this thread that is completely littered with distortions, falsehoods and outright fabrications of our common history.
I haven't noticed you doing that as yet. In fact, all I have noticed you doing is pointing out that the "North" was not populated by saints as if someone suggested it was.
Straw Men might be fun to kick around, but they are no way to advance a point of view.
And your point is?
LOL. I never saw the film, because after reading a review I decided that I get all the fractured fairy tale history I can possibly handle just by tracking Rusty's ping list.
Since the Southron contingent around here treat it as gospel, right up there with "Outlaw Josey Wales" in terms of accuracy, then I guess they think that all Five Point hookers must have looked like Cameron Diaz.
I'm not especially good at reading minds, especially of people who were dead for 50 years before I was born. I haven't a clue what your g-g grandfather had in mind, and neither do you.
Ping list envy. Start your own ping list, don't sit on the side and bitch.
Since I don't need to cry out for help on these threads, I don't have much need for a ping list. But please feel free to call for back-up. You generally need it.
You're a filthy, disgusting liar. The two times I posted information found to be inaccurate, I readily redressed the situation on thread.
I post information from the founders themselves prior to ratification (sentiments voiced AFTER ratification are meaningless), passages from the conventions and debates, from the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers,, from numerous Supreme Court decisions, from the Bible, and from the speeches/words of Abraham Lincoln to name just a few.
General Kilpatrick STILL stated that the Dahlgren plan had the backing of Lincoln. And all your protests to the contrary cannot dispel the fact that A Union officer recorded that in 1865 for posterity.
Good, then quit whining about it.
Fixed it for you.
Unless you happened to be a slave. The Corwin Amendment (supported by Lincoln) made slavery PERMANENT.
What the Slave Power demanded was expansion of slavery to all states and territories, and on that point, Lincoln refused to budge an inch.
Contrary to the 7-2 decision of the Supreme Court. Despite decades of several territories being open to slavery, the number of free blacks/slaves was insignificant. There was no demand for slavery to expand.
"I haven't a clue what your g-g grandfather had in mind, and neither do you."
Actually, I do. He was 14 years old. Political ramifications were the furthest thing from his mind, and it wasn't quite "history" yet, even though modern writers seem to attribute a miraculous precience to anyone involved in that war, on the losing side. He ran away and enlisted to find his brothers. His family had no slaves, we think due to his grandmother being Quaker. No oddly hypnotic, fictitious "slave power" hoodwinked him, no matter how much some of you latter-day revisionists might want to make it so. His older brothers died to protect their home and family, nothing more and nothing less. He risked his life to try to find them. So spare me the smug condemnation, please.
Try Lincoln, who worked until his death to accomplish just that. Even in April 1865 he converesed with General Butler about deporting the black Union soldiers to Panama to dig a canal as a REWARD for their service.
Most of your arguments defending the Secessionists are worthless since they are based upon an incorrect view of the Constitution and outright falsehoods as to their actions in addition to recycling their ridiculous lies. Proping them up with semi-relevant quotes is a fruitless endeavor.
I have never mentioned the Dahlgren plan to you or anyone else so your fantasies are getting the better of you again.
Some might consider your insult a personal attack but I have heard mental illness can cause strange behavior.
"Try Lincoln, who worked until his death to accomplish just that."
I guess Liberia doesn't ring any bells with these hardheads, LOL.
" I have heard mental illness can cause strange behavior."
Priceless. Now, just how would you have heard that, LOL?
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.