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.
"In fact, those horrible Northern states were the goal of slaves escaping"
Wrong. It was Canada.
A fundamental Law of the Land can only be changed by the mechanism included within it for change. Madison explained that there was NO conditional ratification with a prospect for secession later. It was SPECIFICALLY brought up in the NY state ratification convention and SPECIFICALLY addressed by Madison who DECISIVELY affirmed NO SECESSION was to be allowed. Sorry if the FACTS bother you.
Athenian slaves could buy their freedom. Indeed, they were encouraged to do so by saving money...note they were also paid for their work (not a market wage, but any pay is more than slaves received under the chattel system). Also, the category of what were called slaves included people like public street sweepers and other public servants. It was a very, very large group.
Which leads to Rome. Rome was obviously a slave society...but just about everyone in Rome was considered a slave: the conquered, debtors, and criminals. No doubt they did not have a life you would want. But note that their status was also predicated upon something other than race. In some sense, at least under Roman law, slaves "deserved" their fate. They had broken the law or become indebted...or had been among the conquered. We might not agree with those categories. But they are not as barbaric as race based chattel slavery.
Moreover, by the time that Paul wrote, the Roman Empire, for all of its shortcomings, had begun to extend some greater legal protections to slaves. They could not be killed gratuitously, and if too mercilessly treated, they could win freedom and become part of the freed class. And their work became not nearly as brutal. That is why, as I am sure you know, in the New Testament, the word for "slave" which is "doulos" in Greek, can be translated correctly as either slave or servant.
All in all, there is little comparison between slavery in antiquity and race based chattel slavery in the American south. That anyone would defend the latter and still think themselves a friend of liberty is entirely beyond my comprehension. I wouldn't defend either system or any other system which can be called slavery. But of the slave systems that existed historically, race based chattel slavery is the most evil and it is intrinsically evil.
God help us if we can't agree on that without thinking.
A picture of your glorious leader responding to notice that the world has moved on since 1865?
"Sovereignty" is the implicit enumerated status - the Union - of which the Constitution itself is the object, which committed the states to that new sovereignty, which, by its character, imposed a more limited sovereignty on the states. They are no longer fully "independent", they are part of a "Union" and their sovereignty is limited to the terms of that Union. Only the Union, through mechanisms of the Union, can alter or disolve itself, or devolve, or limit any of its sovereignty backwards to the prior independent state of any state. An attempt to impose such a devolution, independently, is an act against all the other states of the Union and thereby the Union itself.
Again, the test is not in the ratification process. It is in the altered state of powers that the "ratified" contract created. It is not 50 separate contracts, with 50 independent clauses for what it means to 50 different entities. It is a new entity, a new nation, whose soverignty - whose self definition - is not subject to the independent act of any one of the 50 states seeking, independently, to change that definition, that sovereignty of the whole. The Union can change itself, if enough people across the Union want to change it. A state cannot change the nature, the definition, of the Union (secede) except by agreement with the Union. There is no legal question of this.
"Are you trying to imply that I am #3?"
I can't speak for 4CJ, but I know I'm beginning to wonder.
Couldn't answer the question, huh? But I digress.
I can't imagine why I'm doing this since it will only generate a smart-assed remark from you. But throughout his life Lee owned slaves outright and through his wife's inheritance. There is at least one documented instance where he paid passage for two of the former slaves to Liberia. Since he did it for the Burke's, and given the laws in place in Virginia at the time, it's reasonable to assume that Lee made the same offer to other slaves he manumitted and some of them may have emigrated as well. The slaves left to his wife in his father-in-law's estate were all freed in December 1862, slightly longer than the 5 years mandated in George W. P. Custis' will. But since Lee was occupied with other matters at the time we can't criticize him for being a little tardy, can we?
Then there is William Mack Lee. William Mack Lee served as Lee's body servant throughout the war, traveling with Lee as part of his headquarters and in 1918 he published a colorful history of his time during the war. His status at the time is unclear. William Mack Lee is described by newspapers as having been Lee's slave throughout the rebellion and remaining with Lee until his death in 1870 even though the war made him free. Mack Lee himself claims in the book that all Lee slaves were freed 10 years before the war, something that was clearly mistaken. So depending on who you believe, Lee may have held a slave until Appomattox.
That was because the Slavers INSISTED that they be counted as humans when votes were at stake but as CHATTEL when rights were at issue. But the non-slavers would not allow the slavers to be allowed extra representation for their human cattle.
"All in all, there is little comparison between slavery in antiquity and race based chattel slavery in the American south"
Or in Brazil, or in Cuba, or in Barbados... let's be inclusive here.
It certainly is fascinating. How could you come to such an asinine conclusion based on what I posted?
It was also the north. Canada was desirable because the Fugative Slave laws would not affect them there while they could still be seized and taken back into bondage in the US. Canada was the safest destination but ANYWHERE was better than the Land of the Whip and Lash.
"Mack Lee himself claims in the book that all Lee slaves were freed 10 years before the war, something that was clearly mistaken."
You're disputing the word of a former slave, regarding his own experience in bondage. I wonder why?
You can waste your time if you like.
The DSs are either incapable of understanding this or refuse to admit its truth.
"How could you come to such an asinine conclusion based on what I posted?"
Oh, was that a misplaced modifier? Did you mean "manumitted outright," or "owned outright?"
Ummmm. Because there is evidence that contradicts it?
"Or in Brazil, or in Cuba, or in Barbados... let's be inclusive here."
Absolutely. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
"Because there is evidence that contradicts it?"
Apparently his own account, of his own life, carries no weight, then?
"That was because the Slavers INSISTED that they be counted as humans when votes were at stake"
And abolitionists insisted that slaves were not fully human, when votes were at stake? You've got to admit, this does not support your end of the debate too terribly well, now does it?
Who said anything about Abolitionists? They weren't involved in writing the Constitution.
But even if they were your distortion won't work since no one was discussing allowing Slaves to VOTE these were extra seats in the House allocated to Slave states by counting the slaves as people even though they weren't TREATED as people.
Such attempts at distorting what I say is neither helpful nor amusing. And I know you aren't so dumb as to believe that is what was my point.
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.