- That anyone would defend the latter and still think themselves a friend of liberty is entirely beyond my comprehension.
I'm not sure what thread you're reading, but I haven't read a single post here defending any form of slavery.
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.
Not when they contradict legal documents which Virginia required to be filed.
Cotton Mather of Boston, in his Rules for the Society of the Negroes (1693) opined that blacks were enslaved because they had sinned against God. In Pennsylvania & Massachussets blacks marrying whites were to be enslaved.
Extending your argument, I can now paint all northerners as agreeing with Mather, Pennsylvania or Massachussets?
"Defend the Slaverocracy Syndrome"
DSS is an acronym for the Department of Social Services in my neck of the woods. But, Defend the Slaveocracy Syndrome would be an apt substitute, in light of the dysfunction and dependency that has been engendered over the past four decades by the DSS.
I'm not sure what thread you're reading, but I haven't read a single post here defending any form of slavery.
"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."
So, it was not idealistic anti-slavery sentiment that was driving the "free" states' support of slaves in the south being considered 3/5 human, for the purpose of apportionment. Congratulations, we agree on something.
When one refers to the Southern leaders--men steeped in Jeffersonian values, as "slavers," because the writer does not like a particular institution in their States, one is not engaging in an intelligent historic argument. One is simply demonstrating for all to see that he is so focused on the individual trees in a particular historic setting, that he has lost any sense of context, of the ancient forest, in which those particular trees have grown.
Would it be fair to refer to the early people of Massachusetts as "stockers," because they humiliated their folk by putting them on public display in stocks? Well, it might be fair, but it would hardly capture the true essence of the society involved.
When one insists that a man born in slavery but freed (who as a loyal and faithful retainer, remains with a former master, out of love and devotion), may still have been a slave; the one insisting shows a side of his own personality, he would be better advised to keep hidden. It is well documented that many of the former slaves remained loyal to the White families with which they had been associated. While the idea may be offensive to those who have bought into the Marxist cant about class warfare, it is fully consistent with the moral history of the West. The loyal and faithful servant, has always been among the most honored of beings.
It is important that our Southern cousins remain proud of their heritage. It is one of the last threads of continuity to the basic American concepts upon which the Union was premised. It is the South, which has remained most consistent with her roots. And there is no hope for a Conservative triumph in America today, which is not in a large measure dependent upon the South for a foundation.
Forgive my rambling interjections into your discussion. My take on the still ongoing attack on the South, which commenced during the Clinton years--what a turncoat he is--was set forth several years ago: Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America Today.
Hang in there!
William Flax
Que?
In Missouri, the story is just a little different.
Go to Wilson's Creek sometime.
Both emancipated their slaves. What BULL!
Your first loyalty should be to your HOME. If you fight against the land that bred you, that is the WORST sort of Traitor.
My home is Texas, Robert E. Lee's was Virginia.
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."
Douglas S. Freeman, Robert E. Lee, New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons (1934), Vol IV, p. 401
Point out the non-Slaver leaders in the South and I will happily exclude them from the accurate term. Slavery is nothing those proud of the South should defend. And the Rulers at that time had little, if anything, in common with Jefferson. They rejected his misgivings about slavery adopting only his rhetoric.
Ohio was a bastion for the defense of the Union during the RAT Rebellion what happened to you?
The Founding fathers were also aware that the Southern States would have NEVER ratified the Constitution with slavery outlawed, hence, NO UNION.
Not so....I honor Washington, but Lincoln made war on my homeland, and my people. Not to mention he violated the Constitution he swore to uphold.
The bull is in your statement, Tex, not in mine. Thomas Jackson never emancipated a single slave he owned, something he had in common with Jefferson Davis.
They're called facts - the words spoken/written by the founders.
Some might consider your insult a personal attack but I have heard mental illness can cause strange behavior.
it never stopped you form posting before.
Friend:
There are indeed a group of persons here that hate the South. I would be more than happy to send you a list by Freepmail, if you desire.....
Jefferson was a spendthrift. His estate sold slaves to pay his debts.
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.