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.
Apparently. His account wasn't published until 53 years after the rebellion, when Mack Lee was about 83.
While that is true it is nothing that makes the slave states admirable only points out their limited vision. And as I pointed out above almost all states allowed slavery at the time of the ratification.
One of whom expressed a desire to go there, became a preacher and continued to exchange letters with the Lee's.
I'm talking about Jefferson Davis not Thomas Jefferson.
"Extending your argument, I can now paint all northerners as agreeing with Mather, Pennsylvania or Massachussets?"
Are you saying that the leadership (ahem, "National Command Authorities") of the Confederate States of America did NOT hold with Mr. Stephens' sentiments?
We know about the Burke's going to Liberia because of the letters from Mrs. Burke to Mrs. Lee. Like I said I think it's reasonable to assume that Lee offered the same opportunity to other slaves he manumitted since none of them could legally remain in Virginia. It's very likely that other Lee chattel were colonists as well.
Lee was fundamentally opposed to slavery and secession, but he loved Virginia more.
So was Stonewall Jackson. I believe the biggest problem was that even though many in the South disagreed with the institution, they also believed that it was an example of States-Rights, and that the North was going to use it as an excuse to destroy the South.
"It had nothing to do with being anti-slavery or pro-slavery but only with the allocation of political power."
Interesting evasion, in light of just how this "3/5 human" decision has come to be interpreted. Typically, it is and has been attributed to racist southerners, which could not be further from the truth.
Been there.
I suppose you have a quote to support that?
Whatever.
Barely :) The story goes that his family turned his picture to the wall, when he chose to remain with the Union.
"Lee was fundamentally opposed to slavery and secession, but he loved Virginia more."
I am fundamentally opposed to certain things. That means that, under no circumstances whatsoever, do I engage in doing those things.
Lee owned slaves. So much for being "fundamentally opposed" to slavery.
Lee commanded the Army of Northern Virginia under the national command authority of the Confederate States of America. So much for being "fundamentally opposed" to secession.
Maybe your definition of "fundamentally opposed" parses as "talking out of one's dorsal orifice." Mine does not.
But that was the last resort. He hated having to do that.
Gentleman:
May I suggest we all tone it down a notch. We can respect each others view without refering to each other, as "traitors", and other insulting terms. Our purpose here is to debate History. Not get personal.
Good advice, TC1861. I'll take the high road.
Not one of the Founders supported the idea of secession so that statement is false.
Care to point to me calling someone a "filthy, disgusting" liar? I'll wait.
Jefferson, as most of the Southern leadership at the time, openly expressed their "misgivings about slavery." Yet, it was not the defining institution for their culture. Nor was it some outlandish system, unique to the South. It was in many respects, similar to the Feudal system in Europe of a few centuries earlier--and in the case of Russia, contemporaneously. It was the system of Athens in the golden age, as well--indeed of most of the great civilizations. It was certainly accepted in the Bible as a moral system.
Jefferson saw its flaws, as he also saw the immense problem involved in determining a way to end it, without causing a whole raft of new problems. (And such has been the history of the United States since 1865, as to demonstrate the accuracy of Jefferson's latter misgivings.)
Ohio was a bastion for the defense of the Union during the RAT Rebellion what happened to you?
Calling the Southerners "Rats," is childish. But Ohio was indeed the factor which gave the North the victory. And as a boy, I was always quite proud of that distinction. But understand this, traditional Ohioans used to honor both Lee and Grant. At least in Southern Ohio, the abolitionist fanatics were never respected. (And, indeed, on the subject of Lee and Grant, the almost reverential courtesy, which Grant showed Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia, at the time of surrender, was very reflective of Ohio attitudes, even generations later.)
As for me, personally? I believe that the Union could have been saved without war, had a little common sense been employed. The tragedy is, that the very attitude you evince, which cannot look beyond your hatred of slavery, tended to marginalize both sides, and make real dialogue next to impossible. The Abolitionist rhetoric created the Southern Fire Eater, and a whole new class of politicians, North and South, who had lost all perspective of what the Constitutional Republic was all about. (A situation analogous, perhaps, to what happened to Chrisianity in Germany, during the 30 Years War.)
William Flax
An "evasion"? Not in the slightest. Pointing out your incorrect view of what happened and explaining how it came to be is hardly an evasion. I mean you were trying to claim Abolitionists had something to do with it.
Slavers wanted 8/8s because it would increase their power NOT because they believed slaves had any humanity or human rights. It is dishonest for you to pretend otherwise.
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.