Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

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.

There was a fundamental change in the view of slavery from the time of the Founding and the South began to defend it as an absolute Good rather than the necessary Evil. Jefferson never viewed it as anything but the latter.

The difficulties since the Civil War primarily resulted because the South refused to allow the freedmen their constitutional rights and the Republican Party gave up after the election of 1876 trying to ensure them. This delayed the advent of full rights to all Americans for almost a century. And it kept Blacks virtually enslaved and economically retarded driving the two cultures further apart until they were almost alien to each other.

I do not call Southerners RATS RAT Rebellion is meant to underscore the fact that those rebelling were DemocRATS. This FACT is routinely ignored today as the party's history is whitewashed.

How could the Union have been saved when there was an organized and powerful conspiracy to destroy it? That is like saying we can get along with Al Queda with just a little common sense. The Slavers were determined that a war come they were convinced that they had such powerful allies in the North, an easily duped population in the South and European allies at the mercy of King Cotton the Ruler of the World. They were convinced that the North would not fight and if it should try it would be easily defeated. These were powerful but totally deluded men.

And they gave Lincoln no chance for peace nor any choice but war. Any President would have been in the same position. Others had actually faced such threats. Andy Jackson called the Nullifiers "traitors" and said he would hang them. Who doubts that he would have?

And Abolitionists in no way "created" John C. Calhoun. The former were reacting to inhumanity in the best spirit of human nature. THEY were in the right even if their methods were not all admirable or even legal. Condemnation of them is siding with the wrong people.

Regarding Secession: “It is better, for the South to fight for her rights in the Union than out of it.”

Regarding Slavery: I haven't found any quote regarding Jackson's views in particular, but an article that shows he was radical in his views toward blacks, in that day and age:

Stonewall Jackson, Friend to the Black Man

by R.G. Williams, Jr.

Mention the legendary Confederate General Stonewall Jackson to most people and the image that immediately comes to mind is one of a fearless, hard-fighting Southerner who was known for his eccentrics and who some would argue fought for slavery. But Thomas Jonathan Jackson was a much more complicated man than what most Americans realize.

A careful study of his life would lead one to believe that General Jackson might even be described as a civil rights leader. Yes, you read right, a civil rights leader. In the nineteenth century, prior to the War Between the States, Virginia law prohibited whites to teach blacks to read or write. Though Stonewall Jackson was a loyal Virginian and was known as an upstanding and law-abiding citizen in Lexington, he routinely broke this law every Sunday. Some historians believe he was even threatened with prosecution for ignoring Virginia law, and he was most definitely ridiculed for thinking he could help the poor, ignorant “Negroes.”

Though the law was not strictly enforced, Jackson quietly practiced civil disobedience by having an organized Sunday school class every Sunday afternoon, teaching them to read and teaching them the way of salvation. There are still churches active today that were founded by those blacks reached with the Gospel through Jackson's efforts. Jackson taught the Sunday school class for blacks while he served as a deacon in Lexington’s Presbyterian Church. It was in the autumn of 1855 that Jackson, with the permission of his pastor, Dr. William S. White, began the class in a building near the main sanctuary. Every Sabbath afternoon shortly before 3:00 p.m., the church bell would toll, letting everyone know it was time to worship the Creator of all men. Jackson quickly gained the admiration and respect of blacks in the surrounding area, as his zeal was apparent, and he took this solemn responsibility seriously. Attendance often numbered over 100, and Dr. White later wrote that Jackson “threw himself into this work with all of his characteristic energy and wisdom.”

But Jackson not only demanded much of himself in reaching both the slaves and free blacks, he demanded much of his students. His classes began promptly at 3:00, and once he started, the classroom door was locked and latecomers were not allowed entrance. Bibles and books were awarded to those who were faithful and showed satisfactory progress. He also expected his students to give to the Lord’s work:

“On one occasion Gen. Thomas J. Jackson was appointed one of the collectors of the Bible Society. When he returned his list it was discovered that, at the end, copied by the clerk of session, was a considerable number of names written in pencil, to each of which a very small amount was attached. Moreover, the session, recognizing very few of the names, asked who these were. Jackson’s characteristic reply was, ‘They are the militia; as the Bible Society is not a Presbyterian but a Christian cause, I deemed it best to go beyond the limits of our own church.’ They were the names chiefly of free Negroes.”

This relationship between Jackson and the blacks of his community was not all that uncommon in the South, particularly pertaining to whites who were devout Christians.

“In Jackson’s mind, slaves were children of God placed in subordinate situations for reasons only the Creator could explain. Helping them was a missionary effort for Jackson. Their souls had to be saved. Although Jackson could not alter the social status of slaves, he could and did display Christian decency to those whose lot it was to be in bondage . . . he was emphatically the black man’s friend.” ~ Dr. James I. Robertson

It was obvious that Jackson’s concern for his black brethren was real and something that occupied his mind even at the height of the war:

“Soon after one of the great battles, a large crowd gathered one day at the post office in Lexington, anxiously awaiting the opening of the mail, that they might get the particulars concerning the great battle which they had heard had been fought. The venerable pastor of the Presbyterian Church (Rev. Dr. W.S. White, from whom I received the incident) was of the company, and soon had handed him a letter which he recognized as directed in Jackson's well known handwriting. ‘Now,’ said he, ‘we will have the news! Here is a letter from General Jackson himself.’ The crowd eagerly gathered around, but heard to their very great disappointment a letter which made not the most remote allusion to the battle or the war, but which enclosed a check for fifty dollars with which to buy books for his colored Sunday school, and was filled with inquiries after the interests of the school and the church. He had no time for inclination to write of the great victory and the imperishable laurels he was winning; but he found time to remember his noble work among God's poor, and to contribute further to the good of the Negro children whose true friend and benefactor he had always been. And he was accustomed to say that one of the very greatest privations to him which the war brought, was that he was taken away from his loved work in the colored Sunday school.” ~ William Jones

It was further obvious that the blacks of Lexington knew that Jackson’s love and concern for their spiritual well-being was real and they returned his affection:

“Jackson thus acquired a wonderful influence over the colored people of that whole region, and to this day his memory is warmly cherished by them. When Hunter's army was marching into Lexington, the Confederate flag which floated over Jackson's grave was hauled down and concealed by some of the citizens. A lady who stole into the cemetery one morning while the Federal army was occupying the town, bearing fresh flowers with which to decorate the hero's grave, was surprised to find a miniature Confederate flag planted on the grave with a verse of a familiar hymn pinned to it. Upon inquiry she found that a colored boy, who had belonged to Jackson's Sunday school, had procured the flag, gotten some one to copy a stanza of a favorite hymn which Jackson had taught him, and had gone in the night to plant the flag on the grave of his loved teacher.” ~ William Jones

General Stonewall Jackson was, without question, one of the greatest generals America ever produced. He was fearless in battle and his legendary “Valley Campaign” fought in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is still studied by militarists to this day. But more than that, he was a devout Christian and a lover of all good men ~ regardless of their color. Southerners and lovers of truth should do everything possible to educate future generations about the truth of our history, especially when it comes to the heroes of our faith and of our beloved Southland. Only in truth can we worship the Creator of ALL men.

Sources:

Stonewall Jackson, The Man, The Soldier, The Legend by James I. Robertson

Christ in the Camp by J. William Jones

You point out, what I alluded to in my comment on the Abolitionist agitation producing (as a reaction) the Southern Fire Eater. Had the Abolitionists treated the South with respect, there would have been far less fanaticism on the other side.

The Democratic Party was the more Conservative party in the era, of which you write, so your reference to the fact that most of the Southerners were Democrats, makes no point, whatsoever. I certainly would have been a Democrat in that era.

Your reference to John C. Calhoun, leaves me puzzled. Yes Andrew Jackson threatened him. But Calhoun was more of a statesman than Andy Jackson--although even with a bit of a demagogue in him, Andy still looks pretty good compared to any of our recent Presidents, with the exception of Ronald Reagan. Even a "Liberal," like JFK recognized the stature of Calhoun as a major statesman.

But, enough of this. The point is simply, that the Southerners need to honor their heritage. (That is a basic Western value--more basic than the labor system, or questions of suffrage.) You are certainly free to honor yours. I don't want that essential point to get lost in this ping pong game of minor points.

William Flax

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.