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.
"Slavery is inexcusably evil. Civil War is pretty evil, also. Dismantling the Constitution was also sick."
I can agree with you on all of the above; I consider myself to be a "small L" libertarian. It is the details of the conflict that invariably cause controversy. I refuse to let my people, who were involved -mostly on the Confederate side- be smeared. You have got to admit, that a skewed interpretation of this so-called Civil War is being used to even further dismantle the Constitution.
I missed this earlier. It is not correct. There was only one thing accepted wrt ratification. An answer to the question do you ratify or not. Yes or No. Nothing else had any weight.
No, I never defended slavery. I could just as easily say that you are defending slavery because you obviously believe that only certain forms of slavery are inherently evil.
The point is not that the whole country profited from slavery but that there were those who wanted to do something against an evil inhuman system and others who defended it at all costs. Some valued slavery more than their country. They were the ones who planned and provoked the war.
I have referenced several times on this thread the views of the Founders with regard to secession. Read Washington's Farewell Address for a clear warning. You might also consult Madison's letter to Hamilton during the NY state ratification convention where he definitively states that there is to be no secession allowed. For some of the logic of the concept of a Constitution see #199,#344, #402.
"All it would've taken would've been a group of Southron elites who gave more of a damn about freedom than their own power."
Perhaps true, to a point. One wonders, though, how long it would have been before the national socialists in the north to think of a pretext for dismantling the limited government envisioned by the original Constitution. I guess it would have been ...probably until the 1930's when government action set off the depression...which resulted in more government action...which prolonged the depression...which resulted in more government action...the packing of the court...until eventually depression passed.
At least they would have had further to go had the first Constitutional revolution of the CW amendments not happened. That would have given about another 40 years or so to liberty.
And then we could talk about the good old days of the Constitution without aligning ourselves with slavery.
Gentlemen, here's the point. When we see liberty being squandered, we need to strike hard and fast. If we compromise, all we are doing is waiting for the day when that compromise is going to come back and haunt us. Our founders let slavery live on when it could have perhaps been dealt with in a more manageable way. Then it became a growth industry, then a crisis, then a way....then we lost the consittution.
Then there was a period of status quo, until we got hit with an economic crisis. Then a previous generation put in a smiling, genial communist who promised to deliver us from want and deprivation. What he did was dismantle what remained of the constitution. Again, we were asleep while liberty suffered.
There are a few battles worth fighting today. Guns, contra income tax, growth of government, homeschooling, life, the UN. We should all agree to be absolutists on these points. If we win onthem continually and WITHOUT COMPROMISE...then, maybe, slowly, we can start to resurrect the original vision of the Constitution of limited government.
Abolitionists were never in control of the government thus to claim that Southern reaction to them was fundamental is simply not correct. They infuriated the Slavers no doubt as well as most of the North.
That era's Democrat party was not conservative but anti-Nationalist.
My comment about Jackson was meant to show that Lincoln was not alone in how to treat those threatening the Union.
MY heritage is Southern but there is nothing to honor about defending slavery. It was an abomination and ever shall be.
I don't believe that is the case...Other states did the same as Virginia.
That was a damn good post.
Had Sam Houston been elected in 1860 (he ran for the Constitutionalist nomination and lost), perhaps the fate of the country would have been different.
And all the Texans shouted....AMEN!!!
So you are beginning to grasp the point I made many posts ago.
They had no power to do anything like that which they didn't in any case. Congress did not empower them to do anything but say yes or no. And the documents which allegedly show otherwise do not upon careful examination.
Actually, Old Sam almost got strung up in Brenham, TX before the war, due to his outspoken views against secession. For the record, Sam owned slaves, and had NO problem with it.
"You have got to admit, that a skewed interpretation of this so-called Civil War is being used to even further dismantle the Constitution."
Almost....it's more like this, I think. Liberals are (correctly) against slavery. That gives them in their own minds the moral high ground to advance their entire agenda which included then, as it does now, the dismantling of anything stopping unlimited government.
It's sort of like the people in FDR's administration (and after) who were in love with the Soviet Union because they suffered extensively and fought valiantly against the evil Nazis (conveniently forgetting that until the Nazis took Poland they were buddies).
The point being: being against evil, doesn't make one good. Hell, even feminists are against pornography. That sure doesn't make them good, nor does it make pornography right.
As far as the Soviets go, we all acknowledge: they fought valiantly against the Nazis. We should be grateful for that. We should salute them for how they fought. We should have sent them a thank you note. And a big fat kiss.
Then in 1945 we should have betrayed them, rolled in the tanks and wiped their sorry communist asses off the face of the planet, thus avoiding the enslavement and death of tens of millions!
"Remember one of the first slogans was "United We Stand Divided We Fall" and one of the first flags showed the US snake cut into pieces indicative of weakness and failure."
That would be "Don't Tread On Me." Inspired by the Gadsden Flag of South Carolina and the Culpepper Flag of Virginia. The First Navy Jack, also known as a Culpepper Flag, featured the "rebellious stripes" created at the time of the Stamp Act, as well as the native rattlesnake and the words "Don't Tread On Me." All of these were themselves inspired by a political cartoon penned by Benjamin Franklin in 1754. The eight "pieces" represented the colonies, with New England at the head and South Carolina at the tail. The implication was "join or die." Confederates also used rattlesnake flags... want to ban the display of them?
READ PLEASE:
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known NOTE THIS NEXT SENTENCE:
>>>that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will<<<
It is as clear as day, that Virginia has retained the right of secession. Do I need to show more examples?
"That era's Democrat party was not conservative but anti-Nationalist."
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
"So you are beginning to grasp the point I made many posts ago."
Well, actually, I was hoping you were beginning to grasp that all this "slaver" rhetoric was nonsensical in light of the fact that the whole "3/5 human" thing cannot be attributed to southerners. That acknowledging the full humanity of a people was denied in service to political power hardly feathers the cap of those who would categorically deny all things southern as "slavers," won't you agree?
Rubbish.
My standard is the Biblical one. Onesimus should have returned to his master; the Egyptians provoked the wrath of God by not letting the people go. Obviously Paul knew more about Exodus than either you or I. He didn't say that Onesimus should escape but that he should return. We can therefore rightly conclude that Onesimus' particular situation was much more like indentured servitude rather than slavery. And we know enough about Rome to know that this was very likely.
Also, as I alread demonstrated, Roman indentured servitude, though hardly desirable, is not intrinsically evil. It is no more intrinsically evil than being a migrant farm worker. That would suck - and in a sense it is a form of "slavery" (ie, hard work, little pay). But it is not the same as race based chattel slavery. The way to get rid of these types of institutions is through the path of liberty: economic growth, the growth of freedom, knowledge, culture, etc.
How about one more chance? Just say yes or no.
Do you agree (without endorsing any particular plan of abolition - which is a whole nuther question) that slavery as practiced in the south was intrinsically evil?
If not, then, you are, in fact, a defender of the institution.
No kidding? It's easy to say after the war that you're glad that slavery was abolished. It's also far preferable to saying that your bitter or unhappy about abolition, but it doesn't mean that you were anti-slavery all along.
Now let's consider this a bit. Abraham Lincoln changed his mind about slavery and race over the last years of his life. Yet his later statements and actions are ignored and regarded as irrelevant by those who only credit his earlier utterances.
Lee's attitude changed too, but we're expected to take his later statements as reflecting the "real" Lee. Most unbiased observers would probably see a real contradiction here. But it's not so much Lee's as that of his present-day partisans.
"Actually, Old Sam almost got strung up in Brenham, TX before the war, due to his outspoken views against secession. For the record, Sam owned slaves, and had NO problem with it."
Yeah, but he had a BIG problem with secession...which is why he is in some sense sort of a moderate...and may well have been a good President.
It's not about the South - it's about getting something for nothing.
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.