Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

EverVigilant.net ^ | 06/09/2005 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[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.

[Paige]

And I respectively DISAGREE. There were profiteers from both sides. To blame the slave situation on the South as a whole is not only ludicrous but asinine as well. I made my point with facts I can pull up from various sources. On the other hand I am dealing with someone that seems to have a myopic view who undoubtably will not stop to honestly research the whole 19th century and take a whole view of what led up to the war. If push comes to shove I can prove to you this war wasn't actually over slavery but unfortunately time constraints will not allow me the pleasure. I believe you can start with Google. Thanks and happy reseaching!

[Non-Sequitur]

Prove it.

There is absolutely no evidence to show that either Thomas Jackson or Jefferson Davis ever freed a single slave. Both were meticulous men who kept careful records. If they had ever freed any of their slaves then there would be a paper trail. There is none. Both men have a number of detailed biographies available, including ones written by their wives. None of these biographies say that either man ever freed a slave. Your claim is false.

Now, prove me wrong.

[RegulatorCountry]

"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?"

What you run up against with me, and most likely anyone else with a dog in this hunt, is that your question is, in and of itself, biased. Chattel slavery was not practiced exclusively in the south; to reduce the question to such may be politically expedient, but such reductionism has produced going on two generations who honestly believe that chattel slavery was ONLY practiced in the American south, and that southerners in particular and the US in general is intrinsically evil for having participated, with all other history thrown completely out the window. There is no one on this thread saying anything in defense of the practice. But, it did happen, it happened in all of the colonies, and much of the world. You're pinning an intrinsic evil on one geographic locale and the people who resided in that locale, which creates a false impression. And, this false impression is being used, and used, and used again to tear down anything that southerners stand for and have ever stood for... individual rights, freedom of association, private property and on and on. Things that you stand for as well.

So, does this shed any further light on the lengthy, and sometimes strenuous, discussion on the subject?

[Non-Sequitur]

Your statement contains a number of errors. One, Jackson did not organize the Sunday School, the church of which he was a member did. In that the church was no different than hundreds of other churches througout the south that held Sunday Schools for free blacks and slaves. Two, Jackson did not teach the students to read. Jackson was a meticulous man who kept a syllabus of his class which has survived. There were lectures, Bible readings by teachers, hymns, and nothig else. No reading lessons. Three, Jackson was not threatened with arrest for teaching slaves to read, which was against the law. He was threatened because some members of the community said that the Sunday School class violated the Virginia law which made it illegal for more that five slaves to be gathered in one spot. Jackson told them where to stick their prosecution and they dropped the matter. Source: "Stonewall: Biogaphy of General Thomas J. Jackson" by Byron Farwell

Jackson was also a fair but firm slavemaster. He owned as many as 9 or 10 slaves at one time, selling some to purchase a house and property upon his second marriage.

Now, show me evidence that Jackson ever freed one of his slaves.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh, and you've yet to post a quote from Jackson himself that he opposed slavery.

[sheltonmac]

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?

Like Onesimus, it would depend on the situation. For those slaves who were abused, yes, I would agree that their situation was intrinsically evil. But for those who were treated with Christian kindness and love, no, I wouldn't say that their situation was intrinsically evil--especially if the alternative was the kind of "freedom" many former slaves endured in the North or what their ancestors went through in Africa.

I guess what I would like to know is how you would have handled the situation. The kind of slavery you deem as evil was around for a long time before the War Between the States. Was slavery so evil that its demise was worth 600,000 battlefield deaths and the thousands of lives lost during "Reconstruction" (which, by the way, did much more to damage race relations than slavery)? Or would the more Christian approach have been gradual (i.e., peaceful) emancipation?

But I guess if slavery on the whole was inherently evil, then I would have no choice but to condemn men like Robert E. Lee, who owned slaves, but willingly freed them, or Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, who started a Sunday School for slave children. What evil SOBs they must have been.

[Ditto]

There is quite a bit of history, well known history at that, behind Lee's decision to go with his home state.

Mostly family history. The poor man spent his life trying to live up to the reputations of his father, uncle, and their friend, George Washington.

Nothing against Lee, IMHO, he was a decent man driven by unobtainable expectations.

BTW. As a military man, despite his reputation as a military genius, he does not nearly measure up to Washington. While tactically, he was good, but probably not as good as Sherman, from a strategic standpoint, he simply didn't get it. He showed aggression at the wrong moments, spending his resources, which could not be replaced.

Washington, on the other hand, didn't look for knockout blows as Lee did. He focused on preserving resources, forcing the enemy to spend his, and looking for tactical opportunities where he could gain much at small expense.

As much as Lee idolized Washington, he seemed not to grasp his strategic wisdom in the face of a superior enemy.

[RegulatorCountry]

LOL... your collection of strange FR posts is hilarious. And, unbeknownst to me, I've been debating with a hall of famer. Question: if every married couple with children decided to homeschool, just how much would the "national income" drop as a result, and where would all those jobs go?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Mostly family history."

A rather well documented family, so the history itself is well documented as well.

[TexConfederate1861]

I believe the ball is in YOUR corner.

[TexConfederate1861]

Read the former post: I wasn't able to find any proof...but read again the post

[TexConfederate1861]

Read the sources at the end of the article. What makes your source any more legitimate then mine?

And...R.L. Dabney wrote quite a bit about Jackson as well.

[TexConfederate1861]

I have to disagree with you regarding Lee's Military prowess.....His tactics were so good that they teach and revere him to this very day at WEST POINT. He is considered one of the top American Generals.


I might add that Sherman is NOT.

[RegulatorCountry]

"I might add that Sherman is NOT."

It was an attempt at baiting me, I think. I don't care for "luney" Sherman. But, it's time to call it a day. Later.

[x]

Do you honestly suppose that my second great grandfather had anything on his mind, when he ran off and enlisted in the NC 21st, other than finding his older brothers?

But why was there a war for him to go to? Most soldiers in most wars, if they're not completely mercenaries or slaves, go to war for home and family and native land and an idea of freedom, but that doesn't explain why the war started.

What "caused" a war is a tricky thing. Why men fight has a subjective and personal answer as well as a more general reason which explains better why the war actually occurred.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Most soldiers in most wars, if they're not completely mercenaries or slaves, go to war for home and family and native land and an idea of freedom"

Well. thank you very much for backing off of all the absolutist nonsense that has been present on this thread. Very refreshing. Going back in time, prior to an omnipresent media shaping perceptions, the hows and the whys might not have been clear until well after the fact. Or, never, if there's enough political hay to be made, as is the case with the so-called "Civil War" in the US. It's too rich of a lode of loaded symbolism for leftists in particular to ever, ever let it go.

[sheltonmac]

Question: if every married couple with children decided to homeschool, just how much would the "national income" drop as a result, and where would all those jobs go?

Isn't it obvious? Our nation would collapse back into slavery! ;-)

[RegulatorCountry]

"Isn't it obvious? Our nation would collapse back into slavery! ;-) "

Ahh, so you're familiar with the merry-go-round, too? Why didn't you give the poor noob a hint, LOL?

[x]

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the war occured because of local patriotism or family feeling. A lot of the confusion here is because some people are talking about objective causes and others are talking about individual honor or virtue.

[Ditto]

I might add that Sherman is NOT.

Lee's entire war (save for the early months as a secondary commander in South Carolina, was waged in an area approximately 200 miles in diameter, and every battle he won, which were indeed many, took the Confederacy another step toward defeat. His battlefield tactics were brilliant, but his strategic sense for modern, industrial war was abysmal.

Sherman, on the other hand took his Corps on a thousand mile march through the heart of the Confederacy, never sent his men into the teeth of entrenched troops, outflanked, out maneuvered and out fought every opponent he faced, lost less men in the entire war than Lee lost at Gettysburg, and quite literally ripped the guts and the will fight out of the Deep South.

Lee simply did not have the necessary resources to wage the aggressive campaigns that he is most remembered for. At a time in the war when he should have dared the Yankees to come to him, to bleed them of money, blood and will to fight, he instead mounted a disastrous campaign into the North which he could not afford even if he had won at Gettysburg. It not only gave the North a great victory, it served the even more important purpose of renewing the commitment of the Northern population to reach victory. By the time Lee accepted the fact that he was in a survival mode, with his only hope being to hold out until the North grew tired of fighting, the Confederacy was already lost and Virginia, Lee's universe, was for all practical purposes, cut off from the world.

Lee mastered Napoleonic tactics better than Napoleon himself. But his reliance on 18th century tactics in a 19th century war, doomed him, and the Confederacy. 18th century tactics made winners of those who carried the day. Modern war makes winners of those who live to fight another day. Lee never understood that. Grant and especially Sherman, did.

I'd also say that for literally four votes in the Virginia legislature 30 years before Gettysburg, Robert E. Lee would have been remembered today as a great commander of Union forces in the Civil War. His weakness was inbred, instinctive, unquestioning loyalty to a family legacy totally wasted on a corrupt system that did not deserve it.

Lee was also a romantic, who considered war to be the same. Sherman was a steely eyed realist who understood that war, especially modern war, was quite literally HELL and the only way to fight it is totally!