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.

[stainlessbanner]

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

That's why Lee's moves are still studied at West Point today.

[stainlessbanner]

These threads are always somewhat amusing. I can go away for a few hours and the Wlat Brigade has switched tactics from calling FReepers names to bashing Confederate Generals.

We just need a cut and paste diatribe from their leader to make this thread complete.

[TexConfederate1861]

I agree with you that, yes, if Lee had chosen to fight in the same manner as Sherman, the South would have probably won the war. However, Lee was a gentleman. One of my favorite quotes by him, which my father had placed in my college ring is: "Honor, is the sublimest word in the English Language." Lee not only lived by that creed, but emulated it in all that he did. True, he was not a realist in some ways, but he refused to make war on civilians, which to me is totally admirable. Lee's Northern Campaign was a well thought-out strategy, and if the South had won at Gettysburg, the show would have been over. But Jeb Stuart wasn't around to scout, and Lee chose to fight on poor ground, so you know the rest of the story.

[TexConfederate1861]

My friend:

I submit that Ditto is a gentleman. we may not agree at times, but unless provoked, he is respectful. WLAT was just a sorry SOB.

[Natural Law]

140 years after the fact I no longer care what Lincoln's motives were or what other places on earth did or did not have slavery. Anyway you slice it slavery was an evil institution. Any defense of it was wrong. Anything that served to end it was right.

[Ditto]

That's why Lee's moves are still studied at West Point today.

As they should be. He was the last great Napoleonic commander. Unfortunately, he wasn't fighting a Napoleonic war.

[hershey]

Common sense and a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

[Non-Sequitur]

I believe the ball is in YOUR corner.

You can run, but you can't hide. I've demonstrated that there is not a single shred of evidence that I'm aware of that either Thomas Jackson or Jefferson Davis ever voluntarily freed a slave. You claim that I am incorrect. You must have something to support your claim. Produce it.

[Non-Sequitur]

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

I've read the post. It was highly imaginative but does nothing to support your claim that Jackson was opposed to slavery. Since he owned slaves much of his adult life and since he was a slave owner the day he died and since you are incapable, once again, of providing evidence to support your claim then I'm forced to conclude that your claims are incorrect.

[Non-Sequitur]

What makes your source any more legitimate then mine?

But your sources do nothing to support your claim.

[Non-Sequitur]

I refuse to let my people, who were involved -mostly on the Confederate side- be smeared.

And yet you have absolutely no problem smearing those involved on the Union side.

[ConservativeDude]

This is pretty much how I thought you would answer.

As for me, I do not have any pretension of knowing how to solve the slavery issue, but the Biblical standard would have been to thunder from the pulpits, search the Scriptures, spread the word - basically those methods of the early church and the Reformation. I have no sympathy for the course of Reconstruction, or the dismantling of the Constitution that the CW entailed. In the realm of legal reform, obviously something like incremental emancipation would have been preferable.

You continue to mix up the basic moral question with a program of action..as well as throwing in red herrings about the subjective morality of defenders of the South. I have yet to judge any particular players; obviously there are always mixed motives, sometimes better sometimes worse.

But the basic question of whether it is ok for another person to be completely owned in a race based chattel slavery system....that is not even a close call! It is intrinsically evil and should somehow (perhaps gradually, perhaps with compensation, ideally nonviolently) be done away with.

People who agree with that basic sentiment are no favor to the conservative cause and certainly no friend of liberty.

[ConservativeDude]

"Chattel slavery was not practiced exclusively in the south"

My question assumes nothing of the sort. I was merely trying to distinguish from antiquity. Feel free to add whatever other venues where a comparable institution exists. I don't give a shit..

"who honestly believe that chattel slavery was ONLY practiced in the American south"

I don't believe that. Nor is that relevant to the question.

"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."

I DAMN sure don't believe that. I think your inability to criticize this particular point of US history is the more relevant shortcoming.

"There is no one on this thread saying anything in defense of the practice."

This is flatly wrong. Read a bit more closely.

"You're pinning an intrinsic evil on one geographic locale" No I'm not.

"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."

See my posts about liberalism and the Soviet Union. That is all true.

But you still have to chime in on the fundamental question.

Just as you do on the question of life. Is abortion intrinsically evil or not? If you say, "it depends" then you are, like it or not, a defender of the institution. If you say it is evil, then the next much more difficult and perhaps a question which can't be satisfied in our lifetime is...what are you gonna do about it? Part two is always harder. But unless you are willing to take the first step morally, then you never even get there.


Oh, well, it's been fun...but if I don't stop posting here, I'm going to have to sell myself into chattelslavery because I have to work.

Later all.

[sheltonmac]

You continue to mix up the basic moral question with a program of action..as well as throwing in red herrings about the subjective morality of defenders of the South. I have yet to judge any particular players; obviously there are always mixed motives, sometimes better sometimes worse.

I'm not throwing in red herrings, and you're copping out. You said that the form of slavery practiced in the South (and you did single out the South here, here, here and here) was "intrinsically evil." You even went so far as to compare it (quite unfairly) to abortion, which is the systematic slaughter of innocent children. Now, I'm sure you and I would agree that abortionists, by definition, are murderers and are therefore evil. So does that mean you are comparing men like Robert E. Lee to abortionists? Why can't you just admit that you think Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jackson and everyone else involved in the practice of slavery were "intrinsically evil"? If you can't or won't do that, then you're being hypocritical.

Abortion is murder, and that is specifically condemned in scripture. Slavery isn't murder, and it isn't condemned in scripture. And no, I'm not defending any form of slavery as a practice. Like many of my Southern ancestors, I believe that slavery is incompatible with a nation founded on liberty and equality under the law. I'm just pointing out the historical facts.

[RegulatorCountry]

"And yet you have absolutely no problem smearing those involved on the Union side."

Sherman, who deserved it. Grant, who deserved it. Who else have I smeared? No one. If someone were to bring up Pickett, I'd smear him, too. You are motivated by ideology, just which ideology, I'm still deciding. I'm motivated by family history.

[Non-Sequitur]

Sherman, who deserved it. Grant, who deserved it.

So anyone who pisses you off deserves to be smeared? Why shouldn't that privilage be extended to those who are pissed off by your southron heroes?

BTW you still haven't answered by question.

[sheltonmac]

Just one other point: Do you think that monarchy is intrinsically evil? After all, our Founding Fathers fought against the British crown, and we have been conditioned to believe that all dictators are evil. But does that mean that the concept of a monarchy is intrinsically evil? Or would you agree that the system itself is neither inherently good nor evil, but that it depends on the person in power? Surely you can see the difference between a king who rules with wisdom, kindness and justice and one who wields his power in an oppressive, tyrannical way.

[RegulatorCountry]

"I think your inability to criticize this particular point of US history is the more relevant shortcoming."

Maybe you didn't intend to sound so heated, with the profanity and all, but it comes across that way... I'm curious as to why, because my reply to you contained nothing other than a calm explanation of where I'm coming from, and an acknowledgement that human bondage in the form of chattel slavery was and is intrinsically evil. Was that not the response you sought? Regarding criticism, there seems to be no lack of criticism, on this thread or in the world at large. It happened, it's history, the world moved on and human bondage was rightly judged, in the US at least, as inhuman and the practice was put to an end. The political repercussions continue to reverberate, and will continue so long as people such as yourself remain so myopic, regarding the perhaps-unintentional direction all this has led, and will continue to lead. I refer specifically to the socialist wet dream of mass wealth redistribution known as reparations. The people and institutions of the United States did not begin chattel slavery; on the contrary, we paid the highest price of all in order to end it. Whether that was the sole or even primary purpose of the war is highly debateable, as this thread demonstrates. But, it was the practical end result. So, we do agree on most things, or at least I would say so, whether you give a shit or not.

[RegulatorCountry]

"So anyone who pisses you off deserves to be smeared?"

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot. And what question would that be?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Do you think that monarchy is intrinsically evil?"

I'd say that the only rational answer to that one would be that monarchy would be considered intrinsically evil only if those subject to said monarchy considered it so, as was the case with the colonists in America. Consent of the governed and all that. Not all of these colonists agreed, some actively opposed the Revolution, and others chose to stay out of the fight, much like every war.