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.
Not regarding slavery, but regarding Jackson's role as an educator, and a good and fair man that treated blacks in a Christian manner.
As I said, I have found no proof to prove that Jackson freed his slaves. My information came from a biography written by R. L. Dabney, who was his chaplain. He better than anyone wouild be a valid source I should think.
You're getting stranger by the post.
And what question would that be?
Look back. You'll find it.
The end does not justify the means. Tyranny is Tyranny.
There is no way that the death of 600,000 men is justified to end slavery.
There is no way that the destruction of one half of the country justifies the end of slavery.
Slavery is and was evil, and should have been ended, but gradually, or through peaceful means.
The south was full of men and women who believed that it was their Christian duty to bring the word of God to slaves. The Texas Synod supported Sunday Schools throughout the state and declared: "We recognize the hand of God in placing this benighted race in our midst, and heartily accept the duty of pointing them to Christ." That doesn't mean that they opposed slavery. Jackson's view towards blacks is best summed up by his wife. He "...believed that the Bible taught that slavery was sanctioned by the Creator himself, who maketh men to differ, and instituted laws for the bond and the free. He therefore accepted slavery...as allowed by Providence for ends which it was not his business to determine."
Had the southern rebellion been successful, would the death of 600,000 men justified the continuation of slavery?
"You're getting stranger by the post."
Why, that wouldn't be a smear, would it?
"Look back. You'll find it."
Oh, the one about Lee, Beauregard, Johnston, et al? They all share the sheer ignominy of having lost battles to a puking sot sprawled out in a tent. Must've been the hand of Providence, because there is no earthly explanation for it, LOL.
NO..it wouldn't have. Neither scenario is justified.
Possibly. You can smear but can't take it?
They all share the sheer ignominy of having lost battles to a puking sot sprawled out in a tent.
Then they all must be pretty inept generals, wouldn't you say?
So regardless of the outcome the rebellion didn't justify the body count?
"Then they all must be pretty inept generals"
If losing battles were the sole sign of ineptitude, I would agree. Now, if you want to branch out into utter incompetence, it would be difficult to top George McClellan. The highest number of deaths due to incompetence would seem to be the eternal shame of George Pickett. Anyone else you'd like to, uhmmm... smear?
Who, if memory serves, Lee lost to at Antietam. And then there's Meade at Gettysburg. Lee lost to a veritable host of second rate talent, including that sot you're so contemptuous of. Poor Robert Edward. He could beat a slave, but he couldn't beat Meade. Or Grant.
That was the direction the country was moving for the first 40 years of it's existence, with more than half of the original states ending slavery, gradually and peacefully and most of the remainder moving toward that same conclusion. Voluntary manumissions were increasing, motivated by both conscience and the declining economic incentives of chattel slavery. The American Colonization Society was founded and supported by respected and prominent Americans in both the North and South to address the social reservations that concerned Americans. Slavery was viewed by nearly all men of good will as a National embarrassment that they were sure would die on it's own.
Then came King Cotton, and the tide reversed. For the first time in our history, slavery was defended not as a dark legacy from the old order to be gradually eliminated for the good of all, but as a positive good and the very Will of God. The political dynamic changed from questioning how to end it, to heated arguments on how to expand it (or prevent it's expansion).
Blame Eli Whitney's "Gin" for the 600,000 dead. Blame the Love of Money.
The George Pickett who with great reluctance, followed the orders of his overly aggressive commander on that bloody day?
LOL. You're the just the little engine that could, now aren't you?
As I said, eternal shame.
Awwww. Am I smearing again?
Don't be too hard on Lee. Just because sending thousands of troops up a hill into the teeth of Union artillery and entrenched troops got thousands of soldiers slaughtered to no avail at Malvern Hill, and just because he saw the results of the Union trying the same at Fredericksburg, doesn't mean that it couldn't have worked at Gettysburg. Ya gotta have faith to command the Army of Northern Virginia. And a strong stomach.
"Am I smearing again?"
That depends. Is your current state of mind in favor of condemnation, or participation? It all depends upon your situation, or so it would seem, LOL.
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.