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.
"The first state to legalize enslaving Africans was Massachusetts."
Correction. Make that the first American colony.
The plotters were as treacherous and malignant as the Nazis. They hated everything America stood for and worked for years to bring about its destruction.
The 10th was intended as a reassurance that the Union would not interfere with slavery. That was the only "right" that was really at issue. It was intended to allow laws and regulations which impacted only those within a state. Any impact outside that state would mean the law was unconstitutional. However, this amendment has had very little impact upon the development of Constitutional Law so far.
So how would it have ended, short of a war? Slaveholder had a lot of their capital sunk into their slaves, a field hand could sell for $1500 in 1860. How would the South have freed a third of their population without a fight? And if slavery's natural end was just around the corner, why did the Confederate constitution forbid any state from ending it on its own? So much for "State's Rights".
Tell it to the whip.
NO...it isn't the end of the story. Most of the Confederate Soldiers were fighting for an idea in common with most: Leave me the hell alone, and let me solve my OWN problems. Slavery was the South's business, and they would have abolished it, given time.
"I think it's more than reasonable to conclude that Lincoln's "anti-slavery" rhetoric was just that--rhetoric."
I'd always understood the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves only in secession states as it did, was more of a military ploy, hatched in the hopes of fomenting a slave revolt in "rebel" territory only. Had it not been thus, emancipation would have been extended to all.
Sounds like the mantra of the pro-abortion crowd.
"flawed"? Not really he will show you the strips on his back from the IRS's whips. And that chain around his ankle stamped with "USA" is particularly galling.
I agree with the first part BUT given how much time? You can say that the colonists should have waited to be made independent by Great Britain.
Oh don't worry, it will eventually end on its own... isn't that the argument?
LOL hey that's how I feel sometimes :o)
"Since January, Mein Kampf has sold more than 50,000 copies, rising to No. 4 on the bestseller list (in Turkey)." (story)
The men were taken out of power, but their ideas continue to resonate, unfortunately.
Total BS. The South revolted to defend slavery that was the ONLY reason. Slavery was the dominant force there and EVERYTHING had to support it. ANY opposition to slavery was driven out of the region. NO newspapers, magazines, books were allowed if they spoke against slavery.
Federal influence on the South was negligible particularly since Southerners had controlled the federal government for its entire existance. But Lincoln's opposition to slavery expansion was too much for the Slavers.
Another straw man argument. Very few people who were antislavery were Abolitionists. Abolitionists demanded an immediate, unconditional end to slavery. The represented a very small percentage of the overall antislavery segment. Most antislavery people favored restrictions on expansion, a gradual ending of slavery, with some proposing compensation for slave owners and some even looking to the return of Freed slaves to their "native lands". Those people were not called Abolitionists.
Lincoln was from the "Free Soil" movement who wanted to stop the expansion of slavery to the West. He never claimed to be an abolitionist. Free Soilers believed that if slavery were isolated where it then existed, it would die under it's own weight. Lincoln also favored compensation and Colonization of free slaves.
Clueless. To continue slavery, all they had to do was remain in the Union. Here's the bottom-line facts: Yankees traded in human beings as a commodity, and Lincoln wanted a lily-white west.
Well, Northern aristocracy traded in human beings as a commodity, too. Who do you think was operating the shipping, getting rich off the triangle trade? And do you remember Sojourner Truth? She was born a slave in the Hudson river valley in New York State.
There were free blacks (and free slave-owning blacks) in the south, and slaves in the north (even during the Civil War). All that happened is that the northern states "got religion" about slavery before the southern ones did.
I will not defend chattel slavery; it's an abomination, and good riddance to it...but the North's hands are certainly not clean in that regard.
Of course poor Southerners would give up their lives to protect the rich slaveowners they DID just that. It is easy to delude the uneducated which is EXACTLY what the Slavers did. Lack of education was the direct cause of many of the poor peoples' lack of understanding as to what was at stake and their subsequent deaths.
Spending that 40 or 50 years as a sharecropper rather than as a slave didn't turn out to have been much of an improvement.
I don't remember anyone ever saying that was the case... it just sounds like a childish "well he did it too" argument to justify bad behavior.
States is correct. In 1780, 4 years after the Declaration of Independence, while the Revolution was still being fought, both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania passed legislation ending slavery in their "States." They were the first "Governments" in the world to do so -- 50 years before the British Parliament acted.
As Colonies under Royal Governors, they would not have been permitted to end slavery.
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.