Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

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.

I think a more correct characterization of Nevada at the time would have been that it only had about 15,000 residents and that was really too small to shoulder the burdens of state government, taxation, etc.

The population of Nevada in 1870 was about 43,000. Over 12,000 people voted in the statehood referendum in 1864. Your 15,000 population is wishful thinking, as is your conspiracy about Nevada statehood to begin with. Lincoln got 212 electoral votes in 1864 to McClellans 21. He didn't need Nevada's three.

From MSN Encarta (Believe this or Bill Gates will get mad):

Congress and the Lincoln administration, however, saw Nevada statehood as additional support for the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution (which outlawed slavery) and for Lincoln's upcoming reelection. The U.S. Congress quickly passed the Nevada Enabling Act in March 1864 and by summer a new constitutional convention was convened.

Here's another source that mentions Nevada's inadequate (for statehood) population (State of Nevada, Department of Cultural Affairs):

Thus, Nevada, with a population less than required for statehood by the Northwest Ordinance, entered the union as the 36th state. The designation "Battle Born State" is appropriate inasmuch as Nevada's entry was a result of the Civil War and the accompanying problems.

Lincoln was nothing if not a schemer.

Lincoln was nothing if not a schemer.

And a despicable scheme it was. Gaining another vote for a Constitutional Amendment to End Slavery. No wonder the LOS neo-confedeares hate the very ground he walked.

The man would stoop to any means for his evil ends, I guess.

< / sarcasm >

Oh. BTW. How does that "Bill Gates" source fit with the incessant neo-confederate mantra that Lincoln did nothing to end slavery in "The North"?

Yes he did, in the late 40s when he was a one-term Congresscritter. It was, of course, never brought to a vote thanks to the fact that the Slave Power gag order was still in force. Being that Washington DC was an entirely Federal entity until recent times, a simple resolution of congress, signed by the president, could have ended slavery within the District at any moment.

On becoming President, Lincoln did propose and sign legislation that did immediately end slavery in the Federal District.

He also used all of his powers (which weren't much beyond persuasion) to end it in the loyal "Border States"

Here's a link if you are really interested in understanding that the man really did want to end slavery, as opposed to the neo-confederate myths of the "Tyrant and Dictator" who only wanted to punish the poor South and didn't care about slavery in the "North." He quite literally begged for their help in ending it in their states.

Appeal to the Border States

I think Lincoln truly did want to end slavery. That is in his favor. However, he was first and always a politician. "Saving" the Union or the revenue of the government was higher priority with him than ending slavery.

It is easy to see why some say Lincoln did nothing to end slavery when he advocated white-only territories (appealing to the northern white voters, the free-soilers), favored a constitutional amendment to protect slavery (trying to get the South back in the Union and prevent the Border States from leaving), and emancipated of slaves in areas he didn't control (basically freeing no one). He had no power to end slavery in the states he controlled except by constitutional amendment and he was for that some years after he was for an amendment that would protect slavery.

For many years I considered Lincoln one of our greatest presidents. That is the way I was raised to think by my parents in the Deep South. Then I got interested in the history of the period and was appalled at what Lincoln did to instigate the war, to twist the Constitution and the law like a pretzel, to aid and abet the destruction of Southern civilians and POWs during the war. I now consider him to have been a tyrant who instigated great suffering on the country. A well meaning one perhaps given his desire to end slavery and proposed lenient treatment of the South after the war, but a tyrant nonetheless.

They is a Lincoln cult that sees no wrong in what he did. They are an end-justifies-the-means group. That is a slippery road I'm not willing to go down.

Congress and the Lincoln administration, however, saw Nevada statehood as additional support for the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution (which outlawed slavery) and for Lincoln's upcoming reelection. The U.S. Congress quickly passed the Nevada Enabling Act in March 1864 and by summer a new constitutional convention was convened.

Great scheme, except that the 13th Amendment had passed out of the Senate before Nevada became a state. And Lincoln was narrowly reelected with 10 times the electoral votes of his opponent.

Thus, Nevada, with a population less than required for statehood by the Northwest Ordinance, entered the union as the 36th state.

The Northwest Ordinance outlined the requirements for a territory to be admitted as a state under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution replaced the Articles and, as you might know, does not lay out a population requirement for statehood. Arkansas, Michigan, Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin all were admitted with populations less than 50,000.

And there is your cult of Lincoln loathers who see no right in anything he did.

Do you belong to the cult that sees only good in the things Lincoln did? What things did he do that you don't approve of?

Here is some more on the Northwest Ordinance. Although passed under the Articles of Confederation, it played a role in the admission of future states. (Link):

When the population reached 60,000, the legislature would submit a state constitution to Congress and, upon its approval, the state would enter the Union.

... The Northwest Ordinance would, with minor adjustments, remain the guiding policy for the admission of all future states into the Union.

Political considerations could overrule the guidelines, as they did in the case of Nevada. Nevada statehood was accomplished with backroom bribing by Lincoln according to Dana.

Here is some more on the Nevada Population:

Nevada had 6,867 people in 1860 (A census taken in 1861 by Henry DeGroot enumerated the inhabitants of Nevada by 12 districts. This census was taken in order to establish a basis for a determination of representation to the Territorial Legislature. Since counties had not been formed for the territory, 12 arbitrary districts were set up as "census tracts." From these districts and based on the inhabitants enumerated, nine districts were formed from which representatives were sent to the Legislature. The census, however, was to exclude the Indian population. The final total population figure for the Territory of Nevada by DeGroot was 16,734, which most authorities consider to be on the high side. This theory is substantiated when the federal census figure for 1860 (6,857) and the estimated Indian population (10,000) are considered as a total population of 16,857 for Indians and whites. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if the DeGroot census was accurate and excluded Indians. It is true that DeGroot took his census a year later than the federal census, and the settlement of the territory was in a progressive stage. However, it is still difficult to correlate his findings with the federal estimate for the year 1861 which was only 10,717 on July 1 of that year.

However, it is still difficult to correlate his findings with the federal estimate for the year 1861 which was only 10,717 on July 1 of that year.

Two years later when the people of Nevada voted on the proposed state Constitution 11,655 people voted. Where did the all come from?

Link

And the 1870 census lists Nevada's population as 42,491. Quite a growth over the 6800 supposedly there in 1860. And the census only counted 23 Indians in the state, so I guess they either beat feet over the course of the decade or else the 1860 estimate was wildly inaccurate.

And the 1870 census lists Nevada's population as 42,491. Quite a growth over the 6800 supposedly there in 1860.

Sounds like you distrust the 1860 population figures. They are cited in numerous places. I imagine many of the Nevada inhabitants in those days were miners or prospectors looking to strike it rich. The Comstock Lode discovery of 1859 probably brought in people hoping to make a big discovery and mine development no doubt helped spur the population growth of the 1860s.

Here is a link to the story behind Nevada statehood as told by Charles Dana, Assistant Secretary of War under Lincoln:

I'm not sure I'd fault Lincoln for making the bargain with the three congressman.

If gaining the votes for Nevada's statehood also meant gaining the votes to move the 13th amendment forward from Congress to the States, then the promise of a few relatively minor appointments was worth it. Especially if Lincoln believed the power of the 13th amendment was such that it would prevent the need to call up 1,000,000 more men to serve in the Union army.

Actually, this story should confirm for those who doubt it that Lincoln preferred the ballot box to bullets, even if it meant greasing the palms of a few corrupt politicians along the way.

Actually, this story should confirm for those who doubt it that Lincoln preferred the ballot box to bullets, even if it meant greasing the palms of a few corrupt politicians along the way.

With respect, mac, which ballot boxes do you mean? Certainly not those that expressed the sovereign will of the people of various Southern states to secede. Those secession referenda were a clearer indication of sovereign will than occurred during the ratifications of the Constitution itself. The right to secede was never taken away from the people of the states or relinquished by them -- it was a voluntary union.

Whether or not Lincoln made a back room deal in 1864 to get votes to pass a slavery amendment that he felt helped him on the battlefield does nothing to counter my belief that Lincoln intentionally instigated war with the South in 1861. In my opinion, in 1861 he invoked the way of the bullet, and six hundred thousand soldiers paid the ultimate price. If Lincoln had been a man of peace, he would have let the South go their own way. He wasn't, and he didn't.

In my opinion, in 1861 he invoked the way of the bullet, and six hundred thousand soldiers paid the ultimate price. If Lincoln had been a man of peace, he would have let the South go their own way. He wasn't, and he didn't.

And I suppose in your opinion, in 1941 FDR invoked the way of the bullet, and millions of soldiers paid the ultimate price. If FDR had been a man of peace, he wouldn't have let a little think like an armed attack on a U.S. facility lead to war. But he wasn't, and he didn't.

Intentionally tweak the nose of a bull, and it becomes the bull's fault when he charges you? Lincoln knew he was provoking war by sending an armed force to South Carolina.

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.