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.

You can say that but the speech is there, recorded, and specifically states the concerns. You can label it as vague but it does not make it so.

The abolitionist "agitation" as you call it represented the views of a very small minority on Northerners and most certainly not the policy of the Federal Government. There was not a single instance of "oppression" by the Federal government alleged by the seceding states.

If the South chose to "secede" from Horace Greely, fine. But they had no justification for rebellion against the United States.

As President, the uncontested surrender of a high profile symbol as Sumter, as one of his first acts in office, would have made him a joke. The plight of the men at Sumter was being followed intently by the Northern press and people. Think Wake Island or Corregidor during WWII. For Lincoln to do nothing was simply not a viable option. Even Buchanan, who who did all in his power to avoid making tough decisions tried to relieve Sumter.

Some argue that the Lincoln government would have fallen if Lincoln had not acted tough at Sumter. Maybe, maybe not. The attack on Sumter actually served the immediate objectives of both sides. Lincoln got patriotic support from Northerners upset over the attack on the flag, and Davis got border and wavering states to join the Confederacy.

As I've mentioned before, in spite of what he was advised was required, Lincoln didn't put near enough resources into his fleet to make the relief effort work. He didn't need to win -- he only needed to make the effort. If he lost at Sumter he could use an attack to rally the North behind him and get the support he needed to govern.

It was something that the CiC simply had to do!

No, he didn't.

Lincoln didn't put near enough resources into his fleet to make the relief effort work.

Logically, doesn't that presuppose that Lincoln would have been prepared to either see Sumter relieved, or been willing to use the Navy to pound Charleston into submission?

It appears that Lincoln's intention (actually hope) was to deliver supplies to Sumter and thereby maintain the status quo and his best chance of doing that was sending a small force that was obviously not threatening. If he actually was intent on war, logic would dictate that he do as you suggest and send a strong force.

Why didn't you continue with the next paragraph?

"My supplies of provisions that I laid in before the commencement of the investment were yesterday reduced to one half-barrel of cornmeal, one-seventh barrel of grits, and eleven codfish. Everything else that is necessary for the support of the Engineer force is drawn from the scanty stores of the command."

That has been well documented. What people tend to forget about were the supplies being made available to him from the city -- that's what I focused on.

Major Anderson was short sighted. He should have thought about the situation he was putting his troops and the country into when he moved his force to Fort Sumter. He was attempting to stay in a fort surrounded by his opposition. Sort of like the Alamo, I suppose. Eventually the food supplies he brought with him would run out, and he would be at the mercy of his opposition and/or force a national crisis. The opposition had been allowing him to get some food supplies from the city, but eventually they could close that source, if they so wished. They ultimately did just that -- an error on the Confederates' part, IMO, as I said above.

Here is how President Buchanan responded when informed that Major Anderson had moved into Fort Sumter [Source: Maury Klein's well documented book Days of Defiance]:

Buchanan slumped into a chair. "My God!" he cried wearily. "Are calamities ... never to come singly! I call God to witness -- you gentlemen better than anybody else know that this is not only without but against my orders. It is against my policy."

Buchanan could see the implications of Anderson's move, if Anderson could not.

If Lincoln had been successful at getting provisions into the fort, he would have to go through the same exercise the next time the food ran out. He was just postponing the crisis. (Actually one-seventh of a barrel of grits could have gotten the fort through the whole summer.)

When members of Lincoln's cabinet advised him that all of the proposed plans to supply Sumter would result in a clash of arms, they weren't wrong. Lincoln chose to do so in face of this advice.

Here was some of the advice Lincoln got [from Klein's book]:

On the 15th [March] Lincoln met again with the cabinet, Scott, Totten, Stringham, and Fox. Totten reviewed several plans for reinforcing Sumter and concluded that all of them would result in a clash of arms. Scott added that even if Fox's plan succeeded, it would do little more than buy time before the attempt would have to be made again. With five of seven cabinet members and his generals against the attempt, Lincoln was in more of a quandary than ever. ...

How is the act of sending warships, any warships, down to Charleston not threatening?

Back in January of '61, the Star of the West, was not a warship, it was unarmed, but it was fired on. In neo-Confederate logic, is that fact considered "non-threatening"?

Bite the bullet here rusty. That there would be a war was no surprise in 1861 to anyone who had half a brain. It had been discussed for a least 10 years, with the South convinced that somehow via shere genetic ability, they could beat any power who faced them. By the time Lincoln took office, it was nothing but a a Kabuki dance to see who shot first. The fact of the matter is that as of April 12 when the designated mad man Ruffin from Virginia who had lobbied for war for 30 years, was given the honor of lighting the first fuse, the confederate side was far more "armed up" than Lincoln and the Union. The Confederate forces in Charleston alone, outnumbered the entire United States Army at they point in time.

I stick to my point that Davis and the Fire Eaters needed Lincoln to react before they could truly have a viable nation, because without Virginia and the upper south, they were a fly spec on the pages of history. Lincoln, on the other hand, needed the rebs to shoot first. They served each other's purposes in doing what was inevitable.

Lincoln was in a no win situation at that point. If he allowed Davis to give him the finger with no response, he was a lame duck in his first month in office. If he did anything else, "he provoked" the tender sensibilities of the "South." that were so tenderly cultivated by the Slave Power.

the Star of the West, was not a warship, it was unarmed, but it was fired on.

I suppose the 250 troops hidden below decks as the Star of the West entered Charleston harbor were armed with only spit wads.

I found an interesting collection of online articles published in early April 1861 mainly by New York and Charleston papers. See: Newspaper articles. Enjoy.

At least a couple of the articles mention that permission to land a supply ship at the fort was requested but denied. Others cite the buildup of Confederate troops around the harbor in the days immediately preceding the battle.

The Confederate forces in Charleston alone, outnumbered the entire United States Army at they point in time.

What is your support for that statement?

The regular army of the US was about 16,000 men before Sumter (Source). The online articles I linked to you mentioned 6,000 to 7,000 Confederates in the Charleston and island areas with possibly a couple of thousand more coming. Harper's Weekly reports about 7,000 Confederates were there (Harper's).

The National Park Service says only about 500 men on the Confederate side were actually engaged in the fighting (NPS).

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.