Slavery, the Left, and Truth

A generation of Americans is being raised on half-truths and lies about the history of slavery in America. They are given the impression that America was uniquely bad and that American slavery was uniquely bad. They learn nothing about slavery elsewhere. Among the many lies they are told are that "black slaves built America" and that America is systemically racist.

Since the only mortal enemy of the Left is truth, here are some truths about slavery.

If you are interested in morality and committed to truth, you do not ask, "Who had slaves?" You ask, "Who ended slavery?"

Every civilization throughout history had slaves: Asian societies, Africans, Native Americans and other Indigenous peoples around the world, and the Muslim/Arab world, which may have had the most slaves of all.

There was only one thing unique about slavery in the West: It raised the issue of the morality of slavery, ferociously debated it and finally abolished it there, before it was abolished in any other civilization. If you care about moral truth rather than, for example, promoting America-hatred, you must recognize -- and you must teach -- that America was one of the first slave-holding societies to abolish slavery. This even includes Africa. Cornell professor Sandra Greene, a black scholar of African history, notes, "Slavery in the United States ended in 1865, but in West Africa it was not legally ended until 1875, and then it stretched on unofficially until almost World War I."

“an Amendment to the Constitution to make slavery permanent in the United States”

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

The Corwin Amendment does not make slavery “permanent” in the United States. The Congress of the United States can still limit slavery in the territories and any State is free to abolish slavery within their borders if the wish to do so.

Keep in mind that the self interest you allege is all Democratic party. Only Demos owned slaves. Only they enacted JimCrow laws and fought the civil rights movements and laws.

That isn't correct. Something I learned which surprised me quite a lot was that the North, specifically the powerful money interests in the Northeast, were making more money from slavery than the plantation owners.

The revenue brought in by Washington DC and New York from slavery was 60% of the total value of all slave production. The slave owners were getting the remaining 40% of the total value.

72% of Washington DC's revenue came from slavery. *THIS* is why they were so intent on keeping those southern states and *THIS* is why they were so willing to make a permanent slavery amendment.

Only they enacted JimCrow laws and fought the civil rights movements and laws.

This is what we have all been taught to believe, but in the 1850s, Illinois enacted some of the worst anti-black denying civil rights laws that there ever was.

People of today do not understand the mindset of the Northern states in 1860 regarding blacks. They hated them and wanted them kept completely out of their society. They made laws specifically banning blacks from moving to their state or exercising rights that whites had.

We have been taught that it's all KKK and "Jim Crow" and Southerners, but the ugly truth is there was more hatred of blacks in the North than there was in the South.

After the war, it served the self interest of the rich powerful liberal Republican "elite" rulers to protect blacks voting for them, because they were instrumental in keeping the power they had in Washington DC, which they exploited to enrich themselves further. (Just as that corrupt cesspool is still doing today.)

I have had my eyes opened. I now see all this period of history more clearly, and the evidence of what happens only makes me more cynical about the motives behind what was done by the ruling class.

The founders knew this could not stand but they had to stay free of Britain. Once the US was strong enough they rejected the partial man premise, which is a moral issue. Purely.

And these "moral" northern men all voted to keep them in chains. The Corwin amendment (permanent slavery) passed by 3/4ths of both the House and Senate, *AFTER* the Southern states had already seceded.

So please explain to me how voting to keep them in slavery was "moral"?

The Corwin Amendment does not make slavery “permanent” in the United States.

A quibble. It depends on how you mean "permanent."

In terms of the remainder of the lives for the people then existing at that time, it was effectively permanent. When they were voting for it, no one knew that it might eventually wane away. So far as they knew, it was going to continue so long as any state still wanted it.

The Congress of the United States can still limit slavery in the territories and any State is free to abolish slavery within their borders if the wish to do so.

I'm not so certain Congress had a legal leg to stand on in limiting slavery in the territories. Besides the fact that there was no economic viability for slavery in the Territories, at the time slaves were recognized as property.

If a man wants to go to the territories and bring his "property", the congress cannot prohibit him without running afoul of the 5th amendment which requires compensation for the taking of property.

And there are other legal arguments still, but the point is, it isn't so cut and dried that Congress could continue to get away with this if it was challenged in court.

As for states free to abolish it within their borders, they can do certain things towards that end, but they too cannot simply reject the 5th amendment's "takings" clause. Also, states could reinstate slavery if they wished, thanks to the Corwin Amendment.

In no way can the Corwin Amendment be seen as a "moral" act by the Northern controlled Congress in March of 1861.

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.