Posted on 10/26/2004 4:28:59 AM PDT by stainlessbanner
The recent flurry of letters from neo-Confederates asserting that slavery had no role in the Civil War is troubling, as they seem doggedly determined to force counterfactual information on the public. The trend towards "true Southern history," minimizing the slavery issue by insisting that all of America was racist, and that slaves fought for the Confederacy is a spurious and disingenuous argument. Using half-truths and outright misinformation, they try to avoid what any serious historian of the Civil War recognizes as a major issue of the war.
Having studied the Civil War since my early teens and teaching it on a college level here in Hagerstown and at George Mason University, I feel qualified to point out a few holes in their argument. First of all, yes, much of America was racist, at least by today's standards, but that does not mean that slavery was not an issue in the war.
The controversy was not on a humanitarian basis, but was political and economic. Many states outlawed slavery soon after the Revolutionary War, and slave-state representatives were determined to "force" slavery into the newly acquired western territories. There was no political effort to eradicate in existing states, but a strong attempt to halt the spread of it to the new territories in the West.
The much-cited proposed 13th amendment in 1861 was intended as a compromise to reassure the southern states that their property rights were not in jeopardy due to Lincoln's election, and it did pass in Congress. Because of their insistence of spreading slavery, southern states chose to leave the Union and fire upon Fort Sumter rather than take that assurance. The actual 13th amendment did indeed outlaw slavery and end the institution, but the claim that three southern states ratified it before Lee surrendered is disingenuous.
The three state legislatures cited by the author of a recent letter were not the same ones that had decided to secede. They were Union-occupational legislatures dominated by Unionists that had little connection to Confederate states. Surely the author does not suggest that the Richmond legislature was approving United States Constitution amendments while still maintaining their Confederate independence!
Another writer cites a large number of blacks who aided the Confederate cause, some in combat. This too is stretching a point. Prof. Smith's estimate of 90,000 blacks who served the Confederacy in one way or another is just that, an estimate. Since the author who cites this number then states that there were 250,000 free blacks in the South, these numbers present a problem. Either there was an unusually high rate of volunteerism, 90,000 men out of 250,000 men, women and children, or many of these 90,000 blacks serving the Confederacy were slaves. If most of them were slaves, which most historians think is the case, then they are not exactly willing participants. Even if a couple of thousand free blacks did volunteer and did participate in armed conflicts, it is still a miniscule proportion of the roughly 1 million men who served the Confederacy. Most references to blacks in the Confederate army cite them as servants, cooks, teamsters, etc. Many of them were, and remained, slaves and unless someone can find testimony from them stating their willingness to do so, we must consider the possibility of them being forced labor.
As for Robert E. Lee being "an abolitionist," as Michelle Hamlin stated, the notion is ludicrous. The term abolitionist was a highly pejorative and emotionally charged word, and Lee would have been very insulted to have it applied to him. He did indeed free the slaves inherited from his father-in-law, as required by his father-in-law's will. It is not a true indicator of Lee's personal feelings, although we know he stated he disliked the institution.
This manumission does not make him an abolitionist because he never advocated freeing anyone else's slaves, and is unclear whether he would have freed these particular slaves if it were not required.
If Lee and the South were not fighting for slavery, why in the world did Lee's army hunt down hundreds of free blacks in Pennsylvania and drag them southward in chains? This is an established and accepted fact of the Gettysburg campaign, and taken with Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens' famous speech where he described slavery as the "cornerstone" of southern society, makes any logical person wonder how the South could not be fighting for slavery while fighting to preserve that society. If nothing else, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was designed to make slavery an issue of the war, not on humanitarian terms, but on political, military and economic terms. If the South was not fighting for slavery before January 1, 1863, at which time the proclamation went into effect, they certainly were doing so after that date.
Latter day denials of the facts will not change them. Slavery was part of the war, deeply intertwined in Southern economy and society, and the focal point of much of the debate that led to the war. While it is incorrect to attribute the entire cause of the war to slavery, it is equally incorrect to deny its influence.
Nonsense. Nowhere does the Constitution say that.
Taney followed the law, and the logical sequel of his opinion was that slavery was legal everywhere -- Lincoln could see that, too. You know he saw it. Everyone saw it.
Nonsense. Lincoln disagrees with the Scott v Sanford decision and said so repeatedly. What you are saying is that slavery was legal in the territories because according to Taney and a majority of the court the Constitution said it was.
Taney followed the logic of the law.
I've read the decision front to back, and I can't see the logic that you speak of. But that's just me. And my vote doesn't count. Slavery was legal in the territories because in the opinion of the Supreme Court it was legal. Thant pretty well sum up your arguement?
Gives Congress power to make rules and regs for the Territories. It doesn't give Congress power to ban the First Amendment by statute, or to suspend the Tenth Amendment.
Just because Congress is the original legislator for a Territory, doesn't mean the provisions of the Constitution no longer run.
Nonsense yourself. It does say that -- the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Mississippi did. Florida did. Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas did. Texas did. And on and on and on. The Constitution itself needed the consent of the people of the United States to be established the Union in the first place. The consent of the people of the United States is required to disestablish it.
No it does not.
Simply by outlawing slavery in the territories Congress did neither. But your ridiculous definition no state could outlaw slavery because it would violate the Constitution.
Uh.... Since you studied the war so lengthely and lovingly please tell me why, just out of Curiosity that Maryland was indeed a slave state, and yet was on the Side of the Union... as I believe was West Virginia as well... and that not only this, but that Lincolns Emancipation Proclomation made sure to only "free" slaves in territories currently in rebellion with the union?
I will not sit here and naively say that slavery had no place or was not part of the war, but to idly and casually say it was the main and only point of the war is ignorant. Terriff of Abomination, the Nullifiers movement etc etc etc... The north and south were on path to war beyond just the issue of slavery.
Of course he did, he wanted to defend the anti-slavery statutes. But he saw the consequences of Dred Scott and saw that the logical sequel of that decision, when applied to states' antislavery laws, meant that slavery would be legal everywhere, not just in the Territories but in the whole United States.
What you are saying is that slavery was legal in the territories because according to Taney and a majority of the court the Constitution said it was.
Don't put words in my mouth. The holding was that a) Scott never ceased to be a slave, not even when he was in Illinois or in the northern Territories above the Missouri Compromise line, and b) Congress had no power to deprive citizens of their property rights absent an amendment.
The sequel was that slavery was legal everywhere.
The implication was that the state antislavery laws were unconstitutional.
See my last -- that was precisely the implication of Dred Scott, and why IMHO Lincoln decided that slavery, and the slaveowners, had to die.
Do you agree?
This ideological ein Volk -- ein Reich! stuff is getting really old.
It is a fact of American history that you are determined to deny, that the States were independently responsible for their own entry into, or rejection of, the constitutional compact that formed the Union. Their Peoples acted completely independently, with the exception of Rhode Island, which was bullied into ratifying by Connecticut.
You deny it. Fine. You're some kind of National Greatness protofascist, you won't listen. I told you, we've been over this, and you've been shown and it has been proven, that the American colonies and States did things certain ways, and not other ways. You keep stomping your hobnailed feet and demanding obedience and belief from people you assume the right to bully. Well, I'm not having any. Spout off all you want -- I'll be right here to call you a liar. Because at this point, there ain't no lack of information any more.
[You, baiting] Do you agree?
Yes, under the laws of the time.
As are your Nazi comparisons. Nazi, commie, I wish you would make up your mind.
It is a fact of American history that you are determined to deny, that the States were independently responsible for their own entry into, or rejection of, the constitutional compact that formed the Union.
Your opinion. The people of the United States acted to adopt the Constitution of the United States. The fact that they voted for it in Virginia or Pennsylvania is meaningless. Where else would they vote for it? The Constitution did not do away with states.
You're some kind of National Greatness protofascist, you won't listen.
Why? Because I don't accept your opinion at face value?
I told you, we've been over this, and you've been shown and it has been proven, that the American colonies and States did things certain ways, and not other ways.
Your opinion yet again.
Spout off all you want -- I'll be right here to call you a liar.
After being called a Nazi, Commie, and protofascist by you, being called a liar will be almost a relief. But by all means do what you must. I'll read anything you care to post. I love good comedy.
As interpreted by Taney?
[You, sneering again] Your opinion.
Not my opinion:
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
Proof of disseverability. Proof of independent action.
Proof of sovereignty.
The people of the United States acted to adopt the Constitution of the United States. The fact that they voted for it in Virginia or Pennsylvania is meaningless. Where else would they vote for it? The Constitution did not do away with states.
You're spewing Marshall again. Not what the Constitution says, bub. Show me in the Constitution where it says voting for electors from Virginia is meaningless, or that Pennsylvania's ratification was meaningless.
You're full of it.
Quit screwing around and make your point.
Proof that they were acting in their role as the People of the United States, not the people of the several states.
Not what the Constitution says, bub.
Your opinion.
You're full of it.
Your opinion again. You are just full of...opinions, aren't you?
I'm trying to figure out yours. Slavery laws in the states and in the territories were unconstitutional because Taney and the court ruled that they were. That sum it up?
How many times have we been over that, and here you are quoting the Preamble again -- damn, did they let you have scissors in Ding Dong School?
The Preamble is not part of the Constitution's agreement. It's a vision statement, a scoping statement -- but you knew that before you posted up.
[You, quoting me] Not what the Constitution says, bub.
[You, being an inductively slothful, bad-sport smartass junior-high debater who's run out of substantive comebacks] Your opinion.
Two plus two equals four. Go on, tell me that is my opinion, too.
No, so far as I can tell that is the one fact that you have been able to stumble over so far today. If you had been offering your opinion then you would have claimed that two plus two equaled eleventy-seven or something like that.
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.