Posted on 01/26/2007 6:05:29 PM PST by Dog Gone
Any attempt to judge our history by today's standards -- out of the context in which it occurred -- is at best problematic and at worst dishonest.
For example, consider the following quotations:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished."
"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
By today's standards, the person who made the first statement, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, would be considered enlightened. The person who made the second, President Abraham Lincoln, would be considered a white supremacist.
Many believe that the War Between the States was solely about slavery and that the Confederacy is synonymous with racism. That conclusion is faulty because the premise is inaccurate.
If slavery had been the sole or even the predominant issue in sparking the Civil War, this statement by Lincoln is puzzling: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it."
If preserving slavery was the South's sole motive for waging war, why did Lee free his slaves before the war began? In 1856, he said slavery was "a moral and political evil in any country."
Why was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863 rather than when the war started in 1861? And why did it free only the slaves in the Confederacy and not in Northern or border states?
If slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, how do you explain Texas Gov. Sam Houston's support for the Union and for the institution of slavery? In light of the fact that 90 percent of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, is it logical to assume they would have put their own lives at risk so that slave-owning aristocrats could continue their privileged status?
There are few simple and concise answers to these questions.
One answer, however, is that most Southerners' allegiance was to their sovereign states first and the Union second. They believed that states freely joined the Union without coercion and were free to leave.
You could say they really believed in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the "powers not delegated" clause. They believed that the federal government should be responsible for the common defense, a postal service and little else. They viewed the Union Army as an invader, not an emancipator.
I am not attempting to trivialize slavery. It is a dark chapter in our history, North and South alike.
However, I am a proud Southerner and a proud descendent of Confederate soldiers. I honor their service because, to me, it represents the sacrifice of life and livelihood that Southerners made for a cause more important to them than their personal security and self-interest.
I'm aware of the genocidal war conducted by my country against the American Indian, but I'm still a proud American. And I'm also aware of the atrocities that occurred at My Lai, but I am proud of my service as a Marine in Vietnam.
If the Confederate flag represented slavery, the U.S. flag must represent slavery even more so.
Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.
If the few hundred members of racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan want to adopt the Confederate flag as their symbol, over the objections of millions of Southerners, should we believe it has been corrupted for all time?
Given that the KKK has adopted the cross for its burnings, should churches across the country remove this symbol of Christian faith from all places of worship?
Should we diminish the service of the Buffalo Soldiers (black U.S. cavalry troopers of the late 1800s) because they were an integral part of a war that subjugated and enslaved the Plains Indians?
No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.
Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie. We should memorialize and commemorate all of our soldiers who served honorably -- those who wore blue or gray or served as Buffalo Soldiers -- whether or not we in today's enlightened world completely support their actions.
It certainly does when authors such as DiLorenzo try to justify the secession upon the election of Lincoln on the basis of the tariffs being too high. If anything, the election of the Republicans held out hope of a reduction that no Whig or Democrat had offered as an agenda.
For example, consider the following quotations:
"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished."
"[T]here is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."
By today's standards, the person who made the first statement, Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, would be considered enlightened. The person who made the second, President Abraham Lincoln, would be considered a white supremacist.
Many believe that the War Between the States was solely about slavery and that the Confederacy is synonymous with racism. That conclusion is faulty because the premise is inaccurate.
No war is “solely” about anything—different interests in political power—and individual soldiers all have varying motivations, often as not noble or ignoble—depending on who we’re talking about.
If slavery had been the sole or even the predominant issue in sparking the Civil War, this statement by Lincoln is puzzling: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it."
The North’s original reason for fighting, unhidden throughout the war, was indeed to preserve the union, period. I know of no student of history who denies this.
If preserving slavery was the South's sole motive for waging war, why did Lee free his slaves before the war began? In 1856, he said slavery was "a moral and political evil in any country."
As far as I remember, Lee was NOT the political head of the South, nor was he in any way involved in politics at all. Lee was a professional soldier. What Robert E. Lee thought or did about slavery has nothing to do with the reasons the whole South, under its political representatives chose to secede and chose to fight the war.
Why was Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation effective in 1863 rather than when the war started in 1861? And why did it free only the slaves in the Confederacy and not in Northern or border states?
It’s simple, as I stated above. The North’s original reason for fighting was to preserve the union; emancipation was most certainly a timely political act by Lincoln—even though from the 1840s onward, he was well known as an abolitionist.
If slavery was the only reason for the Civil War, how do you explain Texas Gov. Sam Houston's support for the Union and for the institution of slavery? In light of the fact that 90 percent of Confederate soldiers owned no slaves, is it logical to assume they would have put their own lives at risk so that slave-owning aristocrats could continue their privileged status?
Again, like Lee, Sam Houston was not the political head of the South…only a retired governor of Texas. It’s perfectly logical that when their elected representatives voted to secede…and everyone assumed IF there was a war, it would be incredibly short, that all patriotic southerners, slave owner or not, would fight.
The South’s entire economic system was based on slavery…and knowledgeable people knew economic ruin would affect everyone—slave-owner, free whites, and slaves alike. Given that, to protect their very way of life, it makes perfect sense everyone would want to fight…to keep things as they were.
This is why EVERY state legislature which seceded, when they debated secession, had as their PRIMARY (yes, and not the only) issue, the new president’s well known opposition to slavery. They didn’t trust Lincoln not to at least weaken or subvert the institution of slavery…and there was way too much money—the economy and power of the whole South—riding on it, to stay in a Union the rest of which seemed set on ruining them. Besides they knew….that the U. S. Constitution they voluntarily joined, they could voluntarily leave…or so they thought they knew.
There are few simple and concise answers to these questions.
One answer, however, is that most Southerners' allegiance was to their sovereign states first and the Union second. They believed that states freely joined the Union without coercion and were free to leave.
OK, granted…and the same was true for Northern soldiers. These weren’t good enough reasons for the politicians though…representing entire economies…to vote for war though. Lee and the noble soldiers of the South, did NOT control their legislators vote to secede.
You could say they really believed in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- the "powers not delegated" clause. They believed that the federal government should be responsible for the common defense, a postal service and little else. They viewed the Union Army as an invader, not an emancipator.
Yep, goes to personal reasons for fighting, not political.
I am not attempting to trivialize slavery. It is a dark chapter in our history, North and South alike.
However, I am a proud Southerner and a proud descendent of Confederate soldiers. I honor their service because, to me, it represents the sacrifice of life and livelihood that Southerners made for a cause more important to them than their personal security and self-interest.
I’m a proud son of the South too—descendent of a Confederate officer. However, its silly to deny the POLITICS behind Southern secession, the players which indeed had a realistic fear of having their states destroyed by an abolitionist president.
Slavery was why the governments of the South left… Union was why the North fought to stop them. And yes, Lincoln, like most anyone white (or black) was racist at that time…so what?
I'm aware of the genocidal war conducted by my country against the American Indian, but I'm still a proud American. And I'm also aware of the atrocities that occurred at My Lai, but I am proud of my service as a Marine in Vietnam.
If the Confederate flag represented slavery, the U.S. flag must represent slavery even more so.
But the Confederate flag waved only over those who, however noble their personal reasons, had formed a country, the basis of which was the continuation of slavery. READ THE SECESSION DEBATES… The state legislators seceded to protect slavery, period. It doesn’t take away the bravery and nobility of the soldiers—that they were ultimately used to fight in a war started for not the most noble reasons. Most wars have as their main original cause…foolishness.
Slavery existed for four years under the Stars and Bars and for almost 100 years under the Stars and Stripes.
And it also represented the nation which ended slavery—after a re-unification bought with much blood. North’s original reason for fighting, unhidden throughout the war, was indeed to preserve the union, I know of no student of history who denies this.
If the few hundred members of racist groups such as the Ku Klux Klan want to adopt the Confederate flag as their symbol, over the objections of millions of Southerners, should we believe it has been corrupted for all time?
Unfortunately, yes. The swastika was an ancient symbol with a noble history, until it was hijacked by the Nazis. Because of how offensive it is—particularly to certain ethnic groups—we wouldn’t think of flying it now, even though I’m sure there were thousands of noble German soldiers, who fought and even died for what they honestly believed was a very noble cause. No, the parallel isn’t as extreme—however RARE is the African American who is friendly toward the memory of the Confederacy. You may say they’re mistaken…and they should be proud of the flag of those who fought to keep things as they were…with them in chains. I wager though, black Americans will never see things that way. If you value the opinions the colored however—you’ll retire the Confederate colors. If you don’t care what blacks think however I think you prove yourself to be what you most vociferously deny: A racist.
Given that the KKK has adopted the cross for its burnings, should churches across the country remove this symbol of Christian faith from all places of worship?
The cross was never used solely by a group like the KKK. Its very wide PEACEFUL use, by all kinds of people, make it a universal Christian symbol. Now the twisted cross of the Nazis…well, see above.
Should we diminish the service of the Buffalo Soldiers (black U.S. cavalry troopers of the late 1800s) because they were an integral part of a war that subjugated and enslaved the Plains Indians?
No one that I know of—in official government capacity at least—is denigrating the service of Confederate soldiers. Alexandria Virginia, just 10 minutes outside DC has a confederate memorial in the middle of it…as do most all Southern towns of any size.
No. We should not surrender the Confederate flag or the cross to the racists, and we should not tear down the monuments.
Just who is lobbying to tear down monuments? Taking down a flag, is not tearing down a monument.
Retroactive cleansing of history is doomed to failure because it is, at heart, a lie.
I certainly agree with that…as has the “lost cause” movement—which ignored why the states voted to secede, focusing only on personal reasons—which don’t form the foundation of war.
We should memorialize and commemorate all of our soldiers who served honorably -- those who wore blue or gray or served as Buffalo Soldiers -- whether or not we in today's enlightened world completely support their actions.
Agreed, if that doesn’t include flags which insult huge portions of our society.
Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. As a state senator, he sponsored legislation establishing the June tenth Commission for the purpose of funding a Juneteenth monument on the Texas Capitol grounds.
No, that was during the War, before his election in 1864. He was assassinated within a week of Appomattox.
Far more important was the next Amendment, the Fourteenth that inverted the relationship of the States to the Federal Government. In the Original Constitution, the one that has been exiled, the State legislature elected the respective US Senators.
I think you shall find that the amendment dealing with the popular election of Senators was the 17th. I also believe you will find it was passed nearly 50 years after the end of the Civil War.
The 14th guaranteed due process and equal protection of the law, protected citizen's immunities and privileges, got rid of the 3/5ths of a person clause, made insurrectionists ineligible for office unless allowed by 2/3rds of Congress, and made void any war debt claims of the Confederacy or for loss by reason of the emancipation of a slave.
BTTT
I would expect that technological developments would have pretty soon reduced the value of slaves' labor to the point that investment in new slaves ceased to be worthwhile. Slavery may have continued beyond that as long as current slaves continued to supply useful labor, but it would have wound down. Had things happened that way, I think there would have come to be far fewer welfare slaves on the Democrat plantation today.
That is my understanding of history, yes.
When he was building the West with the Army Corps of Engineers or leading men into battle in Mexico do you really think he didn't consider himself an American?
That is a fair point. (Ironically, both Lee and Grant fought in the Mexican-American War, though it is my understanding that Grant, being the younger of the two, remembered Lee much better than Lee remembered Grant.)
But I am digressing.
I suppose that in some vague sense, Lee would have thought of himself as a part of an expansionist America. But first and foremost, he was a Virginian, especially given the looseness of the Union prior to the war that would both preserve and re-define that concept. All other "national" identities were subordinate to that.
Please don't suppose that I am an apologist for the abominable institution of slavery, or even for the Jim Crow laws of the post-Reconstruction South. Nor do I harbor a deep wish that the War Between the States had ended differently. (Would a Confederate States of America, which was inherently suspicious of a strong federal government, even have survived the late nineteenth century, without falling prey to some European power of the time? If so, how would that have impacted WWI and WWII in the twentieth century? How about the Cold War? These are not mere rhetorical questions.)
I simply believe that Lee was a man of admirable character--a man who was deeply conflicted when it came time to choose sides--and that Americans today could do much worse than to emulate him.
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3b2404987d82.htm
Nam Vet
Yeah, that's it! LOL!
Doubtful. Cotton farming is very labor intensive. Planting the cotton. Thinning it. Weeding it. Keeping the bugs off. And then harvesting it all took a lot of labor. When you consider that the first practical cotton harverster was not introduced until the 1930's and chemicals to keep the bugs and weeds down came out after that then it's clear that technology would not have replaced slavery in the fields anytime soon.
There is also the fact that many, perhaps most slaves did not work in the fields. They were domestic help - maids, cooks, grooms, butlers, nannies, gardeners, and the like. Technology would not have replaced them, either.
And regardless of how it ended, the South would still have been faced with millions of freed blacks suddenly wanting the same kind or rights whites had. Considering how unwelcome the few free blacks were in the South, or the North for that matter, prior to the rebellion it's hard to believe that things would have been different regardless of how slavery ended.
Slavery ended in all cases through government intervention and always of the strong opposition of the overwhelming majority of the slave owners themselves.
..., but money has a way of changing opinions.
The value of the slaves in the south at the time of the rebellion ran upwards of $3 to $4 billion. This at a time when the federal budget was in the $60 million. There is no way that Congress would have agreed to buy out the slavers. And admittedly it would have been cheaper than the war, but I suggest that nobody forecast what the rebellion would cost.
Fine man, great resume, but he's about fifty years too late expressing that sentiment. Too bad his father's and grandfather's generations felt differently and allowed the Confederate battle flag to become indelibly linked with Jim Crow segregation.
It's amazing how the confederate leadership changed their tune after they lost the War of Southern Rebellion. After the war, Alexander Stephens said it wasn't about slavery. At the beginning he was calling it the cornerstone of the the confederacy and the reason for the rebellion. Before the war it was the single most important bone of contention. After the war you'd think they never heard of the institution.
There were 15 slave states in 1861. Had they all held together then in order to adopt an amendment ending slavery 46 states would have to ratify it. Do the math.
The Republicans knew that there was no way they could end slavery in the face of opposition from the slave states. But they did believe that Chief Justice Taney was wrong in Dred Scott and that the government could keep it from the territories.
Congress had passed the first and second Confiscation Acts shortly after the rebellion began saying that private property used in support of the rebellion could be seized without compensation. The Emacipation Proclamation was an off-shoot of those acts, and the reason why it applied only to those areas still under confederate control. The acts were upheld by the Supreme Court so the Emancipation Proclamation was entirely legal.
You offer that Lincoln moved after the war to advocate the 13th Amendment. Far more important was the next Amendment, the Fourteenth that inverted the relationship of the States to the Federal Government. In the Original Constitution, the one that has been exiled, the State legislature elected the respective US Senators.
The 14th Amendment was passed and sent to the states long after Lincoln's murder so let's not try and pin that one on him, shall we? As for the 13th, it passed out of the Senate in the spring of 1864, passed out of Congress early in 1865, and was sent to the states. All before the rebellion ended.
That, coupled with what is now known as Incorporation, brought National power to exceed State sovereign power.
I think you exaggerate the state sovereign power to begin with.
A number of the original States came into Federalism only by reserving the right to secede. In fact the issue of secession was raised by several northern states in the years prior to the Northern invasion of the South.
However, since none of those states had actually attempted secession then we have no idea how they would have pursued such a course. Had they done so after discussions with the remaining states, and with the approval of all the parties involved, then there is no reason why they should not have been allowed to leave. The Southern states chose to secede unilaterally, walking away from all financial and treaty obligations built up by the nation as a whole while they were a part, and seizing any and all federal property they could get their hands on without compensation. Why does it surprise you that the remaining states might have a problem with that?
The Federal Constitution is a contract. When one party abrogates it, the contract is dissolved.
OK, let's take the contract arguement. What gives only one side the power to decide that the contract had been violated and the power to dissolve it?
Of course, the National forces that occupied Washington could not allow the South to flee the Union, for they needed the cash flow from the taxes they levied on the South in order to finance other projects.
Complete nonsense. The tariff was applied to all parties, North and South. The overwhelming majority of all tariff revenue was collected from Northern consumers. Alexander Stephens put the figure at over 75%. Federal documents note that well over 90% of all tariff revenue was collected in Northern ports. Losing the revenue from Southern ports might have hurt but it would hardly have crippled the government, and was certainly not worth a war.
It is not different today, where socialists cannot allow people to escape Social Security because they need the money to buy power elsewhere.
Can we stay in the 19th century and not blame everything on Lincoln?
Please do not waste my time telling me about preserving the Union. I used to believe like you until I read many of the original documents for myself.
Perhaps you need to read more of them?
JERRY PATTERSON forgot to mention that when Robert E. Lee freed his slaves BEFORE THE WAR and declared slavery an abomination, Ulysses S. Grant purchased a female slave to be his wife's servant. Grant's slave remained a slave until the 13th amendment to the constitution. The Emancipation Proclamation by Lincoln only freed slaves in seceeded states and no where else.
JERRY PATTERSON also forgot to mention that with the end of the war, and the right to vote being bestowed upon the freed slaves, the right to vote was taken away from the white population. The KKK came about only because of the disenfranchisement of the southern white voters.
I stand corrected. Grant freed his slaves just before the war.
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.