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.
Because then, as now, politicians act differently in DC than they do at home. Politicians tend to become more in favor of big government in DC, regardless of where they're from. It's no different now.
bump
Not in the 1860s they weren't. Calling them Northern today is just another game you neo-confederates play to deceive the historically ignorant and I have seen that game played hundreds of times on these threads.
That is your straw man, not mine. No knowledgeable person would ever say that the Union went to war in 1861 to free the slaves any more than one would say we went into WWII to save the Jews.
best - Van
I look forward to it.
And I suppose the attack on Pearl Harbor was "contrived" to start WWII?
And the attack on 9/11 was "contrived" to start the War on Terror?
You are right. My bad...
Doubtful. Cotton farming was labor intensive and harvesting it properly was difficult to mechanize. The first commercially successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the 1930's. And a large percentage of the slaves were domestic help. What mechanization would replace the cooks, maids, butlers, grooms, gardeners, and so forth?
The North held, or would soon hold solid majorities in Congress so they could have overridden objections from the South. I believe at one time Lincoln was thinking of issuing bonds to compensate loyal slave owners, which would have spread the cost out over decades.
The problem with a compensated emancipation system is that the slave owners would have to agree to be compensated. There was no interest on the part of Southern slave owners in ending the institution, through compensated means or otherwise.
In any case you would have had the Federal Government telling the South what to do with their slaves. In other words the North telling the South what to do. Absent a Constitutional amendment, impossible to get ratified, it would have had to have been done through legislation. So how long do you think it would have taken for the South to sit back and accept such a violation of state's rights without rebelling?
This would have solved other problems that Reconstruction caused. My Grandfather who was born in 1888, and kindled my interest in the WBTS claimed that Reconstruction was far more devastating to the south than the war was.
Like what? Accepting the freed blacks as citizens with the same rights as whites? Allowing blacks to vote? Heck, you didn't see that for free blacks down South before the rebellion, what makes you think it would have happened regardless of the means of emancipation?
I'm not aware that there was such a hue and cry from poor southern whites to do the work that slaves were doing before slavery ended. Can you point me to somewhere that details the plight of the poor white cottonpicker in 1850? Or the southern maiden who yearned for a job as a plantation cook but was kept out because of discrimination? Work done by blacks in the south carried a stigma for decades afterwards. Whites weren't interested in competing with blacks for jobs as maids or cooks or field hands and we all know it.
To me that point touches on one prevalent misconception held by fans of the Confederacy. There was a federal government in Richmond too. And given the fact that it had to support a society based on suppressing a large segment of the residents, I believe it would have developed into something much more oppressive than anything we've ever seen out of Washington DC.
There are a number of books out there but I confess I haven't read any that specifically deal with the subject so I can't recommend a particular one.
bttt
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.