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.
Posted at #3, above.
Don't forget to tell us what would've become of the west, but be careful of betraying your bigotry.
I am constantly amazed and appalled that this can still be a debate.
Several Freepers have already posted the text or links to what amounts to signed confessions by the political leaders of the several Confederate states in regard to the centrality of slavery in their deliberations.
The fact that most Johnny Rebs were serving out of loyalty to their states and didn't own slaves is beside the point. Even mentioning the Constitution's lack of explicit text concerning secession by member states of the Union is also beside the point. Just because you might have the "right" to do something doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it.
At the end of the day, you still have the legislators of the Confederate states stating that they are acting out of concern for protecting the "peculiar institution." They don't cite census numbers about shifting demographics nor tarriff rates or other such things. In fact, the South Carolina legislators griped in their declaration of principles for their secession that the Federal government wasn't making the New England states enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. (I guess "nullification" is only a selective political right.)
I also remind you that South Carolina and other states seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated! (Therfore, nothing he did as President caused these secessions-- only the fear of what he might do.) Hell, South Carolina began the process as soon as the election returns came in.
Finally, pointing out that Lincoln started the American Civil War believing that the preservation of the Union trumped the abolition of slavery in importance is only half the story. By 1862, it became obvious to Lincoln that Emancipation had to be a crucial war aim--the prerequisite for real victory in the long run. In fact, one might make an analogy to Iraq today. Deposing Saddam Hussein is only the first step--changing Iraq has to be done or we will be back at it again in several years (Nancy Pelosi, call your office.)
"...December 31, 1862, Lincoln connected his name to a document that many of his adherents and later apologists would gladly forget: a contract with Bernard Kock, an ambitious and unscrupulous venturer, to use federal funds to remove some five thousand black men, women, and children from the United States to a small island off the coast of Haiti. It was Lincoln's last effort at colonizing blacks outside the United States, executed only one day before he was to sign a proclamation putting into effect his first official effort at permanently freeing slaves in the country."
http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jala/14.2/vorenberg.html
It wasn't slavery that caused the Civil War, it was the EXPANSION of slavery to the west that caused the Civil War. From the Missouri Compromise of 1820, to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, right up to the Compromise of 1850, the war was postponed because the slave states and free states enacted compromises in the newly opened lands in the west by deciding which new territory would be admitted as a free or slave state. Each side fought for the politcal and economic power in these areas. Finally, no compromises could be reached and the Union fell apart.
Granted, slavery alone may have not caused the war, but it is safe to say if there had not been slavery, there would not have been a war.
It is true that most Southerners did not own slaves. However, it is also true that the Southern economy was built upon slave labor. Therefore, in a real sense, they were fighting to preserve the institution of slavery. Southerners wanted to preserve their way of life. Secession became the vehicle for that effort. Nevertheless, slavery has to be seen as the root cause of the war.
"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
If they'd waited 40 more years, it could've been the *petroleum-producing states* vs the *non-oilie states.*
As it is now, it's the coasties against the "restivus." Or how about the "sunbabies" vs. the "snowbirds"? African slavery in the South came about because of climatology.
I'm a sucker for an oldfashioned rowdydow...
I'm a sucker for an old fashioned rowdydow...
I would argue that the Civil War was fought mainly for economic reasons - of which slavery was a well-sized component.
The North had relatively few slaves. It had industrial power - power provided by poor white workers. The factories were not responsible for housing or feeding their workers, but gave them a few cents, a pat on the back, and sent them back to their tiny apartments.
In comparison, the South had millions of slaves housed in cheaper-built apartments who worked most of the day, and were fed. While the feeding and housing of all these workers, and caring for their children, might on the surface look to be expensive, it was a giant guaranteed worker pool.
If I remember my history classes correctly (And I'm sure there's skewing here, as there typically is in any educational institution nowadays, so please forgive...), there was a lot of evidence that the South was trying to put slaves into factories. What would that do? It would push out the poor white workers, and make unemployment skyrocket among the whites in the area.
...or something like that. My professor's history seemed to be 'modeled on reality', not 'based on fact' most of the time. And as always, this was just one part of the picture.
To be honest, the states always bickered with each other. Look at Michigan and Ohio before Michigan was a state - they fought over the Toledo strip, and there's an issue that hasn't been resolved until the 1970s. However, the states didn't fight in such large blocs until economics between the two regions started to clash - and hard.
There is no historical record of any kind that shows that the North went to war to rid the US of slavery. The North went to war to preserve the Union. The South, OTOH, was content to withdraw from the Union and go its own way. Ft. Sumpter was probably the biggest boner of the Confederacy. Had it not occurred..., well I can't really say that war wouldn't have happened since Lincoln had a war plan drawn up.
If your post is trying to show that the South seceded because of slavery you have shown it. There were many other reasons as well. Unfortunately, you have neglected to show in what capacity the North went to war. It certainly wasn't to eliminate slavery. So don't give me and anyone else on this thread any sort of superior sniff.
And we aren't divided?
Iterate. Excellent post.
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.
I'd vote for that. That's why NE liberals were pushing for 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.