Dixie's dilemma

Athens Banner-Herald ^ | January 6, 2003 | Michael A. Fletcher

[Torie]

Some school districts have set them up. Parents can send their kids to a variety of schools with different emphases.

[Torie]

It was an elite private school. We wore white and blue checkered shirts and blue pants. The girls wore checkered skirts in the same color and pattern.

[PistolPaknMama]

After 1863, they would not have been slaves in areas where slaves had been liberated

Out of curiostity, which areas were those?.

Let's revisit the so-called emancipaton proclamation, in case you've never read it. It freed slaves only in the states in rebellion, where the federal goverment (Lincoln) had no jurisdiction at the time. Supposing that Mrs. Grant (a slave owner) visit her husband Mr. Grant at his headquarters in various places in the South where he and his troops were raping, burning and pillaging at the time, and supposing she had her slaves with her, because they were not freed but protected by the EP, then upon entering the South, would not Mrs. Grant's slaves have been freed?

Of course, considering that Mrs. Grant's slaves were yankee property..and only southern property was disposed of by Mr. Lincoln...I suppose the jurisdiction confered to the yankee government regardless of where the yankee property was located. Meaning Mrs. Grant, and her slaves, could move about freely on the northern continent as long as her slaves were considered yankee property and said ownership being protected by the United States Constitution.

[Torie]

Since slavery was illegal in the North, that would leave only the non secessionist slave states exempt in effect, to wit, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware. They were dealt with pursuant to the 14th amendment, and with the proclamation the die was cast assuming the Confederacy was thereafter defeated, which by the time of the Proclamation was a good bet assuming Lincoln won reelection.

[PistolPaknMama]

Since slavery was illegal in the North

For real? I am truly interested how slavery was illegal in the north. I read voraciously and have never run across this little piece of trivia, so please let me know where you found this.

[PistolPaknMama]

Since slavery was illegal in the North, that would leave only the non secessionist slave states exempt in effect, to wit, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.

The only problem with that is that the "emancipation" proclamtion clearly states that slaves were freed in the areas of rebellion. I don't think that at the time the north invaded the south that the territories and states which you mentioned were in rebellion.

[Torie]

The four states were not, and thus slavery remained legal there until the 14th amendment. That was my point.

[Torie]

Well, at least before Dred Scott, which helped fuel the war, and was ignored. Each state passed its own laws over time nixing the peculiar institution. Where have you been?

[PistolPaknMama]

Where have you been?

Sittin' right here.

You still did not mention the particular laws that made slavery illegal in the north. Slavery was NOT illegal in the north until Consititution amendement in 1867. I would like to see evidence otherwise. Not being sarcastic, but would be interested in what you know that I don't.

[Torie]

I referred you to the individual state laws. Maybe you don't consider those of any import.

[PistolPaknMama]

I referred you to the individual state laws. Maybe you don't consider those of any import.

No no no! I consider it very import. Just...which individual states? I don't know of any where slavery was illegal until 1867. I've asked you this twice and you can't produce the names of any states. Help me out here.

[maro]

Yeah, war is hell. I know the South suffered greatly, and I agree that many Northerners are hypocrites on race. Northern racism is in some ways worse than Southern racism. But it doesn't help for white Southerners to rally around the flag of a defunct political cause that in the modern era cannot be associated with anything other than slavery and/or secessionism. You reap what you sow. For many years slave-owning white Southerners inflicted great harm on their slaves. Why are these Confederate flag wearing yahoos so sensitive about what happened to their great-great grand daddies, but so insensitive to what happened to the slaves? It's time to let go of the past, and think about what kind of society to build for the future. How about this for a deal: white Southerners agree to not use that flag as a rallying point or symbol of Southerness and black Americans drop this reparations nonsense. Wouldn't that be a good deal for both sides, and a positive way to move forward as one nation, under God, indivisible?

[Torie]

All of them except the four I mentioned and the Confederacy. If you think slavery was legal north of the Maxon Dixon line and the Ohio River, and points West, etc, prior to 1867, well that is amazing. Is this some knuckle ball that I simply can't hit that you are serving up?

[thatdewd]

...that would leave only the non secessionist slave states exempt in effect, to wit, Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.

Lincoln also exempted the entire secessionist state of Tennessee, that part of Virginia now called West Virginia, and those parts of Louisiana and Virginia proper that were occupied by federal troops. :)

[Torie]

Thanks for the codicil.

[maro]

I'm not sure what your point is. Lincoln ran on a high tariff platform. When he won, the South feared that tariffs would be hiked. I don't know about the 75% number, but there was no income tax back then, so it is entirely possible. My overall point here is that when people say that slavery was not the reason for the Civil War, they state at best a half truth. Slavery was not a direct trigger for the War, but was the underlying cause for why the ecomomic interests of the industrial North and the agrarian South diverged so much. In that sense, the Civil War was all about slavery, both before Fort Sumter and after the Emancipation Proclamation. As for your second response, free black labor would have commanded a market price. In contrast, slave labor is inherently far beneath market. Whites who feared labor competition with blacks had far more to fear from slavery than from emancipation. Finally, there is a difference between a civil war (no capitals), which refers generically to any internecine conflict, and the Civil War, which refers to the War Between the States. Without slavery, there may have been a trigger for some other civil war, but we would have been spared the Civil War.

[thatdewd]

Thanks for the codicil.

He specifically exempted those areas when he wrote the proclamation. For some reason he didn't want to "free" the slaves in Confederate areas where he actually did have military and governmental control, so he excluded them: "which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

[x]

Slaves were deeded to Lee by his father-in-law with a provision in the will that they be freed after five years. They were, but this was a reflection of the terms of the will, not of any particular virtue on Lee's part.

The 13th Amendment forbidding slavery became a part of the Constitution on December 6, 1865. It was the only way that slavery could have been abolished throughout the whole country.

As I read the Emancipation Proclamation it freed "all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States." Just how the passage is to be read with respect to slaves brought into these areas isn't clear, but if the proclamation freed slaves in these areas and then masters were allowed to bring people from outside into them and force them to behave as slaves, it could be seen as a violation of the intent of the proclamation. It would be much harder to separate out persons of color on the basis of whether they were in the area when the proclamation became effective. There is no distinction made in the proclamation between "Southern property" and "Yankee property."

In the areas retaken by the Union Army, the institution of slavery was in chaos. And many masters and servants wouldn't know what their relationship was. Reliable investigations, though, conclude that after 1863 Mrs. Grant's Black servants were no long with her.

[lentulusgracchus]

As for your second response, free black labor would have commanded a market price. In contrast, slave labor is inherently far beneath market. Whites who feared labor competition with blacks had far more to fear from slavery than from emancipation.

To the contrary, free black labor commanded less. At the turn of the century, free white labor was worth $3/day for a 12-hour day; black labor commanded only a dollar.

Of course, this wasn't the black laborer's idea, but his white employer's.

Racism and Jim Crow worked to undercut the earning power of black laborers, and to cosset the profits of their employers, regardless of race.

More importantly, the disparity allowed employers to undercut white wages and fight unionism, by resorting to more tactics of division and manipulation.

In the "free labor market", no less. Makes you wonder, doesn't it, just how free that market was? It was certainly an oligopsony.

[Polybius]

What is important is now. What statement can a modern person be making by wearing a Confederate flag? Is he for slavery? For secession? (And yes, history and treason are defined by the winners. So what? We won the Revolutionary War, so Benedict Arnold is a traitor and Geo. Washington is a hero. Do you disagree with these characterizations?) Surely there must be some symbol of "Southern culture" that is not tainted. Isn't it really pretty much like those black Olympic athletes raising their fists at the awards podium, except that you guys are mouthing "white power." What if some Japanese exchange student wore the Rising Sun flag, or wanted to celebrate December 7, or some German exchange student wore a swastika, or wanted to celebrate Auschwitz. What if some Arab student wanted to celebrate 9/11 or wear an Osama T-shirt? It's time for white Southerners to get over the War Between the States.

It is obvious to me, maro, that you are an individual that has absolutely no concept of what military heritage is.

The Confederate Battle Flag was a battle flag just as the "Don't Tread on Me" flag was a battle flag during the Revolution. It was not a national flag nor a political flag.

To me, the Confederate Battle Flag means Gaines Mill, Malvern Hill, the Valley Campaign, Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Chancellorville, Gettysburg, the Wildreness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Petersburg and Appomatox.

It is the battle flag flown by men that performed some of the most impressive feats of arms in American history. Men that, to this very day, the U.S. Army honors with U.S. Army bases named Fort Lee and Fort Bragg and that the U.S. Navy has honored with a ballistic missile submarine named USS Stonewall Jackson.

To you it means "white power", Benedict Arnold, swastikas, Auchwitz, 9/11 and Osama bin Ladin. Did you forget Attila the Hun?

I understand that it is now Politically Correct to demonize anything dealing with Confederates just as it was once Politically Correct to demonize Vietnam veterans as "baby killers". Once you start down that slippery slope, you had better be prepared to take up the demonization of the Founding Fathers who were slave holders and who now offend certain Blacks, the demonization of those who fought for Texan Independence and who now offend certain Chicanos, the demonization of those Black Buffalo Soldiers who helped destroy the way of life of the Plains Indians and who now offend certain Native Americans and the demonization of those who fought to save South Vietnam from Communism and who now offend Politically Correct American Leftists.

My original post merely pointed out to you that the American Civil War was not simply a war of "slavery" vs "emancipation". In this, any serious student of the Civil War will agree and point out to you that the average Union soldier fought to "save the Union" and cared little about abolition.

In response, you reply the "you guys are mouthing white power" and that "it's time for white Southerners to get over the War Between the States".

For your information, maro, I am not a Southerner. In fact, none of my ancestors lived in the United States during the Civil War.

I am a student of military history and a retired U.S. Naval Officer and I know the respect and honor that military men give to each other.

The Civil War is long since over. In 1913, 50 years after the Battle of Gettysburg, Union and Confederate veterans gathered at Gettysburg with their old battle flags to honor their old foes. The old political vitriol spewed out by politicians on both sides that had driven these young men to kill each other in the field of battle had been buried and forgotten.

In the idiom of the day, the "Bloody Shirt" that hate-mongering politicians loved to wave to stir passions had been buried.

Now, maro, 90 years after that Gettysburg re-union, hate-mongering Political Correctniks such as yoursef gleefully dig the "Bloody Shirt" back up and start waving it with all the political hatred that existed between politicians in 1860 but with additional references to Auschwitz thrown in.

I agree that someone needs to realize that the Civil war is over, maro.

That someone is you and the rest of the Politically Correct crowd.

FYI: The U.S. Navy and the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force are now aliies. At sea in joint operations and ashore at joint functions, the flag our Japanese naval allies display is........The Rising Sun, the battle flag of the Japanese Navy.

Japan American Navy Friendship Association Award Ceremony