Posted on 09/16/2015 9:27:36 AM PDT by Theoria
The Civil War began over a simple question: Did the Constitution of the United States recognize slavery — property in humans — in national law? Southern slaveholders, inspired by Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, charged that it did and that the Constitution was proslavery; Northern Republicans, led by Abraham Lincoln, and joined by abolitionists including Frederick Douglass, resolutely denied it. After Lincoln’s election to the presidency, 11 Southern states seceded to protect what the South Carolina secessionists called their constitutional “right of property in slaves.”
The war settled this central question on the side of Lincoln and Douglass. Yet the myth that the United States was founded on racial slavery persists, notably among scholars and activists on the left who are rightly angry at America’s racist past. The myth, ironically, has led advocates for social justice to reject Lincoln’s and Douglass’s view of the Constitution in favor of Calhoun’s. And now the myth threatens to poison the current presidential campaign. The United States, Bernie Sanders has charged, “in many ways was created, and I’m sorry to have to say this, from way back, on racist principles, that’s a fact.”
But as far as the nation’s founding is concerned, it is not a fact, as Lincoln and Douglass explained. It is one of the most destructive falsehoods in all of American history.
Yes, slavery was a powerful institution in 1787. Yes, most white Americans presumed African inferiority. And in 1787, proslavery delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia fought to inscribe the principle of property in humans in the Constitution. But on this matter the slaveholders were crushed.
James Madison (himself a slaveholder) opposed the ardent proslavery delegates and stated that it would be “wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The fact that once slaves were freed and everything wasn’t fine and that blacks did not achieve equality in the north should say that wasn’t the main cause.
This war ended 150 years ago. 750,000 people died because of it. Other nations were able to answer the question of slavery without a war and the death of so many people.
So how come a President who couldn’t avoid this war, is considered one of our nation’s best leaders? Surely there was something who could have done before 1861 to avoid such a travesty.
Even if it was postponed another 15-20 years, there had to be a better way.
The reason? The Victors get to write the history.
Walter Williams has two great pieces on this. AS always, it was about the money;
“Following the money might help with an answer. Throughout most of our nation’s history, the only sources of federal revenue were excise taxes and tariffs. During the 1850s, tariffs amounted to 90 percent of federal revenue. Southern ports paid 75 percent of tariffs in 1859. What “responsible” politician would let that much revenue go?”
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams071515.php3
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams072215.php3
This article is absolutely idiotic. The three-fifths clause is not, however, the reason to criticize the original Constitution’s recognition of slavery as a nationally recognized institution. Instead, it is Article IV Section 2:
“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall ... be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”
The original Constitution authorized the enforcement of property rights in chattel slaves on a nationwide basis, even over the objections of majorities in Northern states. The Fugitive Slave Act was authorized under Article IV Section 2. Fun Fact: Administrators of the Act received a fee of 10 dollars for every slave returned; the fee was reduced to five dollars if the accused slave were released. Guess which way they typically ruled?
What I’ve read about the First Battle of Bull Run, the confederates had a tactical opportunity to get to Washington in the aftermath of the Union defeat. Stonewall Jackson wanted to pursue, but was ordered not to.
If his argument that it is his constitutional duty to "Preserve the Union" is correct, he could have started it to end a secession for any reason.
His argument was that secession was illegal, not that slavery was illegal.
Would the men of the North have been willing to enlist to kill Southerners just over secession without there being a great issue such as slavery?
You are aware that many of them were drafted, and did not want to fight? One of their arguments of the time was that their lives were worth $300.00 while a slave's life was worth a thousand.
They had the worst riots in our History in the north because of the draft.
For that matter, without the big issue of slavery, would the southern states have bothered to secede? Sure there were other issues, but they were small potatoes relatively.
From what I have learned of the conflict just in the last few months, those "small potatoes" issues were intimately tied to the overall picture. Apparently the US Federal government was running on money generated from Tariffs, with the vast bulk of the costs falling on the Southern States. Anywhere between 50% to 80% of the revenue raised to support the FedGov, was the result of imports to balance Southern agriculture exports.
That Southern 20% of the US Population was paying greater than 50% of the costs of running the US Government. Port Cities like New York were making a fortune trans-shipping southern cotton as middle men. Much of the economic activity of the period was tied up in Slavery one way or the other.
You should read this and other messages from Pea Ridge regarding this period of history. They were an eye opener to me.
I would call it more propaganda than “habit”.
Add to that a double-dose of Pilgrims this, Pilgrims that;
Mayflower this, Mayflower that.
Were the year 1859 you would have studied Jamestown.
It is quite refreshing to speak to educated Europeans as to their take on American history. They are thoroughly knowledgeable the history of Jamestown.
The slavers at the NYT are still advocating the slavery of the people to the fascist/commie government state. Good thing we have lampposts from sea to shining sea to take care of these traitors to America.
Both armies were 1)green, and 2)well beat-up after the battle. Jackson couldn't have done it single-handed.
Wow! Thanks for making that speech so accessible. Haven’t read it in years, but just reread the whole thing. The only thing I can compare it to is Beethoven. That was truly how to lay out a case!
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.