This takes us to a comment by Martin Cothran, spokesperson for Focus on the Family in Kentucky and author of vere loqui, in particular of this comment:
I may not have explicitly disagreed before about slavery being the primary aim of the Confederacy, but I'll do it now. The issue was state's rights primarily, with slavery being an aggravating factor. Lincoln said several times that he would not order an end to slavery in the South. The issue was only newer states, so it was unnecessary for the South to secede in order to maintain slavery.
Slavery did become the primary justification of the war on both sides later in the war when Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a means to provide the North with a moral reason for he war. He needed a moral crusade to inform the Northern psyche, and slavery was ready at hand for the purpose. The Southern newspapers bit on it, and began to offer rationales for slavery.
But the idea that slavery was what the Civil War was about is, as I said, an oversimplification.
Well, any war has multiple justifications, and the Civil War is not an exception. However, the primary reason was certainly slavery, and to claim otherwise can only be denialism. All we need to look at are the documents produced by both sides in between the first secession (South Carolina, 1860-DEC-20) to the outbreak of hostilities (1861-APR-12).
We can start by looking at the proposal of people who were tryingto avert the war. Our first stop is the Critenden Compromise. This was a Constitutional amendment of six items and four proposed Congressional resolutions. Every single one of these items directly concerns slavery. Next, the Corwin amendment specifically calls out the institution of slavery. It was passed by Congress, signed by Buchanan (which had no formal significance),and passed by two states, says "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." There was even a three-week Peace Conference, which proposed an amendment of seven sections, each section specifically addressing slavery, and the last sentence of the last section only addressing the rights of citizens (but not states). So clearly, in eyes of the people trying to preserve the Union and avoid war, slavery was the main issue.
How about the people leading the fight for secession? Well, we can start with the Cornerstone speech, delivered by Alexander H. Stevens, the first Vice-President of the Confederacy. He says, "The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution." Years later, when trying to correct some of the supposed misstatements of the recorded version of his speech, he reiterates this claim, "Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession;". Of course, the best source of all is the reasons the states themselves give for secession, which we have for South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. All four of them refer to slavery generally, and the status of fugitive slaves in particular, while only one mentions economic reasons. So, we see from both sides that slavery really was the principle casue, not an afterthought or aggravating issue.
The argument concerning fugitive slaves is particularly ironic, because it amounts to an argument against the rights of Northern states to decide when people should be considered free. In that regard, the secessionists were anti-states-rights.
I don't expect the conservative Christian Republicans to give up this brand of denialism any time soon. It's no coincidence that every time a major party candidate has ties to a white-power organization, it's a Republican. They need these votes to win elections.
Posts
18 comments:
The senior Democratic Senator in the Congress used to belong to the KKK, so it's not the Republicans quite every time, is it?
Lee,
Sen. Byrd pre-dates the Civil Rights Act and the Southern Strategy.
Last I heard, he was still a senator. That makes him a major party candidate every time he runs. But your main point seems to be that whackos with a revisionist historical perspective and skewed views on race are naturally attracted to the Republican Party. I would concede as much, on the understanding that the Democrats have similar fever swamps on their own side -- perhaps not white-power groups, but how about oddball Marxists and white-hating black preachers?
About Sen. Byrd specifically:
He did vote against the civil rights act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but apparently had a change of heart. He was a strong supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and has been a reliable proponent since.
I do agree that the oddball Marxists and white-hating preachers of any race are more likely to vote Democratic. It's even possible you'll be able to find some left-leaning political action group, comcparable to Focus on the Family, that engages in denialism (PETA will probably offer some choice morsels). Denialism is a tactic thathas no allegiance of its own.
One of the more interesting remarks (out of many) by Thomas Sowell was to the effect that you cannot assume that the people who were Christians in the Roman Empire under persecution were the same types of people who became Christians when Christianity held the whip hand. I think that principle applies to more than just Christians. For years, it was politically expedience to belong to the KKK, if you were a Southern politician. And then, all of a sudden, it was not. It may be that Byrd never was a racist in his heart, but he had no qualms about joining the KKK when he thought it was in his best interests, and none about abandoning it when it was not. Some might see that as a refreshing lack of principle. Others might call it moral blindness. Either way, I don't give him a free pass on it. If something foul has been in your coffee cup, no matter how many times you run it through the washer, will you ever drink from it with quite the same enjoyment?
Lee,
I agree with you there. From what I read of him in this thread, even Sen. Byrd agrees with you. :)
There are certainly forms of denialism on the left. It is hard to call much of the modern craziness about vaccines and autism anything other than denialism although anti-vaccination has spread a bit to the right in the last few post-Gardasil years). And 9/11 Truthers are denialists by many standards.
Moreover, while denialism about the Confederacy is a generally right-wing thing, many Democrats in the South also take a highly apologetic view of the Confederacy.
I really don't care to get involved in elaborate arguments about what "caused" the civil war and just what "cause" each side was fighting for. Suffice it to say that, as late as 1858, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the constitution guaranteed the right to own slaves. This might seem to make the american flag just as "offensive" as any flag that supposedly "stood for" the proposition that such guarantees were desirable.
The "emancipation proclamation" did not purport to "free the slaves." That proclamation essentially "granted" (not the best term, but...) the continued right to own slaves to any state which "surrendered" by a certain date. It was only slaves in states which did not surrender which were purportedly "freed."
The whole discussion simply avoids the real issue raised by the original blog about what "is offensive."
"Years later, when trying to correct some of the supposed misstatements of the recorded version of his speech, he reiterates this claim, "Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession;". Of course, the best source of all is the reasons the states themselves give for secession, which we have for South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. All four of them refer to slavery generally, and the status of fugitive slaves in particular...."
I said I didn't want to discuss the cause of the civil war, and I don't, but, in context, he was NOT sayin that slavery was the cause of the civil war. This mainly because he freely acknowledged that the constitution guaranteed it (whether wrongfully so, or not).
It was a "breach of compact" that he said led to the war, not the issue of slavery per se: "...out of [slavery] rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees."
The north was NOT fighting to end slavery, as is commonly asserted. On the contrary, the constitution, and even the emancipation proclamation, ensured it's continuation.
Anybody who likes to claim otherwise may well be engaging in "politically motivated" denialism, eh?
The author of the "cornerstone speech" himself expresses some (conditional) wish to end slavery:
"My own opinion of slavery, as often expressed, was that if the institution was not the best, or could not be made the best, for both races, looking to the advancement and progress of both, physically and morally, it ought to be abolished.
It was far from being what it might and ought to have been. Education was denied. This was wrong. I ever condemned the wrong. Marriage was not recognized. This was a wrong that I condemned. Many things connected with it did not meet my approval but excited my disgust, abhorrence, and detestation."
With respect to the effect of the emancipation proclamation, I guess assumed that the following (from wiki) was commonly known, but perhaps it isn't:
"The proclamation did not free any slaves of the border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, or Delaware. In West Virginia, only the slaves in Jefferson County, which was added to the state late in 1863, were freed under the Proclamation, all the other counties being exempted. The state of Tennessee was also exempted, as were some listed counties of Virginia and parishes of Louisiana already under Federal control."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh? It is also mistaken to assume that any notherner who called for the freeing of slaves simply seeking to implement righteousness as can only be viewed from the moral high ground. From the same wiki entry:
"In January 1862, Thaddeus Stevens, the Republican leader in the House, called for total war against the rebellion to include emancipation of slaves, arguing that emancipation, by forcing the loss of enslaved labor, would ruin the rebel economy."
Total war, eh? Sherman knew sumthin about that concept, too, as I recall.
For the Southerners, it was not just a question of the present legality of slavery, but also the future legality of it. The issue of whether Kansas would allow slaves or not turned into a bloody fight. As states further west would inevitably join the US, it was fairly obvious most of them would forbid slavery, and the South would gradually start losing political power in the House and Senate.
I am sure that, years later, Stevens was indeed forthright about his misgivings with slavery, this does not mean he felt that way when he gave the speech, and says even less about how central slavery was to the rebellion.
I'm not so naive to think that Norhtern politicians had pure motives.
Well, Eric, the original discussion was about what the confedate flag was a "symbol of," wasn't it?
Don't you think that depends on who is tryin to reduce the "stars and bars" image to a symbol? And especially a symbol of one, and only one, thing?
A few years back there was a great uproar about some state (South Carolina, mebbe) havin a confederate flag on it's state house (together with a US flag, I think).
Isn't it possible that many southerners see the confederate flag as a "symbol" for the struggles and courage of their ancestors, of whom they have many reasons to be proud (without any consideration of slavery whatsoever). Is it inherently wrong to honor and cherish the memory of one's ancestors? Does a flag strictly and deterministically announce what it is a symbol of?
I don't think so. Furthermore, those who say it does are rather subjective and egocentric, I figure. Their "symbolism" is THE symbolism which should govern all others' perceptions, thought processes, and imaginations, to hear them tell it.
I agree with you, but I will also add that anyone who selects a totem as a symbol, and does not account for the way the symbols is perceived by very large portions of the population the symbol is supposed to represent, is being equally egocentric as well as highly insensitive.
I think there are many symbols that South Carolina could have used to honor their ancestors, which would have been much less offensive to South Carolinians with a high melanin content.
There are large segments of populations in the middle east, and elsewhere, who see the US flag just as much a symbol of "pure evil" as the swastica is seen to be (by others, I mean--these particular middle-easterners often see the Nazi regime as a symbol of enlightened truth).
What to do when your flag "offends" sumbuddy, eh? Some college campuses have, in the name of "inoffensiveness," prohibited the display of the US flag on the grounds that it might "offend" those from other cultures who also attend the school.
Them kinda done et way too much cheese, I figure.
There are large segments of populations in the middle east, and elsewhere, who see the US flag just as much a symbol of "pure evil" as the swastica is seen to be (by others, I mean--these particular middle-easterners often see the Nazi regime as a symbol of enlightened truth).
True enough. However, since they are not citizens of the USA, the flag is not meant to rpresent them. Nor would changing the US flag assuage their feelings, they would hate teh new flag as vehemently as the old.
What to do when your flag "offends" sumbuddy, eh? Some college campuses have, in the name of "inoffensiveness," prohibited the display of the US flag on the grounds that it might "offend" those from other cultures who also attend the school.
Ifthose colleges are on US soil, you have to wonder what those students are doing in this country if they are so easily offended by the official symbols of it. I agree it would be an over-reaction by schools in the US.
OK. I got back to the post I should have started out with....
However, the primary reason was certainly slavery, and to claim otherwise can only be denialismummm...well....yes and no. For an easy quip, that makes a tasty bite.
However, in 1861 the future of slavery in the South was just a legally secure as it was in 1845.
The conflict was over the EXTENSION of slavery into the NEW territories coming up for the roll call into the nation that caused the ire and the slugfests.
This is not to say it was not important. It was, and the compromises after a while, one might argue, were destined to run out. But this in and of itself did not necessitate war.
ONLY in the United States was slavery the pretext (which is a fancy term for "not quite a lie, but damn close to one in the overall context of things") for a nationwide conflagration. In south and central America there were some highly localized conflicts and some terrorist actions on behalf or usually against slavery as an institution. But only in the US was war considered requisite to end the conflict.
Why?
Well, Lincoln, like the current administration and some others of ideological bent, decided that no crisis should go unused to full monty.
Elsewhere in the Americas, slavery was peacefully (for the most part) ended piecemeal, district by district, province by province, as in Brazil for example.
The traditional response to this FACT from Northern writers and historians taking the side of "Father Abraham" is that in those areas the slaveowners were "bought out", whereas in the South all such offers were turned down. AS to the reality of this DiLorenzo is silent, unfortunately, and I have not seen much one way or another to the reality of this. Nevertheless, slavery was just as profitable in other parts of the Americas, and certainly in some areas raising the profitible crops like sugarcane and tobacco and manioc, that it seems our neighbors to the south far below our own Deep South nontheless found creative ways to end the scourge of slavery without resort to war, and with economics and gradual "grandfathering" phaseouts.
Why not our own politicians?
Or do you think their moral high ground thinking was that to "pay off" the aristocratic slaveowners was anathema, and could NOT be done on principle?
I'm personally not sure.
In any case, I'm not so sure it's to be called "denialism" to deny that, that conflict, like so many others, has only one proximate cause.
Wars never do. Can we REALLY say for example that WWII was merely the rantings of a lone Austrian lunatic and that no context is given to events of the prior war, or for that matter for WW1 (the first Euro war that somehow we saw fit to get snared into), the real cause was merely the assassination of an archduke and the so-called "powder keg" theory that humans just mount up "sides" all the time and other problems had not been stewing on the boiler?
Wakefield Tolbert,
We seem to largely agree that the causes of war, and indeed politics in general, are always multi-facted and complex, there is never a sole cause. I appreciate your contribution.
I do have one small disagreement. Look at the articles of seccession quoted. South Carolina and Texas do not mention expansion into the territories, only Georgia and Mississippi. If you know of secession documents for the other states, I'd love to compare them.
Either way, though, casting this as a primarily about state's right seems dishonest.
Post a Comment