Confederate History Month

[plutherus]

For the last decade or so (starting with Texas, in 1999), several of our southern states have been celebrating what they refer to as "Confederate History Month" every April. (Originally it was supposed to be February, but that would have been way too obviously motivated by racism.)

One of the myths that many in the South like to promote is that the Secession had nothing to do with slavery as such, but everything to do with States Rights. In reality, it had to do with exactly one states' right: to own slaves.

The central argument going on at the time was about the Territories (such as Oregon) that were not yet states. The South wanted to make sure that these territories would become slave-holding states. The North, on the other hand, wanted them to be free states. Slavery had gotten a bad reputation by that time, and there were large abolitionist movements going on, in both North and South. It was a fierce, ongoing debate - entire newspapers were being created dedicated to one side or the other of this issue. The South was legitimately afraid: If these new states were free, they could not be counted upon to vote pro-slavery, and the very institution might be voted out of existence. The abolitionists in the North recognized this fact as well, and were hoping for it.

This one issue, albeit a big one, bigger than health care is today, was the sole major reason for Southern Secession: they were afraid they would lose their slaves if they stayed with the union.

One need look no further than their own declarations to see the truth. This was the middle of the nineteenth century that this occurred. Back when literacy was not so common as today, and therefore more highly esteemed. So, they understood at the time that this was a major turning point in history and took pains to document their reason for leaving the union.



Mississippi was perhaps the most forthright. In only the second paragraph (the first informing the reader that they are indeed seceeding) they begin:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.

And, that they were afraid of losing their slaves:

...That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

And the rest is the evidence that the North does, indeed, plan to abolish slavery. A giant conspiracy theory the facts of which I will not dispute.

The Georgia declaration is a little more long-winded, but still made mention of their cause within the second sentence of the opening paragraph:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

Not exactly ambiguous, there. Again, it lists all the things the North has done to try to weaken the institution of Slavery, and takes several shots at the nascent Republican party:

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.

Amongst the facts cited in proof:

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

The rest of the declaration goes back and forth between proof that the North wants to abolish slavery, and complaints that the North is not doing enough to return runaway slaves, or to stop violent abolitionists in both parts of the country.

South Carolina's Declaration starts off claiming their right to secede, and builds a case for the historic precedent, and carefully bolsters the claim again any counter-claim that anyone else might have forcing them to stay in the union. They do a good job of it, going into some detail of the rightness of the cause of the U.S. revolution some 80 years earlier. Halfway through they finally get to their own reason for seceeding:

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

From there, they go into the North's obligation to hunt down and return runaway slaves to them, which it isn't doing enough. The North also isn't doing anything to stop the Abolitionists on both sides:

They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

These are the only reasons listed for secession for South Carolina.

For Texasone gets the feeling that they don't care so much about keeping their slaves as they do about reassuring themselves that white people are better than everyone else. They start out briefly discussing their own history and how it joined the union. It takes care to point out that:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

Again, they list the various proofs that the North wants to end slavery, and is generally hostile to this "noble institution", and finally end up with the racist screed:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

The History of the Confederation was the history of slave owners trying to maintain control of people they believed to be their property. Slavery was not "just a nit" or "something that doesn't matter for diddly" as Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell would have you believe. It was, wholly and entirely, the reason for the secession of the south and the creation and entire short history of the Confederation.

So, sure, declare a Confederate History month. It's important history, and good to remember. But, let's not skip over the entire "history" part of it and try to make it seem like some Noble Institution, shall we?

Comments

[dar205.livejournal.com]

The Civil War was a violation of civil rights. It was unconstitutional. However, its cause was the succession, and Pat makes a strong case that the reason for successions was the only or primary reason.

A Third Reich history month would be interesting, we could talk about the Autobahn, the Volkswagen, Rocket Science, advances in Medicine, etc, etc.