Tag: civil war

Categories
History

Reconstruction Was the First Plan to Solve the “Negro Problem”

road to the future

Wrong again.

What to do about slavery and the resulting free Negroes was never far from the minds of the public and politicians.

Fernando Fairfax, a prominent Virginian, was the first known individual to write a proposal. It was called the “Plan for liberating the negroes within the united states.” (Notice the capitalization choices.) It is dated “Richmond March 6, 1790.” The text can be found in Encyclopedia Virginia.

Fairfax first reviews the arguments.

Pro-emancipation friends claim their basis on natural right and justice, considering this claim “paramount” to all other considerations. (This will be the stand of abolitionists of the Civil War era.)

The other party agrees with the claim of natural right and justice, but insists on a cohesive policy that also considers “the inconveniences which would result to the community and to the slaves themselves.” These included the right to property legally obtained at the time of purchase.

And in this explanation, we see the conflict of liberal and conservative thinking that continues today.

Liberals see in black and white, and can therefore demand something be done immediately. The results are always “unintended consequences.” Conservatives see in color, considering all shades of the problem. Therefore, they proceed slowly and often offer step by step solutions. They rarely see unintended consequences, because they have foreseen outcomes.

This is why our best government is when liberals and conservatives actually talk to each other. But liberals have no time for thoughtful consideration. They live in the present.

Fairfax next says that the general opinion is for gradual emancipation. So, there are few who agree that slavery should exist perpetually. As a conservative, Fairfax points out the unfairness and illegality of taking a person’s property by force or legislation. Therefore, the states would be required to reimburse the owners. We know that the states, at this point in time, were still struggling with debt incurred by the Revolutionary War and could not reimburse immediate emancipation.

Fairfax says that “it is equally agreed, that, if they be emancipated, it would never do to allow them all the privileges of citizens: they would therefore form a separate interest from the rest of the community.”

Fairfax provides no proof for that statement. He has not explored this from the black point of view at all.

He also states that the one thing that could form a common community would be intermarriage between whites and blacks. He asks which owner, upon freeing a male slave, would allow his daughter to marry that man.

This is faulty logic, but it does show white thinking that would exist in many places well into the 1960s. To Fairfax, this is the final determinant in his argument.

The Fairfax plan is gradually to emancipate slaves, first on a voluntary basis and then, as the states become financially secure, by reimbursement to the owners. All former slaves would be exported to a colony in Africa, to be governed by whites until the blacks show the educated ability to rule themselves thanks to schools established for that purpose.

Fairfax then repulses the argument that England tried this and failed by insisting that the plan did not accomplish the policy. From what Fairfax says, England failed because the slaves were not required to operate within a capitalistic society. What we know as a socialistic society failed, just as it did in the initial years at Jamestown, according to Fairfax.

This plan would actually remain the most popular choice among whites all the way to the Civil War and would be the personal opinion of Abraham Lincoln, as he stated himself on a number of occasions.

https://encyclopediavirgina.org/primary-documents/ferdinando-fairfax-plan-for-liberating-the negroes-within-the-united-states-december-1-1790

Categories
History

Articles of Confederation and Slavery

Drafting Articles of Confederation Stamp

The Articles of Confederation enacted in 1777 was the first attempt at a document of self-governance. The federal government would prove to be too weak to be effective.

Today, we can see it in the function (or dysfunction) of the United Nations. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

For our discussion on slavery and the Civil War, the most important point of this document is the choosing of the word “state.”

Why did the representatives endorse the use of “state?” Why not province? Or county? Or parish?

Because “state” relates to an independent power, a nation.

The United States of America could be rendered the United Nations of America. This was a political union of nations primarily for defense and diplomacy. There is no mention of slavery.

It is the definition of “state” that underlies the entire “states’ rights” conversation.

Categories
History

Slaves Were Whipped Mercilessly

whip

Were slaves whipped? Sometimes. So were sailors, students, and children.

During the days of the British colonies in America, whipping was not considered a “cruel and unusual punishment.” Indeed, that phrase did not exist.

Whipping was a moderate measure compared to the medieval penalties dealt out for capital offenses, such as being drawn and quartered or having limbs pulled apart by four horses.

The British Whipping Act of 1530 https://www.britannica.com/topic/flogging was still in force during colonial times. It authorized whipping for theft, blaspheming, poaching, and other minor offenses. Both men and women were whipped, including the insane.

So, you see, during the Antebellum and Civil War Periods, most people upheld the practice of whipping if used judiciously. Judicious use included being limited to a minor offense, by using an appropriate instrument (not the cat-o’-nine-tails), and by limiting number of lashes.

However, abolitionists made spectacular displays of escaped slaves with whipping scars as a way of convincing northerners that slave owners in the south whipped all slaves mercilessly. They omitted the fact that runaway slaves were overwhelmingly slaves of cruel masters.

In fact, many plantation owners did not whip slaves—or anyone else—at all.

As to merciless whipping, the DVD series North and South did a wonderful job of pointing out that men who were cruel to slaves were just bad men. They were cruel to everyone in their power.

 

Categories
History

British Colonial Slavery

British Flag

During the Civil War, Confederates cried defensively, “Plantation slavery isn’t our fault. We inherited it from the British!”

So, what did Britain contribute to slavery in the United States?

One thing was its system of labor. All land discovered, explored, and claimed in the name of the British monarch belonged to the reigning king or queen. Favored gentlemen were granted royal charters to develop great swaths of land. This was usually in agriculture or mining precious metals or gemstones.

Within the forts and towns that grew on charter land, there were four levels of labor distribution apart from the military.

Table - Descr -Example - Person In Charge - Rights

The first colony, Jamestown, began in 1607. The first black slaves arrived in 1619 and would be used especially in the developing tobacco plantations.

All of the colonies had slaves although the occupations of slaves differed. In southern and middle Atlantic colonies, enormous numbers of slaves were needed for the vast plantations. In New England, plantations were rarely economical because of the poor soil and rougher terrain.

However all colonies used slaves for small farms, household help, personal servants, and skilled labor. In New England, these included indigenous slaves.

The New England states of Massachusetts and Rhode Island were in the business of acquiring and selling African slaves through shipbuilding and slave ship charters.

So, yes, the labor system that included slavery was inherited from the British.

 

 

Categories
History

Exposing Biased Civil War Sources

words matter

How do we know that a source is trustworthy?

First, by research the author: his or her education, other books written by this author, awards received, historical knowledge specialty, and what organizations the author joins or supports. Obviously, if the author is a member of the Ku Klux Klan or an activist lawyer for black civil rights, you would read carefully, looking for bias. Nevertheless, the book may still be enlightening!

Examine the bibliography. How extensive is it? How much variety does it contain? Are the sources reliable (as far as can be determined)? Is there a mix of sources from the 1860s and 1870s or are they all secondary sources?

Look at the vocabulary of the book. Careless disregard for the meaning of a word or phrase may actually hide bias.

In Civil War history, a few inaccurate words must be used for clarity. “Civil War” is the most common. Even Southerners use it when speaking to the rest of us because we are not familiar with “Lincoln’s War” or the “War of Northern Aggression.”

But a Civil War is conflict within a nation. That outright denies the claim that the Confederate States of America comprised a separate nation.

Union is often used incorrectly. A union is a voluntary association or organization of people striving to reach mutual goals. Note the word voluntary. Teachers associations for mutual goals where membership is forced is not a union, regardless of their legal names. In Right to Work states, teachers organizations are, in fact, unions.

When the Confederate states left the USA, they formed a separate union. The USA union altered substance to contain only the remaining voluntary states. It was incorrect to say that war was waged “to restore the Union” because war is force, and therefore not voluntary. Nor could war “save the Union.” That Union was already altered. Even when Confederate states were “readmitted to the Union,” it wasn’t true because southerners didn’t want to associate with the north. Legislation passed because almost no prior Confederate whites had voting rights, and the national Congress was completely Republican.

One more example is to use “federals” for USA troops. Federal refers to a national government, as opposed to state governments. While it is true that the USA had both national and state troops, and the national troops could also be called federal troops, the CSA also had federal troops and state militia.

Read carefully. See if words are used correctly and carefully. If not, you must determine if the author is biased, is deceiving the reader with propaganda, or just sloppy. (In which case, what else will the author sloppy with?)

Words matter.

In conclusion, read a wide variety of opinions and approaches to history, but be careful to identify bias and propaganda for what it is.

Categories
History

Civil War Lies

As a high school student, I found history interesting, but history teachers boring. Lincoln was my favorite president after George Washington. I believed everything I had been taught in class or had seen on television.

Ten years ago, I found this book:

Everything You Were Taught About the Civil War Is WrongI was not afraid that it would upset my beliefs, and I enjoyed learning other points of view, so I investigated it. The Table of Contents was shocking, if true. The bibliography was extensive: 20 pages of tiny print! There were many southern sources. I had rarely seen southern sources in other history books.

The author had been awarded the Jefferson Davis Historical Gold Medal.

Looking at ratings, I saw they were abysmal, so I looked at comments. They were all rabidly negative. Foaming at the mouth negative. Knowing that nothing is all bad or all good, I recognized a smear campaign. Today, we would call it Cancel Culture.

The smear campaign really stoked my curiosity. I bought the book.

When I read it, I was shocked.

I have fact checked most of the claims in this book and found them to be true. Actually, in some cases, the full truth was even more unpalatable.

They lied to us. But who did it?

As a teacher, I knew that unless you are teaching an area of expertise, you have to trust the book. You don’t have time to do your own fact checking. You expect that the writers have done their job.

As a professional writer, I know that textbooks are usually ghost written, because the “authors” don’t write at a professional level. The ghost writer’s specialty is writing, not the book’s subject. So the writer didn’t lie to us.

The listed authors should be experts related to the book’s subject. Did they lie to us? Lying is such a strong word! It includes untruth, but also the intention to deceive. I don’t think that of the authors. But then they must be ignorant, lazy, or lacking in curiosity. Because the truth is out there. I found it, and I am a self-taught historian, not a professional.

Then who lied to us? Who would gain by a massive propaganda campaign?

You’re not going to like the answer: the Lincoln administration and the nineteenth century Republican Party.