On television the other night, I saw something that baffled me.
A New Orleans native (who is also a national celebrity) was being informed by a historian that, after researching his background and lineage, he had uncovered evidence of a relative who had fought on the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War. The celebrity was aghast. “I find it humiliating,” he said, “that a relative of mine would fight to defend slavery.”
The professor, an African-American, told the local fellow, as white as they come, “Well, it’s not you. He lived in the South and almost every male between the ages of 16 and 45 had to go fight in the war.”
Had they asked, I would have added, “There were so many dimensions to that war and so many reasons soldiers took up arms. As one-dimensional as we want to make it now–“They fought to defend slavery!”–it was also about doctrines of States Rights, economics, fear, family, sectional prejudice, peer pressure, and a hundred other things.”
But yes, the bottom line is that whether this nation would be slave or free hung in the balance. We cannot escape that reality.
“America’s Great Debate” has taken over my nighttime reading the past couple of weeks. Subtitled “Henry Clay, Stephen A. Douglas, and the Compromise That Preserved the Union,” this book, written by Fergus M. Bordewich, shows how slavery dominated politics in this country in the years before the Civil War. In 1849-50, Congress had to figure out what to do with California, Texas, New Mexico, and Utah. As they enter the Union, will they be slave or free? Should all new territories brought into the Union be free, as the Wilmot Proviso of 1846 instructed? Where should the borders of these states be? Isn’t California large enough for several states? But if we divide California, what of Texas, which is larger? Texas claimed portions of New Mexico right up to and including Santa Fe. Utah was being called Deseret and might as well have been located on Mars.
Running throughout every discussion, but unspoken–like the 600 pound elephant in the living room which no one wants to mention–was the issue of slavery. This practice was calling the shots on every issue, influencing the votes on every new state entering the Union, and driving the Southerners to insist that each state has the right to override federal laws if they conflict with the state law. It was coloring every conversation, dictating every vote, poisoning every speech.
Reading of this on-going struggle that brought the U.S. Congress to a virtual standstill in 1849-50, over a century and a half later when slavery is universally acknowledged as the absolute worst idea humans ever concocted and entirely without any defense or justification, we are aghast at the way national leaders spoke of their fellow humans of dark skin, how they justified keeping them in bondage, and the legal maneuvering to protect that most terrible of institutions.
I am a child of the South. Even though all our historical research (what there was of it) shows every relative of ours on both sides of the family to have been poor and owning no slaves whatsoever, some of our relatives fought for the Confederacy. In no way were they fighting to preserve slavery in their minds, although that was the effect of it. They were, as simply as I know how to put it, on the wrong side of that war. It is good that the South lost that war.
Just reading the speeches, writings, and reports of conversation of slavery’s proponents back then horrifies us now. “What were you thinking?” we want to ask them. “What were you using for brains?” “Where was your heart?” “And you called yourselves Christians?” Some of them did.
We are amazed at the way they justified slavery–the way they played with words, twisted history, quoted authorities, cited statistics, claimed the high ground, and assailed those wishing to set the prisoners free.
Here are 10 ways to justify slavery, based on the activities of politicians in the years leading up to the Civil War. In citing these, we hope to hold up a mirror to our own times and the way political leaders would circumnavigate Truth in the name of expediency and furthering their own careers.
Continue reading →