Treatment of slavery and racism in this film

Re: Treatment of slavery and racism in this film
image for user jaymcc445
by
jaymcc445
» 4 days ago (Mon Jun 30 2014 03:49:32)
IMDb member since June 2007
At its highest point, about 4% of the South had slaves. There were black slave owners as well. What were the other 96% fighting for? If u say the top percent control the people, like the 1% does now, I understand. But to say the North engaged the South to free the slave is just PC sequacious rhetoric. Lincoln stated if I could have won the war with out freeing 1 slave I would have done it. If u doubt the validity of this post; please feel free to use your choice of web browser to fact check.

Sure, Lincoln was about preserving the Union first. But one quotation taken out of context does nothing to refute the fact that the war was fought over the preservation of slavery and its expansion into the west. The treasonous southerners who led the secession movement were all about preserving slavery, and they were concerned that the US would end slavery.

Quoted here are the first two paragraphs of the declaration issued by the State of Mississippi of why it was attempting to secede from the United States of America.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. 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.

Source: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

The declaration issued by the State of Texas was lengthier and gave more detail. Here are some pertinent quotations. Click on the link following th quotation box to read the whole document:

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union



The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

Note that the first grievance is that citizens of Texas cannot bring their slaves with them to settle US territories that are not states. And so, the spread of slavery is the first issue.

Continuing:

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

And so, the second grievance is specifically that Texans have allegedly been deprived of their property (slaves) when in Kansas.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefore, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

Third grievance - the north has failed to subsidize Texas law enforcement (putting down of bandits) and genocide (driving out and/or killing the natives). At least that one is not obviously about slavery, but it does blame northerners for not helping Texas enough.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slaveholding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions - a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

Again, it is about slavery. This grievance has to do with the charge that the listed northern states apparently have not been sufficiently diligent in helping Texans maintain the captivity of the few slaves who have managed to escape.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slaveholding States.

* * *

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slaveholding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

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.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

* * *

Source: http://www.civil-war.net/pages/texas_declaration.asp

And so, Texas declared that the major reason was the preservation and expansion of slavery. And, in addition, the federal government wasn't giving them enough aid.

The reader is encouraged to explore the other states declarations as to the cause of secession, also avaiable at the same web site linked above, and elsewhere.

Now, Even giving some credence to the purported "states' rights" argument, the emphasis in the confederacy was on the right of the rebellious states to decide if it was lawful to enslave and own humans as property, and to treat such property as they would. However, the "states rights" argument, itself, does not withstand scrutiny.

Here is some history to consider from the confederate constitution:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1 and 2:

The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

Notable in the foregoing is that it specifically guarantees the right to own "negro" slaves. Ownership of slaves of other races may or may not be banned, but the right to own "negro" slaves was to be forever. Thus the confederate constitution not only defined the confederacy itself by slavery, but also by racism.

In fact, even if the argument were to be made that Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 applied only to the confederate government and not to the individual states -a dubious position to begin with - it is apparent that no state could exercise a "state's right" to prohibit slavery within its borders inasmuch as the citiziens of the other states were guaranteed a right to "transit and sojourn" in any state "secure in the right of property in said slaves," as provided in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Could a state that outlawed slavery within its borders then prohibit a slaveholder from another state from having those slaves work while in "transit or sojourn" status? That would likely be held to be an impairment of the right of property. And the definition of "transit or sojourn" would be a matter of the confederate supreme court to decide. So, effectively, "negro slavery" could not be prohibited by any individual state when the law could easily be circumvented by use of slaves putatively owned by a citizen of another state and simply "transiting" or "sojourning" in the other state.

Note, then, the hypocrisy of the "states rights" argument. While among the revisionists the supposed cause for which the confederacy fought was that the states have the supposed retained sovereignty or autonomy to decide on the matter of slavery, not the federal government, the confederate constitution enshrined a prohibition on any state's right to settle the question of whether "negro slavery" will exist within its borders as well as a bestowing upon the confederate congress "the power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy." Consequently, it clearly did NOT support "states' rights" but enshrined slavery as an institution that the states had no power to abolish or to restrict in any meaningful way. Moreover, it reserved the specific matter of the right to decide if slaves could be imported to the confederate government thus preempting any supposed states' right to decide such question.

Should the confederacy acquire new territory:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3,

In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

And so, any future territorial government would also be prohibited from exercising any autonomy on the issue of "negro slavery."

The importance of slavery could not be more clear. Defining "negroes" as an inferior race, and protecting the ownership, transportation, and commerce of "negroes" wasn't just a major aspect of the Confederacy, it was the central and defining idea of the Confederacy. This is reflected in a transcribed speech given by Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens speech on Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861, known as the Cornerstone Speech:

http://civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm

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. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.

* * *
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

The fact that most southerners did not own slaves does nothing to refute the fact that the war was about slavery. When people argue for and spread romantic revisionist notions of the confederacy, they not only are standing up for treason, they are defending inhumanity itself.

reply share

add reply

formatting help