The December 4, 2002 issue of LewRockwell.com carried a link to a Washington Times article that bore witness, in some detail, of the views of one Jonathan David Farley regarding the Confederacy and, specifically, those who fought on its side during the War Between the States. I gave the article special attention, not only because I also hold strong views regarding that tumultuous time in our nation's history, but because I am, like Mr. Farley, a mathematics professor. I am disappointed that he has decided to present his position in an extremely inflammatory manner, an emotionally charged attack that seems designed to offend rather than to edify, to ridicule rather than to educate. While it might serve Mr. Farley's purposes to paint the issues surrounding the Civil War in black and white, as it were, by characterizing the struggle as one of "good" versus "evil," an approach that stays true to the facts would reveal several shades of gray. Specifically:
While slavery was a factor in the South's decision to secede, its role in both secession and the ensuing conflict is more ably viewed in economic and political, rather than moral, terms. The South benefited politically from slavery via the "three-fifths clause," and as the South's economy was agrarian in nature, plantation owners benefited from the manpower that slaves provided. Coercive labor is always less advantageous than voluntary labor, however, and this, coupled with the gradual but inevitable shift towards mechanized harvesting, would have rendered the forced-labor option obsolete well before the end of the nineteenth century. Compensated emancipation would have been a peaceable alternative to what followed, and it should be noted that Lincoln favorably broached the subject. Indeed, the 1860 Republican platform advocated such a response to the slavery question. However, it should also be observed that Lincoln never pursued the option with any due ardor, treating it as a purely political issue that was ever subsidiary to his overriding goal of "preserving the Union."
Moreover, in Lincoln's mind, compensated emancipation was always coupled with the colonization of the former slaves to either Africa or Central America, for our sixteenth president firmly believed that the black race was inferior to the white, and made this position clear throughout his long political career. Among Northerners, Lincoln was hardly alone in his beliefs, for the abolitionists, led by their able orator, William Lloyd Garrison, were distinctly in the minority. Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that ". . . slavery recedes, but the prejudice to which it has given birth is immovable. Whoever has inhabited the United States must have perceived that in those parts of the Union in which the Negroes are no longer slaves they have in no wise drawn nearer to the whites. On the contrary, the prejudice of race appears to be stronger in the states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known."
Truth be told, there were few, if any, angels in this matter. Northerners, through their Black Codes and general conduct, treated African-Americans as second-class citizens, and were content to let the South be, so long as Southerners, in turn, retained the "peculiar institution" within their borders. Southern politicians, on the other hand, were interested in having said institution recognized nationally via such legislative measures as the Kansas-Nebraska Act (which repealed the Missouri Compromise and gave rise, through its "popular sovereignty" provision, to the term "bleeding Kansas"). In any event, attempts to render slavery as the casus belli of the war, or to lionize any of the principals involved in said conflict, should be viewed with a discerning eye.
As one who finds himself in agreement with such figures as Garrison and Lysander Spooner on the issue of slavery, I am glad that black Americans are not only no longer under the yoke of bondage, but have the same opportunity as white Americans to pursue and achieve their dreams (witness Mayou Angelou, Colin Powell, Cornel West, and Condoleeza Rice, to say nothing of Jonathan Farley). That having been said, the issues over which the War Between the States was fought still resonate today, and they should be discussed not only with fervor and candor, but also within the cloak of civility. Having achieved equality (at least in principle) in this day and age, we as Americans, black and white, should turn our attention to another issue which occupied the minds of many in Civil War times. Namely, how can we, as Americans, whether we hail from the North or the South, not only preserve the freedoms which we do enjoy, but reacquire those freedoms we have lost through judicial and executive fiat as well as legislative onslaught? How can we reclaim a portion of the sizable amount each of us sends to Washington, D.C., money that we have earned and can likely use more efficiently and effectively than our government can? How can we lay greater claim to the property that we own, property that we are prevented from using by government regulations, property that can be even be taken from us under the banner of "eminent domain"?
In closing, let us learn from the past, and go forward – as Americans, black and white, Northerners and Southerners – each in the manner that we deem best, always being mindful of the rights of others, so that the cause of individual freedom might be advanced, so "that liberty shall not perish from the earth."
(A helpful hint to Mr. Farley, in this regard – you might wish to rethink your choice of heroes. Che Guevara, hero and martyr to many, was no friend of true liberty.)
December 14, 2002
