Showing posts with label Joseph Sobran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Sobran. Show all posts

Friday, September 30, 2011

The Former Confederacy and the American Memory Hole

By Joseph Sobran

An extremely bright high-school student recently asked my advice about a few points concerning the U.S. Constitution. At 15, he was raising questions that didn’t occur to me until I was well into middle age. Maybe, I thought, this lad should be advising me!

But, accepting the role of wise elder in which he had cast me, I recommended a short curriculum, which I now offer to anyone who wants a corrective to the false history Americans are taught in government (as well as most private) schools. It may look simple, but I promise you’ll find it challenging.

Joe Sobran
First, three official documents: the Declaration of Indencence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution (with the Bill of Rights and the Preamble to them). Learn them thoroughly, until you see how closely the Constitution resembles the Articles and how both documents presuppose the Declaration.

Second, the debates over the ratification of the Constitution. This means The deralist Papers, but also a generous sampling of the anti-Federalist writings, of which there are many collections in print. 

Third, Thomas Jefferson’s 1798 Kentucky Resolutions. These are brief but remarkably logical and incisive. They tell you how the author of the Declaration understood the Constitution. No document in American history has been more undeservedly neglected.

Finally, the most challenging of all: Jefferson Davis’s Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government. You needn’t read all 1,200 pages, but you should master the 100 or so pages making the case for a state’s constitutional right to withdraw from the Union. You may pass over Davis’s defense of slavery, which is incidental: his argument for the right of secession applies in principle to every state, not just the Southern states.

[Breaker quote: The American Memory Hole]If cogent, this means that the U.S. Government abandoned constitutional government long ago. It also means that, say, Massachusetts and Hawaii still have the same right to withdraw from the Union that Virginia claimed in 1861.

You may be surprised to learn that Washington, Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers took the right of secession for granted. Probably not one American in a thousand is aware of this today. But it was inherent in the Declaration’s proposition that the original colonies “are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States.”

This is what Abraham Lincoln actually denied when he said that no state could leave the Union. Unlike Lincoln, Davis wasn’t even a lawyer; yet his grasp of law and history was far wider and deeper than Lincoln’s.

After the Confederacy was conquered, Davis was arrested and held in solitary confinement for two years on a charge of treason. But in the end the government dropped the charge and released him, having been warned by its own lawyers that Davis, defending himself in court, might well win acquittal by making a powerful case for secession — and thereby dealing a terrific blow to Union war propaganda. The intended show trial might have backfired — with Davis summoning the Founding Fathers themselves as his star witnesses!

It was a prudent decision. To this day, Union propaganda passes for objective history. But in fact so many Northerners agreed with the South — and with the Founding Fathers — that Lincoln had found it necessary to suspend the freedom of speech, the free press, and the ordinary rights of accused persons to habeas corpus and a jury trial. Dissent became a crime, and truth itself a fugitive.

But Lincoln’s crackdown — so comprehensive that the McCarthy era can’t remotely compare with it — succeeded. The North was deeply divided about his war, but effective criticism and opposition were crushed. Lincoln won reelection, the war, and a historical reputation for midwifing “a new birth of freedom.”

The long-term result has been the eclipse of the original understanding of the Union as a voluntary “confederacy” of sovereign states. Today that idea is regarded as a merely regional doctrine of the South. It was not. It was an idea once agreed on by virtually all Americans. Even Lincoln himself sometimes spoke of the Union as “this confederacy.”

It’s startling to see how often the United States were called a “confederacy” in the speeches and letters of presidents before Lincoln. His supreme achievement may be a feat of historical obliteration: he consigned America’s original self-understanding, perhaps irrecoverably, to the Memory Hole.


=====================================================================
Copyright (c) by Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved.
=====================================================================
Reprinted with permission

Saturday, April 2, 2011

Slavery in Perspective

By Joseph Sobran


Joseph Sobran
Syndicated Columnist
The recurrent fuss about Confederate flags has always struck me as silly, and never more so than now. I’ve been reading Hugh Thomas’s impressive history, The Slave Trade (published by Touchstone/Simon & Schuster). It’s one of those books that shift your whole perspective on the past.


Thomas covers the Atlantic slave trade from 1440 to 1870. It was a literally filthy business from first to last. More than 11,000,000 Africans were brought to the New World, while countless others — probably about 2,000,000 — died of miserable conditions in the overcrowded ships en route.

What I didn’t know is that fewer than 5 per cent — about 500,000 — of these Africans were brought to this country. Some 4,000,000 were carried to Brazil by the Portuguese, 2,500,000 to Spanish possessions, 2,000,000 to the British West Indies, and 1,600,000 to the French West Indies.

All this puts something of a damper on the assumption that slavery was a sin specific or “peculiar” to the American South. The slaves had been Africans who were sold to European merchants by other Africans who had enslaved them in the first place. Several of Africa’s proudest empires were built on the sale of slaves. For centuries Africa’s chief export was human beings. When Congresswoman Maxine Waters speaks of “my African ancestors’ struggle for freedom,” she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Slavery was an African institution long before it spread to the South, and there was no abolition movement to trouble it. When Europe banned the slave trade, African economies reeled.

So it’s rather comical for American blacks to sentimentalize Africa and stress that they are “African Americans” while cursing the Confederate flag as a symbol of slavery. Africa has a much better claim to be such a symbol. Slavery still exists there, in Sudan and Mauritania and probably elsewhere.

As Christians, white Europeans always had a bad conscience about slavery. They wrestled with the question of whether Africans had immortal souls and natural rights. Even Southerners who justified slavery as a positive good felt that it needed justification.

Pagans had no such qualms. They no more felt they needed to justify owning slaves than owning cattle. Slavery was a fact of life, and slaves could be killed, mutilated, and even eaten without compunction.

In the Arab world African slaves were highly prized as eunuchs. They were used as guardians of harems and as civil servants, some of whom amassed considerable power. But many young African men died in the process because of inept or infected castration. The prevalence of eunuchs probably explains why African slavery didn’t leave the Arab world with a race problem. Given this history, it’s ironic that so many American blacks adopt Arab names to spite the white man and to achieve a supposedly independent “identity.”

Thomas indirectly punctures another cherished American notion: that Abraham Lincoln “ended slavery.” Lincoln is mentioned only three times, very briefly, in the entire book. Against the huge backdrop of the slave trade, he was only a local, marginal, and rather tardy figure. By 1850 it was clear that slavery was doomed throughout the Christian world. But just as we exaggerate our role in fostering slavery, we exaggerate our role in destroying it. We Americans tend to be self-important even in our self- flagellations.

The slave trade was so vast that a European might speculate in it, and profit by it, without ever seeing a single slave. Such distinguished authors as John Locke, Edward Gibbon, and Voltaire drew income from it. Voltaire was especially hypocritical. He took the self-serving view that it was less immoral for a European to buy Africans than it was for other Africans to sell them; and after denouncing the slave trade for years, he “accepted delightedly” when a merchant offered to name a slave ship after him.

Thomas tells the whole story without much moralizing. He knows the facts speak for themselves, in all their horror and pathos: people stolen from their homes, robbed of their freedom and even their identities, often dying namelessly amid unspeakable squalor, with no families or friends to mourn or memorialize their passing. The ones who survived to be slaves in the New World, though unenviable, were relatively lucky.

But in the end, the Christian conscience prevailed. Thank God.

See the original column here: http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/010531.shtml


==================================================

Copyright (c) by Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, http://www.fgfBooks.com. All rights reserved.

=================================================