Slavery And Southern Independence: Did The Conferacy Deserve Tt Survive?

Slavery And Southern Independence: Did The Conferacy Deserve To Survive?

Michael T. Griffith

2006

@All Rights Reserved

Second EditionIn the 2003 Civil War movie Gods and Generals, the character of Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, a famous Union officer, gives a brief, stirring speech to his brother, Tom, about slavery and the Confederate cause. In his short speech, Chamberlain presents a strong argument against the Confederate position. Says Chamberlain,Now, somewhere out there is the Confederate army. They claim they are fighting for their independence, for their freedom. Now, I cannot question their integrity. I believe they are wrong, but I do not question it. But I do question the system that defends its own freedom while it denies it to others, to an entire race of men. I will admit it, Tom, war is a scourge, but so is slavery. It is the systematic coercion of one group of men over another.Many people find this argument simple, logical, and powerful. After all, wasn't it inconsistent for the Confederates to claim they were fighting for freedom and independence when at the same time they were keeping another group of people in bondage? Yes, this is a valid argument--up to a point. But it's also an incomplete argument, and in some ways it’s an unfair argument. One reason this argument is both incomplete and unfair is that it ignores major inconsistencies in the North’s position.  For example, one could ask tough, critical questions about the North’s claim that it was fighting for freedom and for the preservation of the Union:* How could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when the Union army was forcing Southern slaves to fight against their will, even when those slaves made it clear they didn't want to leave their plantations and didn't want to fight for the North?* How could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when four of the Northern states were slave states and when some Northern states wouldn't even allow free blacks to settle within their boundaries?* How could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when it was trying to crush an independence movement? To put it another way, how could the North claim it was fighting for freedom when it was trying to conquer eleven states that had left the Union in a peaceful, democratic manner and that simply wanted to be left alone?* How could the North claim it was justified in fighting to preserve the Union when the original Union was a voluntary compact between the states, and when the founding fathers had prohibited the federal government from using force against any of the states? Even President James Buchanan, who was president when the Deep South states seceded, said the federal government had no authority to use force against the seceded states. How can one rightfully attempt to preserve a democratic union by waging war to force eleven of its members to remain in it against their will?* Wasn’t the North’s use of force against the Southern states fundamentally contrary to the Declaration of Independence, which says that governments derive their just powers "from the consent of the governed" and that a people have the natural, God-given right to sever existing political ties, to establish their own government, and to take their place among the family of nations?A key argument that is implied in the movie character's criticism is that the South did not deserve to be independent because slavery existed within its borders. Critics argue that not only was the South's position inconsistent, but that the Southern states had no moral right to be independent and that therefore the North's invasion was justified.