When
it comes to slavery and racial attitudes in any era it's probably better to
"watch what I do" rather than to "listen to what I say."
In
"God's and Generals" a Civil War movie based on the book by Shaara, the Southern
general Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee's right arm, at least until he
lost his left arm and then got sick and died, sincerely assures his black
cook, who volunteered, and is likely a slave, that after the Southern victory
the negroes will all be set free, somehow. Then they
pray.
Jackson, then, and by extension the South, is shown to be really good at
heart, for which we can all feel warm. Their slave-based Southern way of
life is really good down deep, save only for the peculiar institution that God
has somehow, in a moment's lapse, perhaps, thrust upon their poor unwilling
selves. Perhaps He will correct this, if we pray, which Jackson and his
slave earnestly do.
Having
lost the war, physically at least, and its slaves, the South, in real life,
according to Michael Graham in Redneck Nation, How the South Really Won the
War (Warner Books, 2002) won the peace. While the Radical Republicans
(who imposed Reconstruction on the South after the War, and the 13th, 14th,
& 15th Amendments) sought to win the peace, i.e. consolidate their gains,
their success was limited, certainly in the short term, like the next 3/4
century, as evidenced by the Slaughterhouse and Civil Rights Cases, and Plessy
in 1896 which legalized Jim Crow until 1954.
Graham
writes that "the American South is dominated by irrational attitudes about race,
religion, and culture. My challenge is: Tell me what part of America
isn't."
"This
smugness, this condescension, this false sense of superiority that you
Northerners feel toward me and my fellow Southerners is the reason I wrote this
book....It took me twenty years to find out you were lying."
"...but when it comes to the truth, most Southerners are like the jury in
the O.J. Simpson trial. We will not be influenced by mere
facts."
"I
challenge you to name one significant idea the southern states fought to
maintain in the Civil Rights Movement that has not become part of the American
fabric.
The
most obvious example is the most fundamental: racism. What is the
core philosophy of all social life in the South? It's the idea that race
matters, that race is determinant, that race is important, that your neighbors,
your employers, and your government should treat people differently based on
race.
This
used to be called Jim Crow. Today its name is Uncle Sam. It's hard
to imagine a nation more obsessed with race and ethnicity than our
own...
Sorting children in public schools based on their race was once viewed as
the archetypal southern idea.
Today
it's the American one....
The
southern idea of race relations -- that "race matters" -- has clearly defeated
the northern notion that it shouldn't. When Jesse Jackson, Kweisi Mfune,
David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and the president of Harvard College all agree on
something, we have clearly reached a national consensus.
So,
let's roll down the list. Merit? Anyone for the old northern notion
of meritocracy?...
...Merit?...
...Accomplishment?...
...America is today a more southern nation than it has been at any time
since the Civil War..." Excerpts from Ch. 2.
I
could go on, but it's Graham's book and he shows the contradictions between what
we say and what we do in about as humorous a way as anyone since Mark
Twain.
Bob
Sheridan
SFLS
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Keith E. Whittington
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 8:29 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Non-Governmental Emancipation of Slaves" Say what?This seems somewhat unfair to Marshall. According to Jean Smith's biography, Marshall, who was not a planter (and thus had little direct stake in the slave economy), owned only a few domestic servants during his lifetime and provided for the manumission of his primary slave in his will (Smith is unclear whether Marshall owned any other slaves at the time of his death). In his private law practice, Marshall also appears to have represented slaves in a handful of pro bono appellate cases, including at least one testing and extending Virginia's manumission statute.kew-----Original Message-----This is a nice way of saying that masters should free their slaves without government intenrference. Many Virginians did this in the revoutionary period -- Washington free all his in his will; Robert "Councillor" Carter freed over 500 one Sunday afternoon after returning from Church; George Wythe freed his in his will; Robert Coles (later Gov. of Illinois) took his slaves to Illinois where he freed them. The Va. free black population grew from about 2,000 in 1780 to about 30,000 by 1810, mostlly through voluntary emancipation. As far as I know, Marshall DID NOT take his own advice, nor of course did his nemesis, the Master of Monticello. I have written a bit about this in the last two chapters of my book, SLAVERY AND THE FOUNDERS: RACE AND LIBERTY IN THE AGE OF JEFFERSON (M.E. Sharpe, 2nd Edition, 2001). We can only wonder what the history of the nation would have been like if Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and others had followed up on their ideological claims about all people being "endowed" with such inalienable rights as "liberty."
From: Discussion list for con law professors [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 11:17 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: "Non-Governmental Emancipation of Slaves" Say what?-- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK 74104-3189 918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Robert Justin Lipkin wrote:
I recently read that John Marshall advocated the non-governmental emancipation of slaves at least in his home state of Virginia. What does this mean? Was such a strategy ever taken seriously? If so, how would it work, simply by moral suasion? Economic or other 'coercive' influences? Did this strategy exist in any other state? Was it ever a serious movement? Who were its most prominent spokespersons? Any information concerning this issue would be appreciated. Thanks.
Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
