Yes, the legality of slavery manifested the economic interests of the 
ruling classes in the country at the time. As John Jay said, those who 
own the country should run it. It was elemental to the politics that 
was continued by other means (e.g. the civil war).

(An historical summation of Lincoln, radical republicanism, and the 
failure to complete Reconstruction is well beyond the bounds of an 
email discussion.)

The 'legality' of slavery, that is the codification of it, simply 
reflects a balance of political power at that point in time. (Arresting 
and murdering communists, socialists, homosexuals and Jews was likewise 
legal in Germany in 1939.)

The problematic is trying to reticulate the 'identity' of a confederate 
soldier around or against the historical fact of the system of slavery.

The post-structuralist 'identity' argument ignores the fact that the 
ideology (including that self 'identity') proceeds from social 
relations among people (how we live and interact). Key of all these in 
this specific situation was the fact that one group of people OWNED 
another group of people and decided how and whether they lived or died.

One ought to ask how, in this equation, the 'identity' of a (or many) 
confederate soldier(s) weighs against the identity of the millions of 
Africans who lived and died in slavery.

-L.D.




On Jul 28, 2005, at 12:02 AM, MUSEUM-L automatic digest system wrote:

>
> Date:    Wed, 27 Jul 2005 12:49:39 -0400
> From:    Carol Ely <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Gettysburg and the Sons of Confederate Veterans
>
>>>>> What does it mean to characterize the Civil War as a 'tragedy' or 
>>>>> an
>
> 'unpleasantness' - to fight to bring slavery to an end?>>>
>
> I agree with most of what you said - slavery was the root cause of the
> War. But the Northern and Southern colonies and states had been on
> different cultural, political, economic tracks since the 17th century.
> Two nations with two different interpretations of the meaning of the
> Revolution had evolved. It's true, though appalling in retrospect, to
> say that Southerners were fighting to uphold the intent of the
> Constitution - which allowed slavery. And, in their minds, allowed for
> secession, just as America seceded from the British empire. (I'm not
> saying they were "right" in any way, or that slavery is in any way
> excusable, just what they were thinking.)
>
> In 1861 the issue on the table was NOT ending slavery. That was not the
> declared goal of the North - preserving the Union was the goal. Lincoln
> himself said if he could have preserved the Union and kept slavery, he
> would have done it. In fact, he tried to do just that until 1863.
>
> My point was about the motives of the Confederate soldiers whose
> descendents wish to honor them, and the motives of those descendents.
> When soldiers came wearing blue uniforms and shooting at their
> neighbors, it would have been very hard for the average Southerner to
> take a reasoned, neutral approach. They weren't ALL defending slavery 
> as
> an institution. They thought they were defending their land. Maybe in
> retrospect, that shouldn't be honored, but I think there's a way to do
> it without honoring the ideology of the larger argument. But of course
> there are the more racist and extremist pro-Confederate groups, who
> conflate the Confederate flag, nostalgia, family, and patriotism in
> lethal ways, and it is a slippery slope.
>
> The original issue was both the flag as a symbol - and I agree that 
> it's
> racist to display it, because it does make a political point that's
> abhorrent. But the other issue was the Sons of the Confederacy, and the
> legacy and heritage of ancestry - which is more than nostalgia, it's
> identity.
>
> Which of these ancestors of mine is more worthy of memory? One
> great-great-great grandfather was a farmer, who owned no slaves, in
> Murfreesboro, Tennessee. He did not rush to join the Confederate Army -
> but when the Battle of Stone's River took place in his back yard, he
> signed up. One battle. He was captured, released, and went back to
> farming. End of story. Another great-great-great grandfather was a
> carpenter in a Pennsylvania town, with a wife and three children. He
> also did not rush to sign up. But he was drafted - he was too poor to
> pay the fee to avoid the draft. He tried to get out of it by arguing
> that his poor vision prevented his firing a gun ("I tried to tell them
> that I couldn't see, but they wouldn't let me slip," he wrote to his
> wife). He was assigned to the Ambulance Corps, served for six months in
> the 1864 campaign through Virginia - Wilderness, Cold Harbor, 
> Petersburg
> - was captured, and died of dysentery in a prison camp in North
> Carolina. So... Which one is more worthy of the respect and praise of
> his descendents? One "gave his life to end slavery" - but unwillingly.
> One fought to protect his community, and took no interest in the larger
> cause.

=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).