Myths of American Slavery

by Walter Kennedy

  Is there a connection so deep and so interrelated between secession and the defense of slavery as to make the idea of secession totally repulsive to freedom- loving Americans? Was secession nothing more than a mad scheme concocted by wicked Southern slaveholders to protect their slave property? Is secession a philosophy that stands in opposition to the idea of American civil liberty and civil rights? Those who have never been exposed to the complete truth about American political philosophy believe the answer to these questions is yes. Yet, as has been demonstrated throughout this work, what is advanced by the victors of the War for Southern Independence and the actual truth about those questions are at odds with each other. Therefore, let us proceed in the examination of the issue of slavery by looking at the one political issue that has come to be connected with the defense of slavery more than any other issue-secession.

  "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them.... " Most Americans will recognize the preceding words as the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. What most Americans will not understand is that they are reading one of the grandest secession documents ever written. The famous Fourth of July declaration was a joint resolution by the several states proclaiming their separate status as independent states.`; Note that a dissolution of the "political bands" between the people of the colonies and the central government in London is announced. The words "dissolve the political bands" are nothing less than the announcement of the secession of the colonies from the central government of Great Britain. This right is not something granted or allowed by any government. It is, as the declaration asserts, a God-given right; a right granted by the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Probably the most revolutionary phrase in the entire document states "that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.... "Two important points are asserted here by the Founding Fathers in this phrase: (1) The institution of government does not originate from the divine right of kings; that is, kings are not granted the right to rule their subjects by some supernatural decree but rather by the express consent of the governed. (2) The right of the people to alter or abolish the government they live under is granted them by divine decree. Therefore, the act of altering or abolishing government, being a God-given right, is not an act of sedition or treason. Nor can it be bartered away by the owner, nor taken away by another party.

  The idea that the people at the local level (i.e., the state) have the right to form and/or reform the type of government they live under is well established in early American history. For example, the forming or reforming of government (secession) took place at least three times between 1775 and 1795. The first such secession movement took place when the various colonies directed their representatives to vote for a unanimous Declaration of Independence. Here we see the people of the several states, acting on their own authority, withdrawing their consent to be governed by the central government in London. The second instance occurred with the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. Under the terms of this article, the states, while maintaining their independence and sovereignty,4 removed themselves from the society of nations and confederated with other American states for their mutual benefit. The third instance of a secession movement occurred with the adoption of the Federal Constitution. In order to accede to the new form of government under the Constitution, the several states had to first adopt a new form of government, thereby seceding from the government that had been established under the Articles of Confederation. From what has just been discussed, it should be obvious that secession is neither "un-American" nor it system designed solely for the defense of slavery; rather, it is a uniquely American political philosophy. Remember that at the time of each of the aforementioned "secession" movements, slavery and/or the African slave trade existed in each state, just as slavery, but not the African slave trade, existed in the Confederate States of America in 1861.

  While agreeing with the concept of early American secession movements, some political commentators will maintain that the idea of secession from the Union by an American state was abandoned after the adoption of the United States Constitution. These same commentators maintain that the principle of secession Was revived by evil slaveholders as a means of defending the institution of slavery in the South. To test the preceding theory, let us look at the life and writings of several constitutional scholars from both the North and the South. From the South let its look to the writings of St. George Tucker of Virginia. St. George Tucker, one of America's Founding Fathers, attended the Annapolis Convention which was responsible for calling the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention. He is noted as editor of America's first edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. During the American War for Independence, Tucker served as the colonel of a company of Virginia militia at the battle of Guilford Courthouse in North Carolina and was wounded at the battle of Yorktown. After the war he served as Professor of Law at William and Mary College at which time he wrote commentaries on both the Constitution of Virginia and the Federal Constitution. In 1803, Tucker was appointed judge of the Virginia Supreme Court, and subsequently was appointed as a district Federal judge for Virginia. From the North, let us look at the work of William Rawle of Pennsylvania.

  Rawle, although not a member of that august body of men known as the "Founding Fathers," was a friend of both Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. When Benjamin Franklin organized the Society for Political Inquiries, Rawle was invited to join. It was at this time that Rawle became friends with the newly elected president, George Washington. President Washington appointed Rawle as district Federal judge for Pennsylvania in 1791, a position he held for eight years. During that time it became his duty to prosecute those individuals responsible for the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania. In 1792 Rawle became an honorary member of the Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. In 1818, he was elected president of that society and remained its president until his death in 1836. In 1825 Rawle wrote A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, one of the first textbooks on the United States Constitution.

  In studying the works of Tucker and Rawle, we will endeavor to determine if indeed they advanced the theory that secession ended after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. We will also investigate the charge that secession was a pro-slavery scheme. As will be demonstrated, these men were both opposed to slavery and in favor of the right of secession.

  A noted scholar on the life of Tucker and Calhoun, Dr. Clyde N. Wilson gives the following account of Tucker's views of the right of secession:

  The First National Flag

  The Second National Flag

  "I'he Third National Flag

  The Con federate Hag: During the life of the Confederate States of America, three national flags were adopted. The First National Flag was known as the "Stets and Bars"; the Second .`'(tonal Hag was known as the "Stainless Banner" or the "Jackson "flag; the Thirr! .~'ational Flag znrrs adopted a few weeks before the surrender of the Con federate military forces.

  Battle flag more often associated with the Army of Tennessee and the Confederate Navy

  The Battle Flag of the Confederacy: Commonly known as the "Rebel flag" or the "Confederate flag, " this flag was adopted by various units of the Con/ederate military. As is noted, many different styles of Confederate flags were used during the war, but, today, the rectangular Saint Andrews cross is more commonly identified with the Southern cause than any other emblem.

  UNUSUAL CONFEDERATE FLAGS

  General Leonidas Yolk's Corps flag, Artny of Tennessee

  Flag of the Choctaw Brigade
>
  Missouri battle flag, Army of the Trans-Mississippi

  General William D. Hardee's battle flag, Army of Tennessee

  Unusual Confederate Flags: These flags are typical of the many different styles of Confederate battle flags carried by the men of the South during the War for Southern Independence.

  Battle flag of Co. F. 5th South Carolina oluntecr Infanta. King's Mountain, South Carolina

  "Like Our Ancestors-l%e Will Be Fee." The motto on this Confederate battle flag Points to the real issue between the hederal government and the Southern states. This flag Was carried by the men from King's Mountain, South Carolina. Their ancestors de/eated the British invaders at the Battle of King's Mountain during the American Mir /01, Independence.

  Ku Klux Klan protesting, Ruston, Louisiana, 1995 Photograph courtesy of the Ruslou Daily Leader, Roston, Louisiana

  Logo, Citizens Councils

  Collections of Old Capitol bluseunt,

  Mississippi 1)eparUnent of Archives and

  I iistorv, Civil Rights Exhibit

  Photograph courtesy of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

  These bhologratphs demonstrate that the ('niter! States /lag has been and still is being used by various hate groups in America. is this reason./6r banning it? The misuse of ymbols should be condemned, not the flag-whether United States or Confederate States.

  Photograph in author's collections, Jun Whittington, artist

  William Rmnly: An example of n Northern abolitionist who, uniting with his Southern counterparts, worked for the abolition of slavery. His textbook on the United States Constitution was highly acclaimed by Northerners. It stated the case for the right of secession of a .state front the Union.

  Photograph courtesy of the Earl Gregg Swem Library. The College of William mid Marv

  St. George Tucker: A veteran of the War for Indetiendence, rr noted jurist, and an individual instrumental in the adoption of the Constitution, Tucker was an early proponent of the abolition of slavery. Tucker was also critical of lams that rliscrimintiled against free people of color. A Virginian, Tucker was a firm advocate of'the right of the people of the sovereign states to withdraw from the Union at their volition.

  Malmaison: The plantation home of Chief Greenwood Leflore. From the cupola of his mansion LeFore, a slaveholder and an opponent of secession, flew the United States flag during the War for Southern Independence.

  Photograph courtesy of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History

  Photograph courtesy of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History

  Chief Greenwood Leflore: Of French and Choctaw decent, Leflore was a prominent member of the Choctaw tribe, member of the Mississippi legislature, planter, and slaveholder. Leflore is another example of a proUnion, non-white slaveholder.

  Photograph courtesy of The Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.

  The Prince of Slaves: Abd Rahman Ibrahima, while in the process of capturing fellow Africans to sell as slaves, was captured by an enemy tribe and sold into slavery. His life as a prince, a prisoner of war, and a slave, and his return to freedom, is an excellent rebuff to those who maintain that Africans never participated in the enslavement of fellow Africans.

  The Prince of Slavers: The Nightingale, built in Maine and sailing from Salem, Massachusetts, with a New York captain, was captured off the coast of Africa in 1861. It had more than nine hundred slaves on board with a death rate of eight slaves per day. The Nightingale is an example of New England's continued involvement with the slave trade. Also note the American flag flying from the Nightingale. The United States flag was often used by slave traders to protect their ships from being inspected by French and English warships.

  Photograph courtesy of The Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, Massachusetts

  Tucker takes for granted the option of secession. If the Constitution draws its authority from the consent of the sovereign-which is the people of the several states-then the sovereign may withdraw that consent (not, of course, something to be done lightly). The people's consent to the Constitution is not a one-time event that forever after binds them to be obedient to the federal government. A state's right of withdrawal remains always an open option against a government overstepping its hounds, and is affirmed in the nature of the Constitution itself and in the right of revolution propounded by the Declaration of Independence.'

  Tucker, pursuing the philosophy of 1776, notes that the ultimate power of government resides with the people and not with a king or with government itself. This power, often referred to as "sovereignty" in Tucker's words, "resides only in the people; is inherent in them; and unalienable from them.... Legitimate government can therefore be derived only from the voluntary grant of the people, and exercised for their For Tucker, the very foundation of American civil liberty rests upon having a government that exists by the consent of the governed. Eliminate the right of the people to consent to the form of government they live under, and all civil liberties (civil rights) are subject to governmental abuse.? If people at the local level have no way to negate the abuse of the central government, then abuse is almost guaranteed. Tucker explains why he is an advocate of the principle of voluntary consent:

  When a government is founded upon the voluntary consent, and agreement of a people uniting themselves together for their common benefit, the people, or nation, collectively taken, is free, although the administration of the government should happen to be oppressive, and to a certain degree, even tyrannical; since it is in the power of the people to alter, or abolish it [emphasis added], whenever they shall think proper; and to institute such new government as may seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. But if the government be founded in fear, constraint, or force although the administration should happen to be mild, the people, being deprived of the sovereignty, are reduced to a state of civil slavery. Should the administration, in this case, become tyrannical, they are without redress. Submission, punishment, or a successful revolt, are the only alternatives."

  Here Tucker points out something most modern Americans no longer understand. As long as the people retain the right to alter or abolish their government, they remain free. Even if the government is in some ways tyrannical, they, the people, hold the ultimate check on governmental abuse; therefore, the people remain free. Even if a government is installed that is only mildly abusive of the people's liberties, if the people do not have the privilege of an ultimate check on that government, they are, according to Tucker, in a state of civil slavery. Tucker points out that "if government be founded in fear, constraint, or force ... the people ... are reduced to a state of civil slavery." This is the very point that defenders of State's Rights have warned their fellow Americans. When Abraham Lincoln demanded the use of troops to enforce the "rights" of the Federal government, he in effect destroyed the very foundation of American civil liberties (i.e., government by the consent of the governed). Conquest has replaced consent as the foundation of American government. If this is the case, what are the implications for the people of America, both North and South?

  [T]he nature of a government, so far as [it] respects the freedom of the people, may be considered as depending upon the nature of the bond of their union. If the bond of union be the voluntary consent of the people, the government may be pronounced to be free; where constraint and fear constitute that bond, the government is no longer the government of the people, and consequently they [the people] are enslaved.q

  Tucker goes on to state that a free government is not dependent upon so-called checks and balances, but it is dependent upon the people's retaining of the ultimate control of their government. According to Tucker, freedom cannot exist when the right of the people to alter or abolish their government is withdrawn.

  [N]o people can ever be free, whose government is founded upon the usurpation of their sovereign rights; for by the act of usurpation, the sovereignty is transferred from the people, in whom alone it can legitimately reside, to those who by that act have manifeste
d a determination to oppress them.10

  What a condemnation of Lincoln's war policy. As has been maintained by many Southerners, Lincoln's war was not so much a war against slavery or even against the South: Lincoln's war was a war against free government in America. The most tragic surrender at Appomattox was not Lee's army, but the right of "we the people" to alter or abolish our government. From that time forward, regardless of how mild our government may be, we have ceased to be free.

  Now let us return directly to the question of secession. Tucker addresses this issue by looking at the actions of the states as they seceded from the "confederacy" under the Articles of Confederation by acceding to the new Federal Constitution. Even though the government under the Articles of Confederation was denoted as being "perpetual," various states withdrew from that government to form a new government under the Constitution. Tucker notes that even though the government under the Articles of Confederation was denoted as being perpetual, the people of the states possessed the ultimate authority to determine how they were to be governed. Tucker states:

  seceding states were certainly justified upon that principle; and from the duty which every state is acknowledged to owe to itself, and its own citizens by doing whatsoever may best contribute to advance its own happiness and prosperity; and much more, what may be necessary to the preservation of its existence as a state.... That whenever any form of government is destructive of the ends of its institution, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government. Consequently whenever the people of any state, or number of states, discovered the inadequacy of the first form of federal government to promote or preserve their independence, happiness, and union, they only exerted that natural right in rejecting it, and adopting another, which all had unanimously assented to, and of which no force or compact can deprive the people of any state, whenever they see the necessity, and possess the power to do it.... We may infer that right has not been diminished by any new compact which they may since have entered into, since none could be more solemn or explicit than the first, nor more binding upon the contracting parties. Their obligation, therefore, to preserve the present constitution, is not greater than their former obligations were, to adhere to the Articles of Confederation; each state possessing the same right of withdrawing itself from the confederacy without the consent of the rest, as any number of them do, or ever did, possess.... It then becomes not only the right, but the duty of the states respectively, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. To deny this, would be to deny to sovereign and independent states, the power which, as colonies, and dependent territories, they have mutually agreed they had a right to exercise, and did actually exercise, when they shook off the government of England, first, and adopted the present constitution of the United States, in the second