theamericanconservative | Lincoln’s legacy as the Great Emancipator has survived the century and a
half since then largely intact. But there have been cracks in this
image, mostly caused by questioning academics who decried him as an
overt white supremacist. This view eventually entered the mainstream
when Nikole Hannah-Jones wrote misleadingly in her lead essay to the “1619 Project” that Lincoln “opposed black equality.”
Today, we find Lincoln statues desecrated. Neither has the memorial to the 54th Massachusetts Infantry,
one of the first all-black units in the Civil War, survived the recent
protests unscathed. To many on the left, history seems like the
succession of one cruelty by the next. And so, justice may only be
served if we scrap the past and start from a blank slate. As a result,
Lincoln’s appeal that we stand upright and enjoy our liberty gets lost
to time.
Ironically, this will only help the cause of
Robert E. Lee—and the modern corporations who rely on cheap, inhumane
labor to keep themselves going.
***
The
main idea driving the “1619 Project” and so much of recent scholarship
is that the United States of America originated in slavery and white
supremacy. These were its true founding ideals. Racism, Hannah-Jones
writes, is in our DNA.
Such arguments don’t make any sense, as the historian Barbara Fields clairvoyantly argued in a groundbreaking essay
from 1990. Why would Virginia planters in the 17th century import black
people purely out of hate? No, Fields countered, the planters were
driven by a real need for dependable workers who would toil on their
cotton, rice, and tobacco fields for little to no pay.
Before black
slaves did this work, white indentured servants had. (An indentured
servant is bound for a number of years to his master, i.e. he can’t pack
up and leave to find a new opportunity elsewhere.)
After
1776 everything changed. Suddenly the new republic claimed that “all
men are created equal”—and yet there were millions of slaves who still
couldn’t enjoy this equality. Racism helped to square our founding
ideals with the brute reality of continued chattel slavery: Black people
simply weren’t men.
But
in the eyes of the Southern slavocracy, the white laboring poor of the
North also weren’t truly human. Such unholy antebellum figures as the
social theorist George Fitzhugh or South Carolina Senator James Henry
Hammond urged
that the condition of slavery be expanded to include poor whites, too.
Their hunger for a cheap, subservient labor source did not stop at black
people, after all.
Always remember Barbara Fields’s
formula: The need for cheap labor comes first; ideologies like white
supremacy only give this bleak reality a spiritual gloss.
The true cause of the Civil War—and it bears constant repeating for all the doubters—was whether slavery would expand its reach or whether “free labor”
would reign supreme. The latter was the dominant ideology of the North:
Free laborers are independent, self-reliant, and eventually achieve
economic security and independence by the sweat of their brow. It’s the
American Dream.
But if that is so, then the Civil War ended in a tie—and its underlying conflict was never really settled.
0 comments:
Post a Comment