Why Confederates are taken for granted! (Like conservatives today?)

The Confederates of the Southern movement are like the conservatives of the Republican Party, the leaders believe they have no choice!

The parallels occurring in America between the 2012 election year, what is occurring in America as a nation and in the South, and the events of 150 years ago are startling.

While most Americans have some knowledge of the GOP Primary, few have any idea of the Sesquicentennial (the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War) and the events occurring in the Southern movement. And yet, what is occurring is like mirror reflections of one another.

Let's start with what most people know about, the GOP primary. Mitt Romney is the sweetheart of the northeast Republicans. He is super rich, someone keenly involved in the international economy. He is a social liberal, the father of Romney Care, the proto type of Obama Care. He is not Christian, or at least his faith, Mormonism, is not Christian and this suits the northeast elite who revile the Christian faith. God has no place at the governing table. Heavily Catholic in the northeast, it is also heavily liberal. Abortion starts and ends there, along with feminism.

There is a strong Jewish constituency in the northeast, and though divided on many issues, many Jews see America as an extension of Israel. Not the other way around... American foreign policy revolves around Israel. We are in two wars, and threatening a third for Israel's security not our own.

Former Governor of a blue, dark blue state, Mitt Romney is keenly aware of all the above.

But Romney can't win a majority of Republican votes anywhere. He has spent maybe twenty million dollars and the best he can do is garner about 35% of the vote in any state. Why? Because the conservative core of the Party rejects him. It’s instinctual. It’s not Rush, or Hannity. They have no effect on this. Neither does Beck, a Mormon who I would bet is committed to Romney. Beck has backed away recently, but his fangs have already shown.

So if the conservative base will not support Romney in the Primaries how is it that the GOP elite think Romney can beat Obama? ( Maybe they don't, but that's for a different article. ) Because the Republican elite, the Neo Cons, the Karl Roves, the Bush's, et. el figure the conservatives have nowhere else to go. If Romney is the nominee, if he is forced on the party, they will have no choice but support him. Some conservatives may stay home, but the Republican elite just can't believe enough of the conservative base would stay home, or vote for Obama to give the Democrats the win. So conservatives...once again, as you have time and again, you will have to accept the lesser of two evils. You know like McCain and Bob Dole, this is the best we can do. Suck it up! ( an old Army expression.)

For most of us conservatives we know the story. Its burned in our political memories.

Well, the parallel is in the South. For most of the nation the Sesquicentennial doesn't mean much. Many Americans ancestors arrived after the war. Italians, central Europeans, Greeks, and almost all the Latino's have no direct connection to the war, or the division of the nation. In fact, most of these people have no connection to the founding of the nation. They came for material wealth, not liberty and freedom. In their mind, government is supposed to provide. The Tenth Amendment, what's that?

But in the South, where there is a tie to Robert E. Lee, the Confederacy, and southern nationalism, the Sesquicentennial is more than a minor occurrence. If you have ever seen the movie "Sweet Home Alabama" it accurately portrays what occurs in the South every year! The Sesquicentennial is NOT the only time reenactments occur, it’s just when the biggest ones do. A special effort is made.

Recent work at Texas A & M on genealogical formula's indicates that between 50 and 80 million Americans have blood that traces back to a Southern ancestor. That would be one sixth to one fourth of all Americans. Pretty sizeable crew.

But the Sesquicentennial is occurring during the Obama Presidency and there seems to be a real effort, though hidden and underground, to reduce the Southern Pride. Example; the Museum of the Confederacy (M.o.C.) Located in the heart of Richmond, the capitol of the Olde Confederacy, the Museum occupies prized ground that surrounding hospitals or other businesses want. The pressure has been on them a long time to get out. So, this year, the M.o.C. opens its first extension. Many of us believe the opening of the extensions will allow the Museum to leave Richmond eventually.

But the selection for the first opening is evidence that Yankee interests have invested the museum.

Is the first opening in the lovely Shenandoah where Jackson beat three Union armies in one campaign? No. Oh I know, it’s off Interstate 95 at Chancellorsville, the site of Lee's greatest victory! NO. OK, maybe up closer to Washington, D.C. on the Manassas battlefield where the Confederacy won two major battles? Nope. So where?

Appomattox, the place where General Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia. You are kidding! For a Southerner, only Andersonville could be a worse location!

Nope, it's Appomattox. A location more than an hour from any interstate! A location not heavily visited. Great plan don't you think? Take the musuem out of Richmond and put it out in the middle of nowhere?

But the subtle attack on the Confederacy gets better. No Confederate flags will fly on poles outside the Museum of the Confederacy! Not one.

But hey, you Southerners dig into your pockets and shell out some money for the M.o.C.

At THE CITADEL, in Charleston, South Carolina, where the cadets of this school fired the first shots of the war, this school played Dixie as its fight song at football games in the 70's. Confederate naval ensigns flew proudly on the RV's and cars outside the stadium at the cookouts before the game. Crimson red dominated the area surrounding the stadium

Crimson red still dominates, but it’s not the Confederate battle flag. And Dixie, well you don't hear that one anymore. THE CITADEL is not the only culprit. The University of Texas at Arlington, which used to be Arlington State College, and was known as the Rebels where Dixie was also played, is now the U.T.A. Mavericks. The effort to erase Southern history proceeds unabated. The heritage organizations responsible for defending the Cause, overwhelmed or apathetic shrink in inactivity. Oh yes, every once in awhile you will hear about a Court case. But with a potential base of 50 - 80 million Americans you would think they could make more than a whisper.

Where Gettysburg in Pennsylvania nets three hundred million in tourist monies every year, employing 6,000 people, battlefields in the South are hidden. When you drive into a Southern state go to their Visitor's center and look through the brochures for Maps about the Civil War. Probably won't find them. They are there but you have to ask at the counter. The north can prosper from the war, but the South...nope.

Groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy treat Southern patriots like the GOP treats their conservative core. You have nowhere else to go so suck it up!

Ok, so why are you writing this article? Well Republicans remember you thought the conservatives would have no choice? If there is a parallel between the South and the GOP you better rethink that.

In the South, since the heritage organizations would not fight for the South, new groups have spontaneously arisen, and you know what. Much of the activists in these groups are members of the heritage organizations who are tired of inactivity and defeat without a fight. They are in the streets, and they call themselves Flaggers. They reject the passivity and leadership of the heritage organizations. They are causing more pressure on the enemies of the South, and getting more attention then anyone can believe. They are only a handful, but in a South tired of being kicked they are growing.

Sarah Palin is still with us. A candidacy by her would end Romney, nominee or not.

History does repeat itself...but this time the history is simultaneous. Patriotism is not dead. Individuals willing to fight for what they think is right, and who are tired of sorry leadership are on the move. Will it snowball? Let's watch.

http://www.slavenorth.com/rhodeisland.htm

“Rhode Island, of course, was among the most active Northern colonies in importing slaves. Between 1709 and 1807, Rhode Island merchants sponsored at least 934 slaving voyages to the coast of Africa and carried an estimated 106,544 slaves to the New World. From 1732-64, Rhode Islanders sent annually 18 ships, bearing 1,800 hogsheads of rum, to Africa to trade for slaves, earning £40,000 annually. Newport, the colony’s leading slave port, took an estimated 59,070 slaves to America before the Revolution. Bristol and Providence also prospered from it. In the years after the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the American trade in African slaves.

As a Rhode Island historian writes, “All together, 204 different Rhode Island citizens owned a share or more in a slave voyage at one time or another. It is evident that the involvement of R.I. citizens in the slave trade was widespread and abundant. For Rhode Islanders, slavery had provided a major new profit sector and an engine for trade in the West Indies.” Slaves that were not auctioned off were put to work aboard merchant ships. By 1807, black seamen made up 21% of Newport crews.

The Browns, one of the great mercantile families of colonial America, were Rhode Island slave traders. At least six of them — James and his brother Obadiah, and James’s four sons, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses — ran one of the biggest slave-trading businesses in New England, and for more than half a century the family reaped huge profits from the slave trade. “When James Brown sent the Mary to Africa in 1736, he launched Providence into the Negro traffic and laid the foundation for the Brown fortune. From this year until 1790, the Browns played a commanding role in the New England slave trade.” Their donations to Rhode Island College were so generous that the name was changed to Brown University.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport,_Rhode_Island

“During the colonial period, Newport was the center of the slave trade in New England. Newport was active in the “triangle trade,” in which slave-produced sugar and molasses from the Caribbean were carried to Rhode Island and distilled into rum, which was then carried to West Africa and exchanged for captives. In 1764, Rhode Island had about 30 rum distilleries, 22 in Newport alone.

Many of the great fortunes made during this period were made in the slave trade. The Common Burial Ground on Farewell Street was where most of the slaves were buried. Sixty percent of slave trading voyages launched from North America – in some years more than 90% – issued from tiny Rhode Island, many from Newport. Almost half were trafficked illegally, breaking a 1787 state law prohibiting residents of the state from trading in slaves. Slave traders were also breaking federal statutes of 1794 and 1800 barring Americans from carrying slaves to ports outside the United States, and the 1807 Congressional act abolishing the transatlantic slave trade.

A few Rhode Island families made substantial fortunes in the trade. William and Samuel Vernon, Newport merchants who later played an important role in financing the creation of the United States Navy, sponsored thirty African slaving ventures. However, it was the D’Wolfs of Bristol, RI, and most notably James De Wolf, who were the largest slave trading family in all of North America, mounting more than eighty transatlantic voyages, most illegal. The Rhode Island slave trade was broadly based. Seven hundred Rhode Islanders owned or captained slave ships, including most substantial merchants, and many ordinary shopkeepers and tradesmen, who purchased shares in slaving voyages”

http://www.slavenorth.com/profits.htm

Northern Profits from Slavery

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England’s economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. —Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319.

Whether it was officially encouraged, as in New York and New Jersey, or not, as in Pennsylvania, the slave trade flourished in colonial Northern ports. But New England was by far the leading slave merchant of the American colonies.

The first systematic venture from New England to Africa was undertaken in 1644 by an association of Boston traders, who sent three ships in quest of gold dust and black slaves. One vessel returned the following year with a cargo of wine, salt, sugar, and tobacco, which it had picked up in Barbados in exchange for slaves. But the other two ran into European warships off the African coast and barely escaped in one piece. Their fate was a good example of why Americans stayed out of the slave trade in the 17th century. Slave voyages were profitable, but Puritan merchants lacked the resources, financial and physical, to compete with the vast, armed, quasi-independent European chartered corporations that were battling to monopolize the trade in black slaves on the west coast of Africa. The superpowers in this struggle were the Dutch West India Company and the English Royal African Company. The Boston slavers avoided this by making the longer trip to the east coast of Africa, and by 1676 the Massachusetts ships were going to Madagascar for slaves. Boston merchants were selling these slaves in Virginia by 1678. But on the whole, in the 17th century New Englanders merely dabbled in the slave trade.

Then, around 1700, the picture changed. First the British got the upper hand on the Dutch and drove them from many of their New World colonies, weakening their demand for slaves and their power to control the trade in Africa. Then the Royal African Company’s monopoly on African coastal slave trade was revoked by Parliament in 1696. Finally, the Assiento and the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) gave the British a contract to supply Spanish America with 4,800 slaves a year. This combination of events dangled slave gold in front of the New England slave traders, and they pounced. Within a few years, the famous “Triangle Trade” and its notorious “Middle Passage” were in place.

Rhode Islanders had begun including slaves among their cargo in a small way as far back as 1709. But the trade began in earnest there in the 1730s. Despite a late start, Rhode Island soon surpassed Massachusetts as the chief colonial carrier. After the Revolution, Rhode Island merchants had no serious American competitors. They controlled between 60 and 90 percent of the U.S. trade in African slaves. Rhode Island had excellent harbors, poor soil, and it lacked easy access to the Newfoundland fisheries. In slave trading, it found its natural calling. William Ellery, prominent Newport merchant, wrote in 1791, “An Ethiopian could as soon change his skin as a Newport merchant could be induced to change so lucrative a trade as that in slaves for the slow profits of any manufactory.”[1]

Boston and Newport were the chief slave ports, but nearly all the New England towns — Salem, Providence, Middletown, New London – had a hand in it. In 1740, slaving interests in Newport owned or managed 150 vessels engaged in all manner of trading. In Rhode Island colony, as much as two-thirds of the merchant fleet and a similar fraction of sailors were engaged in slave traffic. The colonial governments of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania all, at various times, derived money from the slave trade by levying duties on black imports. Tariffs on slave import in Rhode Island in 1717 and 1729 were used to repair roads and bridges.

The 1750 revocation of the Assiento dramatically changed the slave trade yet again. The system that had been set up to stock Spanish America with thousands of Africans now needed another market. Slave ships began to steer northward. From 1750 to 1770, African slaves flooded the Northern docks. Merchants from Philadelphia, New York, and Perth Amboy began to ship large lots (100 or more) in a single trip. As a result, wholesale prices of slaves in New York fell 50% in six years.

On the eve of the Revolution, the slave trade “formed the very basis of the economic life of New England.”[2] It wove itself into the entire regional economy of New England. The Massachusetts slave trade gave work to coopers, tanners, sailmakers, and ropemakers. Countless agents, insurers, lawyers, clerks, and scriveners handled the paperwork for slave merchants. Upper New England loggers, Grand Banks fishermen, and livestock farmers provided the raw materials shipped to the West Indies on that leg of the slave trade. Colonial newspapers drew much of their income from advertisements of slaves for sale or hire. New England-made rum, trinkets, and bar iron were exchanged for slaves. When the British in 1763 proposed a tax on sugar and molasses, Massachusetts merchants pointed out that these were staples of the slave trade, and the loss of that would throw 5,000 seamen out of work in the colony and idle almost 700 ships. The connection between molasses and the slave trade was rum. Millions of gallons of cheap rum, manufactured in New England, went to Africa and bought black people. Tiny Rhode Island had more than 30 distilleries, 22 of them in Newport. In Massachusetts, 63 distilleries produced 2.7 million gallons of rum in 1774. Some was for local use: rum was ubiquitous in lumber camps and on fishing ships. “But primarily rum was linked with the Negro trade, and immense quantities of the raw liquor were sent to Africa and exchanged for slaves. So important was rum on the Guinea Coast that by 1723 it had surpassed French and Holland brandy, English gin, trinkets and dry goods as a medium of barter.”[3] Slaves costing the equivalent of £4 or £5 in rum or bar iron in West Africa were sold in the West Indies in 1746 for £30 to £80. New England thrift made the rum cheaply — production cost was as low as 5½ pence a gallon — and the same spirit of Yankee thrift discovered that the slave ships were most economical with only 3 feet 3 inches of vertical space to a deck and 13 inches of surface area per slave, the human cargo laid in carefully like spoons in a silverware case.

A list of the leading slave merchants is almost identical with a list of the region’s prominent families: the Fanueils, Royalls, and Cabots of Massachusetts; the Wantons, Browns, and Champlins of Rhode Island; the Whipples of New Hampshire; the Eastons of Connecticut; Willing & Morris of Philadelphia. To this day, it’s difficult to find an old North institution of any antiquity that isn’t tainted by slavery. Ezra Stiles imported slaves while president of Yale. Six slave merchants served as mayor of Philadelphia. Even a liberal bastion like Brown University has the shameful blot on its escutcheon. It is named for the Brown brothers, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses, manufacturers and traders who shipped salt, lumber, meat — and slaves. And like many business families of the time, the Browns had indirect connections to slavery via rum distilling. John Brown, who paid half the cost of the college’s first library, became the first Rhode Islander prosecuted under the federal Slave Trade Act of 1794 and had to forfeit his slave ship. Historical evidence also indicates that slaves were used at the family’s candle factory in Providence, its ironworks in Scituate, and to build Brown’s University Hall.[4]

Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way — which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual — except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.

Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.