THE REBELLION: No Movement of the Armies of the Potomac; Wholesale Arrests of Members of the Maryland Legislature; Important from Gen. Fremont’s Column (9/19/1861)

New York Times archives – Times Machine ^ | 9/19/1861

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Professor, I certainly hope by this you do not mean to say the signers of the United States Constitution did not “directly” recognize Christ in that document."

"do not...did not...directly"?
My goodness, you're such a clever young schoolboy.
But if you can quote for me the Constitution's passage you're referring to, let's see what we can do with it, OK?

[jeffersondem]

“But if you can quote for me the Constitution’s passage you’re referring to, let’s see what we can do with it, OK?”

Professor, you have written millions of words on the United States Constitution, and now you say you would like to read at least part of it BEFORE you comment on its contents.

I know you. If you really intend to start reading the Constitution, you are up to some kind of trick.

[BroJoeK]

"I know you. If you really intend to start reading the Constitution, you are up to some kind of trick."

Naw, no trick, just hoping to understand what you're referring to when you posted: "...the signers of the United States Constitution did [or did] not “directly” recognize Christ in that document."

[jeffersondem]

“”Consent of the governed” in jeffersondem’s lunatic mind means only “consent of slaveholders”.”

The phrase “consent of the governed”, you will be surprised to learn, is not of my own making. It is a concept I find in the Declaration of Independence.

I don't want to get into too much detail about the phrase because it would just create more confusion for you. I will say this: from the context of the Declaration I do not believe the signers of the document intended “consent of the governed” to imply they were intent on making electors, jurists, or university presidents out of merciless Indian Savages.

Now, about the fact that 13 of the 13 original states were slave states: I rejoice in your revulsion.

I condemn slavery in the strongest possible terms.

That said, I will continue to use, and to celebrate, the Pythagorean Theorem despite my concerns over uneven wage and hour laws in ancient Greece.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I will say this: from the context of the Declaration I do not believe the signers of the document intended “consent of the governed” to imply they were intent on making electors, jurists, or university presidents out of merciless Indian Savages."

Or, notably, from Mexican banditti**, both of which had nations of their own in which they were free to vote, or not, according to the laws & customs of their own nations.

African slaves were a quite different matter, unlike white indentured servants, Africans were slaves-for-life and indeed for the lives of their descendants.
They had no "nation" of their own, no representatives beyond the 3/5 rule for their slave-masters.

Every Founder, without exception, recognized it as a problem, and expressed the desire that slavery should be eventually abolished.
That's how they reconciled "All men are created equal" with their most obvious contradictions.

And many Founders had already begun abolition by the time of the Constitution Convention in 1787, many more soon followed.
Even Southerners like Thomas Jefferson did what they could to abolish slavery in the Northwest Territories and outlawed international imports of slaves.
So abolition was serious and many freedmen could also vote, thus providing "consent of the governed", as the Declaration said.

But by 1860 abolition had completely ended in the South and there was no "consent of the governed" among African slaves.
And when their consent was finally asked, post-war, none, not one, expressed the idea that secession, Confederacy and war against the United States was a good idea.

So while our Lost Causers may still fantasize the Cavaliers of secession, Confederacy & war were glorious ancestors, the fact remains that the majority of their fellow Southerners never agreed and never legally consented.

** "Ruthless Indian savages" and "murderous Mexican banditti" are famously found in the 1861 Texas "Reasons for Secession" document.
So, it happened that a Union Colonel named RE Lee was in charge of protecting Texans against such dangers, but Texas secessionists thought he'd done such a poor job of it, they included those items as reasons for their declaration of secession.

Now here our FRiend jeffersondem has once again weaponized "Indian Savages" and presumably "Mexican banditti" this time to justify denying "consent of the governed" for African slaves.
But African slaves were a very different category, and recognized as such by every Founder.

[jeffersondem]

“Every Founder, without exception, recognized it (slavery) as a problem, and expressed the desire that slavery should be eventually abolished.”

That is an interesting comment.

Can you provide documentation indicating Charles C. Pinckney advocated abolition?

[BroJoeK]

"Can you provide documentation indicating Charles C. Pinckney advocated abolition?"

Both Charles Pinckney's from South Carolina were known for supporting slavery, notably the Constitution's Fugitive Slave clause.
But Charles Pinckney also supported abolishing international imports of slaves, and neither Pinckney is known for opposition to abolition in Northern states, or in the Northwest Territories.

Now, I'll grant you that some Southern expressions of opposition to slavery by politicians like Jefferson, Madison, Washington & Patrick Henry may not have been 100% sincere, but they all said it at one time or another, and they supported, or at least tolerated, abolition in other states or territories.
Indeed, Jefferson himself first proposed national abolition with compensation for slaveholders.

So, I'll grant you the Pinckney's from South Carolina, though even they were not as opposed to abolition (i.e., in the territories) as the 1860 era Fire Eaters who cited opposition to slavery in territories as a "reason for secession".

[woodpusher]

Republican leaders like Abraham Lincoln understood from the time of John Quincy Adams that Civil war would necessarily destroy slavery, but delayed fully taking that step until it became clear there was no other way to victory.

The war ended with slavery still lawful in several northern states. The fully taken abolition of slavery in the United States was a step not taken until adoption of the 13th Amendment.

Here's the real truth: Republicans formed out of the defeated Whigs as specifically the anti-slavery party -- anti-slavery for religious/moral reasons (the Bible forbids slavery for God's people), anti-slavery for philosophical reasons (all men Created equal), anti-slavery for economic reasons (no wage competition with slave-labor) and anti-slavery for social reasons (slavery made white Southerners into arrogant SOBs).

Here's the real truth. Abolitionists had always been a minor force. The Whigs rebranded as the Republicans and needed a wedge issue to engage in divide and conquer politics. For this, politicians such as Lincoln discovered newfound feelings of anti-slavery. Having never before campaigned on the slavery issue, after seeking office with the Republican party, he never campaigned on anything else. In Lincoln's days as a state Representative, he stated on March 3, 1837, "that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils... the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different states... the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District."

On August 24, 1855, Lincoln is unendingly quoted as writing to Joshua Speed, "You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave—especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you to yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils; but I bite my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. It is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and the Union.

Yea, verily, in 1855 Lincoln told Speed to recall a rafting trip of 1841 where the sight of slaves continually tormented poor Lincoln, and in 1855 continued to have the power to make him miserable. Powerful stuff by the newly minted Republican politician.

However, it may be more instructive to learn what the same Lincoln wrote on September 27, 1841 to Mary Speed, directly after the same rafting trip, while the event was still fresh in his mind. "You remember there was some uneasiness about Joshua's health when we left. That little indisposition of his turned out to be nothing serious; and it was pretty nearly forgotten when we reached Springfield. We got on board the Steam Boat Lebanon, in the locks of the Canal about 12. o'clock. M. of the day we left, and reached St. Louis the next monday at 8 P.M. Nothing of interest happened during the passage, except the vexatious delays occasioned by the sand bars be thought interesting. By the way, a fine example was presented on board the boat for contemplating the effect of condition upon human happiness. A gentleman had purchased twelve negroes in different parts of Kentucky and was taking them to a farm in the South. They were chained six and six together. A small iron clevis was around the left wrist of each, and this fastened to the main chain by a shorter one at a convenient distance from, the others; so that the negroes were strung together precisely like so many fish upon a trot-line. In this condition they were being separated forever from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, and many of them, from their wives and children, and going into perpetual slavery where the lash of the master is proverbially more ruthless and unrelenting than any other where; and yet amid all these distressing circumstances, as we would think them, they were the most cheerful and apparantly happy creatures on board."

Vexatious delays may have tormented him, but the sight of the happiest creatures on board did not.

On December 21, 1848, Congressman Daniel Gott of New York offered a resolution to force a House committee to report a resolution calling for a bill banning the slave trade in Wasington, D.C. Pro-slavery congressmen offered a motion to lay Gott's resolution on the table, i.e., kill it. Lincoln sided with the pro-slavery southern contingent and voted to lay Gott's resolution on the table.

This was raised again for reconsideration on December 27, 1848, and again Lincoln voted with the pro-slavery contingent to kill it.

On July 17, 1858, Lincoln stated, "Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in course of ultimate extinction. For that reason, it had been a minor question with me." Indeed, it did not become an expressed interest of Lincoln until he became a Republican and sought to resurrect his political career.

[woodpusher]

And many Founders had already begun abolition by the time of the Constitution Convention in 1787, many more soon followed.

Even Southerners like Thomas Jefferson did what they could to abolish slavery in the Northwest Territories and outlawed international imports of slaves.

So abolition was serious and many freedmen could also vote, thus providing "consent of the governed", as the Declaration said.

Which slave-owning Founder manumitted his own slaves?

Which of the Founders caused anti-slavery sentiment to be expressed in the Articles of Confederation?

If there was so much anti-slavery sentiment among northern and southern politicians, why did no Congress prohibit the slave trade in Washington, D.C. until the middle of the Civil War?

[woodpusher]

“Every Founder, without exception, recognized it (slavery) as a problem, and expressed the desire that slavery should be eventually abolished.”

That is an interesting comment.

Can you provide documentation indicating Charles C. Pinckney advocated abolition?

George Washington was a slave owner at the Founding and Framing and throughout his time in office. I can provide documentary evidence proving that George Washington died a slave owner, having never freed his own slaves.

[woodpusher]

some Southern expressions of opposition to slavery by politicians like Jefferson, Madison, Washington & Patrick Henry may not have been 100% sincere

Which slave-owning Founder opposed slavery so much as to manumit his own slaves?

Did Jefferson manumit his slave Jupiter, who tended to him while Jefferson wrote about all men being created equal?

[jeffersondem]

“which slave-owning Founder opposed slavery so much as to manumit his own slaves?”

I can see Brother Joe struggling - he usually does - so I'm going to help him.

I think Ben Franklin freed a slave or two toward the end of his life and, even began to advocate abolition.

There may have been others I don't know about but I tend to think among the founders that owned slaves, becoming an abolitionist was an exception, not the rule.

[wardaddy]

[x]

Prince Salm-Salm had an interesting life, fighting for Prussia in Denmark, for Austria in Sardinia, for the US in the Civil War, for Maximilian in Mexico, for the Prussians in France, where he was killed in battle. As one might expect from someone who liked to fight so much, he was erratic in his personal life as well and got into plenty of scrapes, financial, legal, and otherwise.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "The war ended with slavery still lawful in several northern states. The fully taken abolition of slavery in the United States was a step not taken until adoption of the 13th Amendment."

Plus, at least one of your fellow Lost Causers (DL) has even argued that Lincoln's wartime emancipation in Confederate states should have ended with Confederate surrender in April 1865, so that slavery should have been legal in those states too, until the 13th was ratified in December 1865.

The reality is that by the time of Confederate surrenders, slavery was de facto abolished in every state & territory except two: Kentucky & Delaware.
In Kentucky it's estimated about 50,000 slaves remained of circa 500,000 in 1860 and in Delaware maybe 2,000.
So the war itself had freed over 95% of slaves, leaving only a small number to be freed by the 13th Amendment.

That's the truth.

[BroJoeK]

Woodpusher: "Here's the real truth.
Abolitionists had always been a minor force.

No, that's a lie, just one among many our Democrat Lost Causers post.
The real truth is abolitionists included nearly all our Founders, even Virginians like Washington, Jefferson, Madison & Patrick Henry.
They all said they wanted to abolish slavery, and some, like Jefferson took action toward abolition.
Northern Founders by 1787 had already begun to abolish slavery in their own states, and within a few years all Northern states had begun abolition.

So abolition was a big deal in 1787 and it became a bigger deal all across the North -- virtually every Northerner was an abolitionists in his own state.
In the South it became a different story, but as late as the 1830s, Virginia was still trying to live up to the Founders' promises.
Only when Virginia failed at abolition did Southerners generally give up on the idea and begin to advocate slavery as a positive good moral thing.
This lead Southern Democrats to oppose abolition not just in their own states but also in Western territories, and in the right of Northern states to declare visiting slaves freed, if their masters stayed too long (i.e., Dred Scott).

Now it's true that most Northerners were content to let slavery abide in the South, but no Northerner wanted slavery in the territories, much less in their own states!
And that's what the Republican party was based on.
Regardless, for Southetn Democrat Fire Eaters, even one radical Northern abolitionists (i.e. John Brown) was plenty enough to justify secession & war against the United States.

And so the war came and slavery was destroyed by men who did care less about slavery than about Union, but nevertheless understood that for the Union to survive, slavery must necessarily be destroyed.,

And that's the real truth, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "On December 21, 1848, Congressman Daniel Gott of New York offered a resolution to force a House committee to report a resolution calling for a bill banning the slave trade in Wasington, D.C. Pro-slavery congressmen offered a motion to lay Gott's resolution on the table, i.e., kill it. Lincoln sided with the pro-slavery southern contingent and voted to lay Gott's resolution on the table."

In January 1849 Congressman Lincoln drafted his own bill to abolish slavery in Washington DC, with compensation for slaveholders.
Lincoln's bill went nowhere and was withdrawn.

In 1862 Pres. Lincoln again proposed compensated abolition in Washington, and this time it passed into law.

[woodpusher]

I think Ben Franklin freed a slave or two toward the end of his life and, even began to advocate abolition.

http://commonplace.online/article/benjamin-franklin-slavery/

Benjamin Franklin, Slavery, and the Founders: On the dangers of reading backwards

David Waldstreicher

[Excerpts]

Events after 1776, of course, do matter, as do the final acts of great lives. Franklin lived just long enough for his slaves to run away and die off, and for antislavery to become politically safe in his home state. ...

He did not so much experience a sea change in his attitudes as he managed to deflect the blame, deflecting criticisms of the Americans as slavemongers into a critique of colonialism British style, establishing a common ground in favor of liberty—and the American cause. ...

Franklin’s antislavery credentials have been, at the very least, remembered backwards. At most, they have been greatly exaggerated. ...

He owned a series of slaves between about 1735 and 1781 and never systematically divested himself of them. ...

There are enough smoking guns, to be sure, to condemn Franklin as a hypocrite, Jefferson style, if one wishes to do so.

In 1758, Franklin took two of his slaves, Peter and King, to England. King ran away and took freedom in England. I know of no evidence of Franklin having manumitted his slaves.

[BroJoeK]

woodpusher: "Which slave-owning Founder manumitted his own slaves?"

And yet virtually all expressed the wish to see slavery eventually abolished, and many took actions in that direction, notably Jefferson.
That makes our Founders at least as abolitionists as average 1860 Republican voters.

woodpusher: "Which of the Founders caused anti-slavery sentiment to be expressed in the Articles of Confederation?"

And yet while still under the old Articles, Jefferson proposed and Congress passed abolition in the Northwest Territories.
If you think about it, that makes Jefferson our single greatest abolitionist before Lincoln himself.
And Jefferson didn'tneed a war to make it happen.

woodpusher: "If there was so much anti-slavery sentiment among northern and southern politicians, why did no Congress prohibit the slave trade in Washington, D.C. until the middle of the Civil War?"

After Northern states abolished their own slavery, the next state up was Virginia, which tried in the 1830s but failed in abolition.
From that point on slavery became a non-stsrter for Southetners.
But remember, long before 1830 Jefferson did propose complete national compensated abolition, so he at least was serious about it.

[woodpusher]

Plus, at least one of your fellow Lost Causers (DL) has even argued that Lincoln's wartime emancipation in Confederate states should have ended with Confederate surrender in April 1865, so that slavery should have been legal in those states too, until the 13th was ratified in December 1865.

I am not a Lost Causer but a Yankee who insists on history being based on facts and not the fictional, ahistoric tales partican hacks, such as yourself, persist in spinning.

The Confederacy did not surrender in April 1865. The Army of Northen Virginia surrendered at Appomatox. German surrender did not end WW2 and the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia did not end the Civil War. The war continued. Battles continued in Texas. BGEN Stand Watie in Oklahoma never surrendered; rather he entered into a formal cessation of hostilities.

The United States Supreme Court in the case of The Protector, 79 U.S. 700 (1870)

there were two proclamations declaring that the war had closed, one issued on the 2d of April, 1866, embracing the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and the other issued on the 20th of August, 1866, embracing the State of Texas.

The Battle of Palmito Ranch, May 12-13, 1865 is considered the last land battle of the Civil War. It ended in Confederate victory.

https://www.history.com/news/6-civil-war-battles-after-appomattox

6. CSS Shenandoah raids (Summer 1865)

The fearsome commerce raider CSS Shenandoah was purchased from the British and commissioned by the Confederacy in October 1864. Commanded by Captain James Waddell, CSS Shenandoah sailed the high seas from Madeira to Australia on a mission to capture and destroy Union commercial vessels. It achieved its greatest success in the months following Lee’s surrender at Appomattox as it decimated the Yankee whaling fleet harvesting the Bering Sea off the Alaskan coast. On June 28 alone, the Confederate vessel seized 10 whalers. On August 2, a British ship captain broke the news to Waddell that Davis had been apprehended and the Civil War had ended. Fearing capture by the U.S. Navy, Waddell dismantled the ship’s armaments and disguised its appearance, even painting the hull to resemble an ordinary merchant vessel. For three months, CSS Shenandoah remained at sea before reaching Liverpool, England, on November 6, 1865, and surrendering to British authorities. The raider that had captured nearly 40 ships, more than half of them after Appomattox, fired the last shots of the Civil War and lowered the Confederate flag for the very last time.

Wars are over when governments say they are over.

The reality is that by the time of Confederate surrenders, slavery was de facto abolished in every state & territory except two: Kentucky & Delaware.

The end of the war, regardless of what date is made up for it, did not establish the legal end of slavery anywhere. The Emancipation Proclamation did not automatically declare the end of slavery in any state. Neither did the end of the war.

During the war, it was declared that slaves were considered property and could be seized as contraband property. Slaves seized as property became Union property and were set free by their new owner. Slaves not seized as contraband property had no legal status as free. The end of the war (the actual end) signified the end of any authority to seize any slave as contraband, and it ended any Federal government authority to seize slaves as contraband property and set them free.

Your assertion that slavery was somehow abolished by the end of the war has no basis in reality. The implied cause and effect is fiction. Slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment; a sovereign act of the people.

Slavery in New Jersey continued up to the 13th Amendment. In 1865, New Jersey did not ratify, but rejected the 13th Amendment.