Remember That Time Abraham Lincoln Was a Racist?

Did you catch any of the chaos in the House chambers yesterday as the Dems moved to condemn President Trump’s tweets? Pelosi was banned from speaking for the day for breaking House rules, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver dropped the gavel.

Mind you, Rep. Cleaver used to be considered one of the more radical progressive members of the Democratic party. Before the Broad Squad showed up on scene. What a difference a bray makes.

And all because the President put Tweet to the long held sentiment of “America: love it or leave it.”

I guess ‘da Squad insists that his tweet was racist. Of course they also insisted there was collusion with Russia! Russia! Russia! Or obstruction. Or something.

I should point out that “go back to where you came from” could mean “get out of the way,” a phrase President Obama was never shy about using, whether he was talking about the Republicans who “drove the car off the cliff” getting out of the way so he could “clean up the mess,” or the Republican Congress “getting out of his way” so he could shut down Gitmo. “Get out of the way” only sounds racist if you see everything through a racist lens.

H/T Cripes Suzette – still my favorite of her many awesome photoshops

art IV (3) of the Confederate Constitution
“to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

Southerners were not against industrialization, just indifferent to it. in 1860 Tredegar in Richmond was the largest industrial operation in the South. It’s capacity was matched by half a dozen operations in the North and another dozen Northern operations approached it’s capacity.
In 1850 the Feds offered Illinois free land to build a railroad. Illinois took the offer, the results was the Illinois Central railroad. At the same time Alabama and Mississippi were made the same offer of free federal land to build railroads, both states declined the offer. Five % of Southern cotton production went to Southern mills. Twenty % went to Northern mills. Does not seem to me that the Southerners believed industrialization was the way forward.

In the deep South, 1.9 million slaves were directly involved in the production of cotton. Who do think produced the majority of the 5 million bales of cotton in 1860.

They were taking active steps to find other sources of cotton once the South embargoed cotton and the Union Navy closed their ports. It takes 48 days at sea and an 11,000 mile voyage to deliver a ship load of cotton to England from India. It takes 12 days and 4500 miles from Charleston.
Yes, the Brits were working to ensure the cotton supply for their mills, but as long as Southern cotton was available, it was the cheapest and best product to make cloth from and that is what they wanted. Had the south not seceded, they would have enjoyed many years of a profitable business exporting cotton to Europe.

art IV (3) of the Confederate Constitution “to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

". . . delegates from the Deep South met in Montgomery, Alabama, on February 4 [1861] to establish the Confederate States of America. The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . .

"The resulting constitution was surprisingly similar to that of the United States. Most of the differences merely spelled out traditional southern interpretations of the federal charter. . . .

". . . it was clear from the actions of the Montgomery convention that the goal of the new converts to secessionism was not to establish a slaveholders' reactionary utopia. What they really wanted was to recreate the Union as it had been before the rise of the new Republican Party, and they opted for secession only when it seemed clear that separation was the only way to achieve their aim. The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine, T. H. Bren, George Fredrickson, and R. Hal Williams, America Past and Present, Fifth Edition, New York: Longman, 1998, pp. 444-445, emphasis added)

Southerners were not against industrialization, just indifferent to it. in 1860 Tredegar in Richmond was the largest industrial operation in the South. It’s capacity was matched by half a dozen operations in the North and another dozen Northern operations approached it’s capacity. In 1850 the Feds offered Illinois free land to build a railroad. Illinois took the offer, the results was the Illinois Central railroad. At the same time Alabama and Mississippi were made the same offer of free federal land to build railroads, both states declined the offer. Five % of Southern cotton production went to Southern mills. Twenty % went to Northern mills. Does not seem to me that the Southerners believed industrialization was the way forward.

The North industrialized first....which makes sense given that they could not produce cash crops that would yield a high margin. Therefore they put their money into industrialization. They also used their larger population to vote themselves a hefty chunk of the South's money in the form of corporate subsidies, infrastructure projects which aided industrialization, etc. Many Southerners knew industrialization was the way forward by the 1850s having observed the rapid growth of economies that industrialized early on. One of their big complaints was that by bleeding money out of the South every year via tariffs and unequal federal expenditures, it was slowing down their rate of industrialization. Several of them made this point.

In the deep South, 1.9 million slaves were directly involved in the production of cotton. Who do think produced the majority of the 5 million bales of cotton in 1860.

There's no way to know. As I pointed out, it was customary for small and medium sized farmers to devote at least a portion if not all of their acreage to producing cash crops. The White population in the Southern states was larger than the Black population.

They were taking active steps to find other sources of cotton once the South embargoed cotton and the Union Navy closed their ports. It takes 48 days at sea and an 11,000 mile voyage to deliver a ship load of cotton to England from India. It takes 12 days and 4500 miles from Charleston. Yes, the Brits were working to ensure the cotton supply for their mills, but as long as Southern cotton was available, it was the cheapest and best product to make cloth from and that is what they wanted. Had the south not seceded, they would have enjoyed many years of a profitable business exporting cotton to Europe.

The Brits set to getting cotton production up and running in the British Empire before 1861. That was going to happen regardless. Sailing a bit longer to reach the cotton mills of Lancashire was a small price to pay for reaping both ends of the profits and keeping all the money within the Empire. That was always their aim with everything. The high profit margins the Southern states enjoyed on their cash crops was going to be squeezed regardless.

FLT-bird: "For example, Illinois required free Blacks to post a sizable bond before being allowed in - that was more than most had. Also Blacks were barred from voting... "

And yet Illinois experienced the highest growth rate of freed-blacks of any state between 1820 and 1860.
So obviously, not all Illinoisans were as anti-black as FLT-bird would have us believe.

FLT-bird: "The effect was to make it almost impossible for Blacks to earn a living there - this forcing them out."

The only blacks known to be "forced out" were those caught by slave-catchers for return to their Southern "masters".
Despite that, the population of freed-blacks in Illinois grew faster than any other state from 1820 to 1860.

Overall, freed-black populations roughly doubled from 1820 to 1860.

In the South overall, numbers of freed-blacks doubled, with notable exceptions being South Carolina and Virginia, where growth was just half the average.
In New England, freed-black populations grew just 18%, with Maine & Massachusetts at 42%.
In the Mid-Atlantic states (NY, NJ, PA), growth was 82%.
In the Mid-West (from Ohio to Wisconsin) freed black populations grew nearly 1,000% -- ten times.

What these numbers tell us is there were lots of people in Northern states willing to accept and help freed-blacks to survive & prosper among them.

OttawaFreeper: "...many Northerners did not like blacks escaping the plantations to come up in to their areas and there was the school of thought that had abolishing slavery would put a stop to the escapes up north."

Virtually every Northerner understood that slavery was built into the US Constitution, and without that agreement on slavery, the United States could not have united, ever.
So the vast majority of Northerners, while opposed to slavery in their own states were willing to tolerate it in the South.
The issue then boiled down to Western Territories, like Kansas.
There a serious competition resulted between slavers and free-soil men -- slavers supported by Federal government but outnumbered by free-soil immigrants.

In the 1860 election, Republicans supported free-soil while Democrats wanted more accommodation to slavers.
Abraham Lincoln was the first ever anti-slavery man elected President and that was too, too much for Southern Fire Eaters who immediately began organizing for secession.

FLT-bird quoting: "The convention acted as a provisional government while at the same time drafting a permanent constitution. . . . Voted down were proposals to reopen the Atlantic slave trade . . . and to prohibit the admission of free states to the new Confederacy. . . . "

Unlike the US Constitution, the Confederate constitution in several places explicitly supported & protected slavery.
And that is the answer, as Bull Snipe points out, to the often-repeated claim that secession was not "all about slavery", proved by Confederate states' alleged "rejection" of Corwin.

So, Confederate states did not "reject" Corwin because slavery didn't matter, they "rejected" Corwin because the Confederate Constitution offered them much stronger protections for slavery than the US Constitution ever possibly could.

FLT-bird quoting: "The decision to allow free states to join the Confederacy reflected a hope that much of the old Union could be reconstituted under southern direction." (Robert A. Divine"

This point is often made by DiogenesLamp in claiming the Confederacy did indeed represent an existential threat to the United States, while at the same time claiming Lincoln had no "right" under the Declaration of Independence to defend the United States against such aggression.

FLT-bird: "They also used their larger population to vote themselves a hefty chunk of the South's money in the form of corporate subsidies, infrastructure projects which aided industrialization, etc."

So our Lost Causers often claim, but there's no empirical evidence that "the North" got more money or support from Federal government than "the South".
Industries like Tredegar in the South received just as much support from Federal legislation as those same industries in Northern states.

FLT-bird: "As I pointed out, it was customary for small and medium sized farmers to devote at least a portion if not all of their acreage to producing cash crops.
The White population in the Southern states was larger than the Black population."

Well, first, many regions in the Deep Cotton Belt South were and remain black majority -- exactly those counties which produced the most cotton were those with the highest slave populations.

Second, in those same black-majority counties, white majorities of families owned slaves.

Third, there were huge regions of every Southern state with very few slaves and majorities of white farmers on small farms.
These regions all opposed slavery, secession, Confederacy and Civil War, sending most of their young men to serve the Union -- Southern Unionists.

Finally, given the overlap between large slave populations and high export production of crops like cotton, it's fair to estimate that at least half and likely 3/4 of export cotton was produced by slaves.

FLT-bird: "The Brits set to getting cotton production up and running in the British Empire before 1861.
That was going to happen regardless.
Sailing a bit longer to reach the cotton mills of Lancashire was a small price to pay for reaping both ends of the profits and keeping all the money within the Empire."

In 1857 Britain imported 1.6 million bales of US cotton, about 2/3 of their total imports.
In 1860 Brits imported 2.7 million US bales or 80% of their total imports.
During the Civil War US cotton exports fell to near zero, but postwar, in 1870, Brits again imported 1.8 million US bales -- US was still #1 producer -- however now only 54% of Brits' total imports.

Today's US cotton production is equivalent to 25 million 400-lb. bales.
Of that around 80% is exported.

FLT-bird: "It is notable that the most industrialized Southern states had the lowest percentage of slaves as a share of total population and had the highest percentages of free Blacks as a percentage of the total Black population.
Industrialization was having the same effect there that it had elsewhere - ie it was killing off slavery."

Those would be Virginia and Maryland, in neither of which was industrialization "killing off slavery".
In both states slavery was threatened by their proximity to Northern free states like Pennsylvania.
So slavers were forced to offer incentives like: "serve loyally for x number of years and I'll free you in my will."

Slavery in Border States was also threatened by the relatively low margins on crops like tobacco & wheat.
This lead many slave-holders to sell their slaves "down the river" to cotton states where prices were much higher.
Indeed, that interstate commerce in slaves had been going on for nearly 100 years and fully explains Virginians like Thomas Jefferson's support for abolishing the international slave trade.
Virginians wanted to be the sole-source for Deep South and the Federal government was happy to accommodate them.

FLT-bird: "In projecting the future of slavery, you are ignoring enforcement costs.
Slavery can only remain viable so long as there is effective enforcement to recapture/deter runaways.
As Lincoln pointed out, by leaving the Southern states would no longer be protected by the fugitive slave clause... "

Right, slavery in Border States was already threatened in 1860 by their proximity to Northern free-states.
But in the Deep South that threat was so small as to be non-existent, whether the Union enforced fugitive slave laws or not.

FLT-bird on slavery's end: " I doubt it would have lasted that long.
The last holdout in the Western World was Brazil and they ended it around 1882 - just 16 years after the US did.

One problem with all such claims is that in 1860 there was no viable abolition movement in the South, indeed just the opposite, even in states like Delaware, with relatively few slaves, there was no interest in 1865 in voluntary abolition.

Another problem is that by 1882 Brazil was a last holdout for slavery.
Had the Confederacy proved successful, it would become the leader of an international pro-slavery coalition which could defend slavery, with military force if necessary.

So it's pure speculation when such a movement might appear in Border States, much less in the Deep Cotton South.
All of the political movement before 1860 was in the direction of ever stronger slave-power control over slave states.

Claims otherwise are just... well... whistling Dixie.

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.