Posted on 03/17/2006 8:50:53 AM PST by High Cotton
Teaching about the slave trade "is the right thing to do," Wright said. "Absent South Carolina, the biggest importer of slaves was New York City."
The New York Historical Society recently presented an exhibition on slavery in New York that featured documents, paintings, video and sculpture.
In lower Manhattan, a long-lost burial ground where thousands of slaves and free blacks were laid to rest during the 18th century was recently declared a national monument by President Bush.
Slavery was abolished in New York in 1827, but when the American Revolution began in 1776, the only city with more slaves than New York was Charleston, South Carolina.
Oyster Bay eighth-grader Fiona Brunner said she was amazed to find out there were slaves buried near Oyster Bay.
"You always think that happened so far away, only in the South, and a lot of it was right here in our town," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Slavery was ended in D.C with the Compromise of 1850.
Lincoln Suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Restraints on legal rights during wartime is not a new thing. On October 23, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus in Washington, D.C. for all military-related cases. Article I of the Constitution say this: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Lincoln's actions were taken in response to riots and local militias during the early stages of the Civil War. Lincoln ignored the ruling of the US Circuit Court against his order.
lincoln hated/feared all "persons of colour". he called my people, "red savages without souls" (btw i'm one of those persons whom lincoln termed "muddy coloured people", i.e., a MIXED-blood. he said people like me were FILTH.)
free dixie,sw
that is like saying that JEWS should thank hitler for the HOLOCAUST!
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
Absent a good historian, I'll have to ask you what you think Lincoln's goals were. And please provide quotes supporting your claim.
Here's a hint. Lincoln laid out his policy in his inaugural address, much earlier than 1862. He never wavered from that policy, never changed the reasons for combatting the southern rebellion. Happy hunting.
NO one is saying the South was right in this but the point being made in this discussion is the North has their skeletons rattling around in their closets, also.
I don't deny that at all. But there are enough out there without the southron myth machine cooking up more.
Oh really? You might want to go back and dig into that a little more. The slave trade in D.C. was outlawed by the Compromise of 1850 but the legality of owning slaves wasn't touched. Slavery remained legal until Congress outlawed it in 1862. Or so I learned when I was in school.
How so?
Well I'm sorry that accuracy offends you, especially when it collides with your agenda. The simple truth of the matter is that Paige was wrong when she said the legislature was arrested. Only a minority was, and they were released. And of course Lincoln did not arrest them himself, or would you have us believe that he personally kicked down the door and slapped the cuffs on them? If so, then that would be silly.
Then again Davis always wished he had the same powers that Lincoln did - to act unilaterally -- so that he could direct the ship of state.
Why didn't he? Lincoln had his actions reviewed by the Supreme Court throughout the course of the rebellion. Jefferson Davis didn't have that problem since there was no confederate supreme court, even though the confederate constitution required one. Nothing stopped Davis from acting without authority, declaring martial law, seizing private property without compensation, enacting taxes and tariffs, and what have you. Why there are some who would have us believe that Davis was prepared to end slavery in exchange for European recognition, in spite of how ridiculous that idea may seem and regardless of the fact that under the confederate constitution he had not the power to do so. But Davis had no interest in what was legal and what was not.
I agree 100% that nobody should have been hung for any reason. My brother who is a history buff, knows all the details of the Dakota uprising, and he says the treatment of the native americans was nothing short of horrible.
The 1842 date is consistent with the first public documents associated with the house, mostly having to do with Crenshaw's trail in the kidnapping case of Maria Adams. However, records also exist that state that Crenshaw first hired a contractor to begin construction on the Hickory Hill house in 1833.
This is entirely consistent with the young Whig state representative Lincoln dropping by to call on a wealthy local resident while participating in debates in Shawneetown in 1840.
So what evidence do you have that Lincoln "new" about it? I'm not denying that the activities happened, after all Crenshaw was prosecuted for his criminal actions. But that's a long way from demonstrating that Lincoln was aware of his actions or approved of them.
There is more research on the matter, which you can start perusing at the site already provided.
The simple breakdown (and I will try to keep it simple, since your fascination with a simple typo demonstrates that you are easily distracted from factual matter) is (from the article):
"Three different lines of the Crenshaw family recalled the Lincoln legend as well as a fourth, unrelated family. Comparing the legends, the Crenshaws apparently hosted a party at Hickory Hill in honor of the debaters. Typical of the social traditions of that time Lincoln spent the night at the house, as likely did the other out-of-town guests."
There is also a considerable amount of other information that suggests the link, including Lincoln's backing of a bank bill where Crenshaw was later appointed as head of said bank (by a Republican Governor, also an acquaintance of Lincoln) the fact that Lincoln's visit to Gallatin Co. for debates is not in dispute and that the Crenshaw soiree was at the same time is not in dispute. The idea that Lincoln didn't a) stay there, it being the best accommodations in the area b) stop by, it being the politic thing to do, or c) be aware of the local reputation of the Hickory Hill estate are all equally ludicrous.
On the other hand, an indentured servant (who, compared to the slave, was more of a "rental") would leave at the end of his term, taking with him his "freedom dues" - but if the master worked the indentured servant to death before he served out his term, then he got to keep the servant's freedom bonus.
In the 18th century, it was not unknown for local governments to indenture out impoverished widows and orphans to provide for their support, or for freemen to enter into servitude to work off outstanding debts. Additionally, Great Britain used indentured servitude in the Americas as a way to get rid of the their surplus convict population.
I guess the thing I've gotten most out of studying this subject is the impression that at one time, all over the world, servitude in one form or another was just a form of employment, and had no particular stigma attached to it.
This isn't intended minimize slavery, which was horrendous for the survivors, but rather to point out that servitude (an employment condition where the worker becomes the physical property of the employer) was far more widespread than just the Africans.
The relevant point about the "Cornerstone Speech" is not whether Mr. Stephens spoke the exact words attributed to him or not. It is that these recorded words were widely distributed in southern newspapers and universally praised as the best possible statement of southern ideals and goals.
While softened by Christian sentiments, the ideology it expresses is essentially one of the white man as the master race. It flatly rejects the Declaration of Independence for being wrong when it asserts that "all men are created equal."
I have never seen any contemporary statement from Mr. Stephens in which he clarifies or denies any of the statements attributed to him in this famous (and very eloquent, if disgusting) speech.
As far as the "extension of slavery" goes, it is well known that many in the South viewed the Caribbean and Latin America as a future field for such expansion. As far as I know, the Confederate Constitution did not provide for the prohibition of slavery in any territory acquired in the future by the Confederacy.
Interesting point, but Vermont was not a state. It did not vote on the Constitution's inception as the new law of the US.
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.