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 ...
Tell us about the U-Boat again and we'll all share a good laugh.
True, as the Revolution was well underway, but at least the state stated their views.
"The Republican party was also responsible for sponsoring the Corwin Amendment that would have made slavery permanently legal and protected by the Constitution of the United States. It was passed by the US Congress in March of 1861 and endorsed by Lincoln in his first inaugural speech. "
Thomas Corwin wasn't a Republican. Nor was James Buchanan, who solicited the Corwin Amendment.
You're sort of limiting your argument by selecting the Census reports from 1850-1860.
That is correct. The ultimate goal of the Confederacy was the expansion of slavery empire and the overthrown the United States government in order to carry out their diabolical plans.
After all Confederates succeeded in murdering a U.S. President and would have murdered the entire Lincoln administration if the treasonous conspiracy had been totally implemented.
Such a cowardly assassination of a United States President, yet fanatical neo-confederate voice approval. How demented.
And the confederate constitution made slavery permanent and protected, as well as protectecting slave imports. You must really hate them.
Its the only one I could find. For Southerners to imply that slavery was as widespread in the North as it was in the South is absolutely preposterous.
No1 suggested it was "as widespread" - just that it existed. The point of the article was that NY was just as guilty as having slavery as any, and I guarantee you the impression we as kids got was that slavery was only a southern thing.
Conveniently by 1850, most "northern" states had banned slavery, so your point is moot.
As for it being as widespread - no, for 2 basic reasons I think:
a) the originating colonists' communities were inherently different in population density (= small land grants vs large) and attitude;
b) almost everything north of the M-D line is ROCK. There is hardly any good farming for the taking to make it a serious business North.
Basically, no big-business farms = fewer slaves.
But it doesn't erase the fact that northerners had slaves, something I guarantee we were not ever told in high school even.
Another fact that is conveniently forgotten is that there were very few slaves in the north by 1800. Up until 1776 - any slaves that were owned were owned by British colonists. There WAS no USA until AFTER the revolution.
The fact remains that most of the slaves were in the South. Whatever reasons for that that Southerners may come up with does not change the facts.
Saying that the only reason the North didn't have many slaves is that the soil in the North is all rocky is not true. Ohio, Michigan and Indiana have much better farmland than the Southern states. There have been settlers in Michigan since the 1600s - but there were very few slaves in Michigan. There were many mills and factories in the North - it would have been cheaper for the mill owners to use slaves rather than employees - but they didn't.
The reason they didn't is because most Northerns thought that slavery was wrong and wanted no part of it - not because the soil was rocky.
Certainly you'll find some slaves in the North if you go back far enough. You'll find slaves in London, Paris and Rome if you go back far enough. But you didn't find them in the 1850s and 1860s like you did in the American South.
The "you guys did it too" argument just doesn hold water.
As I said, the truth is the truth - Northerners DID have slavery and IT IS NEVER HINTED AT IN SCHOOL. The latter is the point of this article and of this discussion.
You're correct about the farmland in the upper mid-west by the time of the ACW; I'm still stuck on the original colonies from whence the slavery thing came. The East Coast northern region is rocky. Half of MD is rocky, and amazingly, THAT half of MD was more the northern sympathizers in the war (although, not by any means all).
Indeed the argument is not an excellent 1, but it does serve to put northerners and others in proper perspective, not as the perfect angels they're made out to be. (And as I stated very early, check out some old news about banning slavery in NJ in the 1830s - many of those Yankees weren't too happy about it!)
Knock off the personal attacks!
free dixie,sw
But still much less prevalent than in the south. Look at the 1800 census. There were six northern states which had slaves in that year, but which had ended slavery by 1860. The total number of slaves in those six states was 36,181. By contrast, Virginia alone had 346,671, and the future Confederate states (that existed in 1800) had almost 700,000. The figures for 1790 aren't much different.
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.