Posted on 03/19/2017 9:14:52 AM PDT by MtnClimber
By 1860, there had been at least a decade of unrest among the silent majority – mostly farmers, Christians, and family people living outside the major urban areas. They were angry with the political establishment and wanted serious changes in the federal government. But they mostly sat silent because they had no political leader who accurately expressed their frustration with the system.
Then an outsider emerged who captured all of the common folks' attention, who promised to change Washington and how it worked and make America a more just country. Nobody gave this outsider a chance to win the presidency! He didn't know anything, they said. All of the established media predicted he would lose big against his well known, established, and well financed opponent.
Well, a funny thing happened. That outsider in 1860 won! And in 1861, all of the established politicians, the power brokers, and their followers decided to secede from the Union and start a civil war.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
If you check out this link, you'll see that gradual abolition actually began soon after the Declaration of Independence:
That left New York (1799) and New Jersey (1804) which had not yet started gradual abolition by the time of the constitutional convention in 1787.
As of the 1790 census, only Vermont and Massachusetts reported no slaves, and as of 1850, only New Jersey in the Northeast reported some slaves.
In the meantime, Southern slaves grew from about 700,000 in 1790 to nearly 4 million in 1860.
In the 1790 census, of 700,000 total slaves, about 40,000 lived in the North = 6%.
By 1860 of 4,000,000 total slaves, only 35 total lived outside the South = 0.001%
I will concede your point. But then that means that this statement by our FRiend jeffersondem, “And of the nine northern slave states, only nine voted to include slavery in the Constitution” is somewhere out in la la land.
Oh, I'd say "la la land" is perfectly sane & reasonable compared to our Lost Causers' mythological "history". ;-)
“Can you try to be more specific when you say “include slavery”.”
Article I, Section 2. Start with that.
Let's see what we have here: supposed ingroup members influencing each other to arrive at a common outgroup stereotype.
Have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Assuming you are referencing clause 3, I shouldn’t have to explain the meaning of the word compromise to you. Let’s just say that your mythical 9 “northern slave states” compromised for the sake of forming a union with their southern counterparts by acknowledging the growing importance of Slaves and Slavery in the South. They very reluctantly made this compromise as is well documented and as you well know. The Declaration of Independence was the first move away from Britain and its foisting of slavery. You do know the North was moving away from slavery, while the South was doubling down on the peculiar institution. Has it occurred to you that if the Southern States were not so dependent on Slavery that the US Constitution might well have included an Emmancipation article? Slavery was on the way out in the North. How do the facts align with your gross statement that the nine northern slave states included slavery in the Constitution? Does it make it seem just a bit of a stretch to you (and your mouse)?
Roll with it- you’re not supposed to notice that this dude’s rendition of history is on a par with John Belushi’s Animal House version of Pearl Harbor.
“Martin Van Buren created the Democrat Party in the 1820s for one purpose only-—to protect and perpetuate slavery via the distribution of jobs and “spoils.”
Didn’t Van Buren also help found the anti-slavery Free Soil Party in the 1840s? I know that he ran for President in 1848 on the Free Soil ticket.
The northern states could have prevented the creation of a union with a constitution that provided for slavery.
Instead of voting against slavery when they had the chance, they voted to ratify a constitution with slavery. There was a reason they did this: they considered it in their best interest.
History records that some people north and south had early qualms about slavery. But not enough people had enough concern to outlaw the practice at the get-go.
By some accounts slavery started in the north about 1629. It ended in the north in 1865, a time span of 236 years. I get the impression that you don't like to be confronted with the fact that the north had slaves for 11 generations.
It does seem you are more comfortable viewing slavery - and racism - as a “southern problem.”
Not and include the Southern states.
Instead of voting against slavery when they had the chance, they voted to ratify a constitution with slavery. There was a reason they did this: they considered it in their best interest.
Explain their "best interest".
History records that some people north and south had early qualms about slavery. But not enough people had enough concern to outlaw the practice at the get-go.
Does history record whether perhaps the North or the South had the most qualms? Which would you say was more proactive?
By some accounts slavery started in the north about 1629. It ended in the north in 1865, a time span of 236 years. I get the impression that you don't like to be confronted with the fact that the north had slaves for 11 generations.
From 1629 to 1776 "the North" was an area of British Colonies. Black slaves were foisted upon these colonies by the British. Precisely with the inception of the Declaration of Independance the abolition of slavery was commenced in "the North". With statehood came self determination and the Northern States determined to eventually be slave free. I don't see how they could have acted more quickly than they did. I think this deeply cuts into your 236 years claim. Lay most of those years on the Brits. As soon as the Northern States had the power, each began the process of abolishing slavery. You can not say that about any Southern State. So, therefore, the Northern States were responsible for slavery existing in their borders, from 1776 to 1865, and throughout that time period it was being phased out till it could hardly be said it had very much of any existence at all by 1865. I will grant you that Slavery did come to an end in the South before it did in the North.
It does seem you are more comfortable viewing slavery - and racism - as a “southern problem.”
What I am uncomfortable with is you using your lost cause memes and hyperbole in an attempt to besmirch the North and drag it down to be worse than the South. I particularly resent your referring to the recent unpleasantness as, "Lincoln's War". I am glad that you have finally acknowledged the divergence between "racism" and "slavery". Do you know who was the first acknowledged American to be racist and to be anti-slavery? The guy you call a white supremacist, Abraham Lincoln. A much greater man than you or I. He wanted to colonize the blacks. He did not see that they would ever be able to live in peace and harmony with the whites. But, even while having those views, Abraham Lincoln was wise enough to know that it was wrong for one man to earn his bread off the sweat of another man's back. Think about that. Read up on Frederick Douglass and his views on Lincoln. They are pertinent.
Then consider Davis' War. Davis ordered Beauregard to fire on the flag of The United States of America! And then claimed Fort Sumter! Bad idea Jeff.
You do know the northern states voted to cite the King's interference with slavery as one of the reasons independence from Britain was needed, don't you?
You do know (I mean obviously you do with a name like "jeffersondem") that the following was stricken from the final version:
""He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
Thomas Jefferson
“You do know . . . that the following was stricken from the final version: . . .”
Yes. When I refer to the Declaration of Independence, I’m referring to the one that was voted on and adopted. In other words, approved. I am not referring to earlier drafts that were considered and rejected.
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of the Declaration were few in the following years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his rhetoric (as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:The thing I keep forgetting is that not everyone views the Constitution or the DOL the same way as we do.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language",[8] containing "the most potent and consequential words in American history".[9] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.
“From 1629 to 1776 “the North” was an area of British Colonies. Black slaves were foisted upon these colonies by the British.”
Blame shifting.
The first recorded instance was in the Garden of Eden.
From Genesis 3(The Living Bible Paraphrased):”Have you eaten fruit from the tree I warned you about?”
“Yes, Adam admitted, “but it was the woman YOU gave me who brought me some, and I ate it.” (emphasis added)
Let's see what we have here: a leftist educated certified psycho-sociologist making pronouncements on a subject you're highly qualified in, right?
That would sure explain the "dem" part of your screen name.
Blame shifting is the essence of Lost Caused mythology -- blame the North, blame Lincoln, blame Republican and on this thread our FRiend jeffersondem seems determined to blame our Founding Fathers, especially Northern Founders, for not abolishing slavery fast enough and for ratifying a Constitution which provided for slavery.
Pro-Confederates like to blame everyone, anyone, except the slavers themselves.
Van Buren seems to me like the original Reagan Democrat, meaning a patriotic Democrat whose party shifted so far to the left it left them behind, today's Trump Democrats another example.
In Van Buren's case he was a solid Democrat who slowly became more anti-slavery as Democrats generally became adamantly anti-abolition.
Van Buren did rejoin the Democrat fold in 1852, 1856 and 1860, but in 1861 near the end of his long life, he supported Lincoln against other Northern Democrats (like former President Pierce) who were "neutral" or supportive of Southern secession.
In essence, Van Buren died as a Lincoln Democrat, who valued his country and abolition more than Southern "states rights" to secede.
".......the northern states voted to cite the King's interference with slavery as one of the reasons independence from Britain was needed....."
Please elaborate.
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.