Why Slaveholders Restricted Free Speech

RealClear History ^ | 30 Sep, 2024 | Jonathan W. White

[DiogenesLamp]

Slavery could have been adopted to minining.

In Colorado? Isn't that above the 36° 30' parallel? (Missouri Compromise)

Also there is the issue of white miners absolutely not tolerating that.

The dirty little secret of slavery in the United States is that most of the opposition to it came not from people being concerned about the welfare of the slave, they were mostly concerned about the slave taking jobs away from them.

Slaves picking cotton was a job white people didn't want, so they more or less tolerated it, but the one thing that would have caused an instant confrontation and bloodshed was slaves attempting to do jobs whites wanted.

The parts of the country that were heavily anti-slavery back in the 1850s are the same parts of the country that are heavily Unionized (as in labor unions) today. They saw slaves as "scabs", and they would absolutely not tolerate any slave taking money out of their own pockets.

So no, you would have had an explosion of rage if anyone had attempted to use slaves to do that kind of work. I bet the US government would have stepped in and put a stop to it.

[DiogenesLamp]

Good to see you again!

[Rockingham]

On examination, the tariff claim is bunkum, pure bunkum. I went through the issue in detail when I got my degree in history at Tulane in New Orleans with several courses in the history of the South.

Moreover, as much as the North would, in a pinch, promise not to interfere with slavery, the North would not enforce the highly unpopular Fugitive Slave Act. That put slavery on increasingly shaky ground in the South because slaves could and did flee North to freedom in large numbers.

Lincoln knew that at the start of the Civil War, fighting to free slaves in the South was a less persuasive argument in the North and in essential border states than fighting to preserve the Union. Instinctively, former trial lawyer Lincoln shaped and pitched his case to the country so as to secure victory.

Again, go read the Confederate secession ordinances. Slavery was in every one of them. And the Cornerstone Speech declared that slavery was a positive good because it subordinated the inferior Black race to control and supervision by Whites. Lunacy -- and a clear example of why the Confederacy is worth close study as an example of how essentially good people can believe in foolish and evil things.

[logi_cal869]

Not clear how that’s related to my comment.

[marktwain]

In 1959 Justice Frankfurter declared on behalf of the Supreme Court:

Frankfurter had it wrong. Frankfurter was a progressive who loved government power. He was appointed by FDR in 1939.

I have read speeches made by the Senate sponsor of the Fourteenth Amendment. He clearly stated the purpose of the amendment was to have the first Eight amendments apply to the states.

[Rockingham]

Trust me on this much: I am old and have read a great deal of US and Southern history. Paul Craig Roberts is an economist by education, not an historian or even an economic historian. As an economist, Roberts, like Marx and the Beards, prefers economic explanations of history. Yet peoples and nations treasure more than mere treasure and are commonly motivated by ideas and emotions more than by calculations of economic gain or loss.

The idea that the South was struggling and economically oppressed by the North before the Civil War is absurd. The South prospered greatly in that era due to its highly efficient production of cotton using slave labor. Not only was the South's cotton sent to the North, but much of it was exported duty free by Southern planters and factors in return for gold.

Southerners wished for cheaper industrial goods, but their complaints never resulted in the South developing much of an industrial base before the Civil War.

Notably, one has to read contemporary political statements in the historical context of the speaker and the era. At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln and most Northerners did not want war, and especially not a war over slavery. They resented and opposed Southern demands for the expansion of slavery, which Northerners saw as immoral and a menace to free men and the value of their labor.

In opposing secession and the Confederacy, Lincoln was careful not to get ahead of public opinion in the North and in the border states. That is why he constructed a lawyerly argument for war based on federal powers and preservation of the Union instead of slavery.

Why did the South secede due to Lincoln's election? Look at the Republican platform of 1860. It was expressly against the expansion of slavery and reopening of the African slave trade. As Lincoln and other Republicans explained, they saw slavery as deeply wrong and their objective was to put it on the path to extinction.

The South recognized that despite the region's economic and political power, lack of enforcement in the North of the fugitive slave act would effectively end slavery because young, able bodied slaves could and did flee North in large numbers.

As it was, Lincoln adopted the Emancipation Proclamation as a limited war measure so that he could keep slave holders in the border states with the North. After that, slaves flocked to the Union lines and freedom. Among other causes, this helped lead to the collapse of the Confederate economy and Union victory.

[Rockingham]

Please see my reply at #66, above.

[21twelve]

It is interesting to read your post and think illegal immigrants today instead of slaves 150 years ago. Goes along with some of the Unions tilting towards Trump, or at least not endorsing anyone.

[Fury]

Not following Wickard relating to Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Wickard was pure Commerce Clause and the Judiciary’s deference to the Legislative branch regarding such matters.

[DiogenesLamp]

Paul Craig Roberts is an economist by education, not an historian or even an economic historian.

Exactly. He rejects the "group think" common among historians, especially biased historians, and he looks straight to the economic situation which tells the truth.

As an economist, Roberts, like Marx and the Beards, prefers economic explanations of history.

Following the money will allow you to see through the lies.

Yet peoples and nations treasure more than mere treasure and are commonly motivated by ideas and emotions more than by calculations of economic gain or loss.

No they don't. Throughout all of human history, people make a pretense of being concerned with moral issues, but the reality is which side their bread is buttered on.

I dare say if you were asked to show an example of where people chose morality over greed, you would point to the Civil War as an example of this. Yet the economic numbers certainly make it look like the real issue of the war was the money the Northern power structure would lose if the South went it's own way.

We just have propaganda that says otherwise.

The idea that the South was struggling and economically oppressed by the North before the Civil War is absurd.

Nobody said they were "struggling", they were just aware that they were feeding a lot of Northern parasites with their industry. The South was greedy too, and wanted to keep more of their profits from their industry, rather than give it away to Northern interests under contrived legality meant to enrich those Norther interests.

So no, the South wasn't "struggling", but they did resent sending money to people who hated them. Wouldn't you?

Southerners wished for cheaper industrial goods, but their complaints never resulted in the South developing much of an industrial base before the Civil War.

The capitalization that would have occurred from an extra Hundred Million dollars per year going into the South would have very likely spurred exactly the same sort of industrial build out that they had already paid for in the North.

I have read newspaper accounts (From the Charleston Mercury, I think) talking about the massive boom in their economic activity which was a result of their secession from the Union. Industry was already moving South to take advantage of the massively increased profits which were perceived to be the result of the Southern industry no longer operating under Northern control.

Notably, one has to read contemporary political statements in the historical context of the speaker and the era.

"Fifteen days to flatten the curve!"

"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!"

"I did not have sex with that woman!"

"You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it!"

Political statements are just lies usually told to gain support. Money tells the truth.

At the start of the Civil War, Lincoln and most Northerners did not want war, and especially not a war over slavery.

Well Lincoln didn't start a war over slavery. Lincoln started a war over the South refusing to pay Northern imposed taxes or follow Northern created protectionist laws. In fact, Lincoln urged all the states to pass the Corwin Amendment which would guarantee slavery indefinitely!

So no, nobody wanted a war over slavery, and they didn't fight a war over slavery. They fought it over money, and then mid stream started *CLAIMING* the war was about "slavery."

They resented and opposed Southern demands for the expansion of slavery, which Northerners saw as immoral and a menace to free men and the value of their labor.

A lot to unpack here. Firstly, slavery could *NOT* "expand". That was just a lie told for the purpose of gaining political support.

Secondly, why were people so opposed to "expanding" slavery into the territories? Was it because of the moral concern for the oppression of black people, or was it something else? Something wicked and ugly?

If the truth be known, the issue of "expansion" was about opposition to having black people in the territories. You talked about reading the political material of the day, and the ugly truth is that those opposed to "expansion" weren't concerned about the oppression of the black man. They simply did not want any black people in the territories. They wrote they wanted those preserved for the exclusive use of the white population.

Something that shocked me when I first learned of it is that the vast majority of Northern opposition to slavery had nothing to do with concern for the well being of slaves. It was all about hating black people being among them. They were motivated by *HATE*, not love.

You want proof? Look at the "black codes" in the Northern states. These were evil laws created by white Northerners to abuse, intimidate and punish any blacks that had the gall to settle among the whites.

We have been fed lies. The North hated black people. They weren't upset that they were worked or whipped. They were upset because they didn't want any of those people in their communities, or to associate with them in any way.

But we have all been led to believe the Northern white population was enlightened and loved the black man; That they loved him so much they were willing to fight and die to make him free!

But it wasn't true. It was propaganda. It was a pretty picture painted by people later to justify what they had done.

In opposing secession and the Confederacy, Lincoln was careful not to get ahead of public opinion in the North and in the border states. That is why he constructed a lawyerly argument for war based on federal powers and preservation of the Union instead of slavery.

He pulled a "bait and switch" like any good conman. He was a clever manipulator of people. Very good at it.

Why did the South secede due to Lincoln's election? Look at the Republican platform of 1860. It was expressly against the expansion of slavery and reopening of the African slave trade.

Slavery wasn't going to "expand" into the West, and not even the Southern government was going to allow any further African slave trade. Lincoln's election simply meant that the Southern states had no hope of changing or stopping any laws desired by the Northern coalition, and they would simply have to keep paying the North, and tolerating any abuse heaped upon them by the North. They were to be the permanent Milk Cow for Northern interests, and they resented this subjugation.

As Lincoln and other Republicans explained, they saw slavery as deeply wrong and their objective was to put it on the path to extinction.

Deeply wrong, so they passed the "Corwin Amendment" making it permanent in the United States? (If the Southern states had voted for it, it would have happened.)

One does not express concern for slaves, then throw them under the buss by voting to keep them in bondage forever. One does not do such a thing unless one is just lying about their concern for the slaves.

The Corwin Amendment proves their concern was for *MONEY*. It proves their concern was not for slaves. They voted to keep them in slavery so that they could keep getting the money.

The South recognized that despite the region's economic and political power, lack of enforcement in the North of the fugitive slave act would effectively end slavery because young, able bodied slaves could and did flee North in large numbers.

This statement makes me think you didn't bother to read Paul Craig's Roberts essay on why the Southerners claimed their secession was about slavery.

Also, the US Constitution imposed the "fugitive slave act" in Article IV, section 2. States were just ignoring Federal law on the matter, thereby breaking the contract with the Southern states. (Paul Craig Robert's point.)

As it was, Lincoln adopted the Emancipation Proclamation as a limited war measure so that he could keep slave holders in the border states with the North. After that, slaves flocked to the Union lines and freedom. Among other causes, this helped lead to the collapse of the Confederate economy and Union victory.

Yes, it was a cynical attempt to capture the moral high ground but not actually doing anything to justify it.

As William Seward said at the time, "We have set the slave free in areas where we cannot reach him, and kept him in bondage in areas we control." (Paraphrased.)

A London newspaper but it more bluntly.

"The moral is not that one man may not own another... it's that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States."

Like I said, Lincoln was a clever manipulator.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is interesting to read your post and think illegal immigrants today instead of slaves 150 years ago. Goes along with some of the Unions tilting towards Trump, or at least not endorsing anyone.

How do you feel about liberals giving illegals the right to vote so that they can vote to keep the liberals in power?

Does anyone doubt this is happening?

[DiogenesLamp]

Not following Wickard relating to Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Wickard was pure Commerce Clause and the Judiciary’s deference to the Legislative branch regarding such matters.

I'll have to rethink how I came to understand Wickard as being a function of the incorporation doctrine. It's been awhile since I have contemplated this issue, but I think we can all agree it is a consequence of an activist court appointed by FDR.

[jeffersondem]

“Like I said, Lincoln was a clever manipulator.”

Or as George Bush would have said: “An insincere charlatan.”

[x]

So no, you would have had an explosion of rage if anyone had attempted to use slaves to do that kind of work. I bet the US government would have stepped in and put a stop to it.

Diogenes, you are daft as ever. Arizona and New Mexico were sparsely settled and had a history of slavery going back to the Spaniards and the Indians. If pro-slavery Southerners got there first, they would have been able to impose slavery and use slaves in the mines and as domestic servants.

The point of getting slavery in the territories was to get the votes in Congress to protect slavery in the areas where slavery was profitable. Missouri was a microcosm of this. There were small areas where cotton-growing and slavery were profitable, but slavery was maintained in other parts of the state to produce proslavery votes in Congress and prevent the state from tipping into abolition.

[jeffersondem]

“There really is no room for serious dispute on the issue of slavery as the cause of the Civil War.”

That is an interesting comment.

If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?

[x]

The idea that the South was struggling and economically oppressed by the North before the Civil War is absurd. The South prospered greatly in that era due to its highly efficient production of cotton using slave labor.

Well said. The argument that Northerners were ripping off the South was just the bellyaching of the rich, like when oil millionaires in Texas or Saudi Arabia complained about having to pay some of their money to buy things that weren't produced at home. Once slavery became a serious issue, proslavery militants and secessionists started hunting for grievances and reasons to feel exploited.

Would there have been some great bonanza for the cotton-producing states if NYC had been cut out of the picture? Well, the planters wouldn't be satisfied. They'd still be in hock to the cotton brokers. And it was always possible to ship cotton directly to Europe, and it was done. Greater shipping costs would be involved. Costs in general might go up without the competition of NYC firms in the picture. And if slaveowners could foresee a big bonanza from cutting NYC out, couldn't they foresee that the cotton boom would eventually end as new producers came on the scene? British merchants with abolitionist tendencies had already started developing cotton-growing in other parts of the world.

[Rockingham]

We are back again at where we always seems to end up on this topic, with my posts eventually met by a torrent of spurious Lost Cause jargon, claims, and circular reasoning, with some contemporary political jibes thrown in. The hard facts of history are to the contrary though, no matter how effusive the Lost Cause outpouring may be.

[Rockingham]

The North, of course.

[DiogenesLamp]

Diogenes, you are daft as ever. Arizona and New Mexico were sparsely settled and had a history of slavery going back to the Spaniards and the Indians. If pro-slavery Southerners got there first, they would have been able to impose slavery and use slaves in the mines and as domestic servants.

Indian slaves, and yes, used mostly as domestic servants. Not much profit in that. A black slave in that era cost about $1,000.00 in 1860 dollars. Putting him in a cotton field in Mississippi or Louisiana would bring a significant return on investment. Having him clean horse stables in New Mexico would bring in not much of anything.

That's why if you go look at the Wikipedia entry on "New Mexico Territory" you will see that it mentions there were never more than a dozen black slaves in "New Mexico territory" throughout it's entire existence as a US territory. And this is when "New Mexico territory" spanned from Texas to California.

So if they were valuable in mines, why weren't there more than a dozen slaves in the territory making their owners rich?

The point of getting slavery in the territories was to get the votes in Congress to protect slavery in the areas where slavery was profitable.

Well that's the propaganda anyways, but would it also not protect the Southern states from all other laws that were detrimental to them, but beneficial to the Northern states?

Yes, the point for the Southern states was to have political allies in the government in Washington DC, and this was also the point of the Northern coalition to prevent this from happening, and *LYING* about the possibility of slavery in the territories if it was necessary to help them keep political power.

What it wasn't about is actual slavery. There wasn't going to be any significant slavery in the territories because it was economically unprofitable.

Missouri was a microcosm of this. There were small areas where cotton-growing and slavery were profitable, but slavery was maintained in other parts of the state to produce proslavery votes in Congress and prevent the state from tipping into abolition.

I think this is actually correct. Yes, people try to manipulate politics to create a result that protects their interests.

But the fear of slavery in the territories was just used for manipulation of people who did not know that it wasn't practical. It was all to manipulate voters into supporting the Northern coalition in congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well said. The argument that Northerners were ripping off the South was just the bellyaching of the rich, like when oil millionaires in Texas or Saudi Arabia complained about having to pay some of their money to buy things that weren't produced at home.

Well yes it is. The Southern producers could certainly live without that 60% of the money they produced, but it *GALLS* normal people to pay people for something you don't want, but that they force you to pay for it anyway.

That you can afford it doesn't enter into the question. Nobody wants to pay for something at a higher price than they can get elsewhere, and being *FORCED* to pay the higher price just strikes everyone as wrong.

Also the percentages! When the parasites are getting *MORE* than the people who produce the money, most people would object. I recall some famous British actor who was a big Labour supporter saying that when the tax rate got to 50%, he would leave England. And so he did.

There is something in human nature that resents other people getting paid more than you are for *YOUR* industry.

They'd still be in hock to the cotton brokers. And it was always possible to ship cotton directly to Europe, and it was done. Greater shipping costs would be involved.

Pretty sure that would change. I'm sure they would have honored the existing contracts, but it had become obvious to the Cotton producers that they didn't need the New York brokers to run their industry. They could run it themselves and keep more of the profits.

And it was always possible to ship cotton directly to Europe, and it was done.

It wasn't cost effective to do it with American ships because they were all controlled by the Northeast, having ran the Southern shipping companies out of business by collusion and government subsidies until few to none were left. They could have hired European ships at a great discount from what the Northeastern shipping companies charged, but not so long as they remained in the Union and had to abide by the laws of the Union.

Separating from the North changes the economic landscape greatly for them, and all to their benefit.

...couldn't they foresee that the cotton boom would eventually end as new producers came on the scene?

I'm not sure I can see that now, 160 years after the fact. What makes you think anyone could predict that the demand for cotton would wane? I'll bet it never did. I'll bet it steadily increased from the 1850s all the way to the invention of polyester in the 1960s or so. Clearly the world uses more cotton today than it did in 1860, so it would seem to me that it would be a safe bet to predict the demand for cotton would continue rising indefinitely.

British merchants with abolitionist tendencies had already started developing cotton-growing in other parts of the world.

Don't mislead people. The British were looking out for their own interests. The British developed plantations in Egypt and India because the *US GOVERNMENT* had cut off supplies from their normal suppliers in the South. Without the blockade, it would have been completely unprofitable to create new plantations in other countries.

This was a market distorted by artificial government interference with the normal market. Without that interference, the South would have continued to dominate in the global market for Cotton. (And tobacco, indigo, sugar, etc.)