A common refrain from the neo confederates.. If only it were true. But it isn’t. Not even close to being true.
Posted on 04/10/2025 2:41:26 AM PDT by Libloather
Modern Democrats have latched onto an argument in favor of illegal immigration — and it’s the same one pro-slavery Democrats used in the 1800s.
“So, I had to go around the country and educate people about what immigrants do for this country, or the fact we are a country of immigrants. The fact is ain’t none of y’all trying to go and farm right now,” Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said at a speech commemorating Grace Baptist Church’s 125th anniversary in Waterbury, Conn.
“You’re not, you’re not. We done picking cotton. We are. You can’t pay us enough to find a plantation.”
A cheap, illegal workforce is necessary, the Democrats argue, and the peoples of Mexico, Honduras, Haiti and other nations should be forced to fill it.
Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York agrees, stating in a hearing last year, “Forget the fact that our vegetables would rot in the ground if it weren’t being picked by many immigrants, many illegal immigrants.”
In January 2025, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pressed the then-agriculture secretary nominee, Brooke Rollins, during her nomination hearing about the impact of losing illegal labor.
“It’s estimated that half of California’s farmer workforce is undocumented. How are farmers in California supposed to survive if there are truly mass deportations in which half of the workforce is sent out of the country?”
“Americans don’t want to do that work. It’s frankly too backbreaking. So, who’s going to work the farms?”
Do Democrats — the party of woke and cancel culture — realize how racist they’re being?
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
While I don't agree with Beard's socialist sympathies, I do agree with him that MONEY is what people almost always fight over. The real money was in the tariffs and government subsidies for industry. That was Lincoln's whole economic plan he inherited from his hero Henry Clay. That was economically ruinous for the Southern states and they knew it. Slavery was tied up in the sectional argument as were differing views of federal vs state power, but at heart it was a political struggle over economics.
As to the Corwin Amendment that you keep citing, people like Lincoln had no problem with it because Constitutionally, it changed nothing. Slavery, where it then existed, could only be eliminated with a constitutional amendment. With the 3/4 state approval requirement, there was no chance then or now of it being eliminated. But where Lincoln and others refused to budge was on the issue of slavery in the territories. They were strongly opposed and believed that they had to constitutional rights to forbid it.
The Corwin Amendment shows quite clearly that they were prepared to explicitly protect slavery effectively forever. It would be impossible to this day to pass a constitutional amendment abolishing slavery if the 15 states that still had slavery did not consent. Ergo, this constitutional amendment made clear that there was going to have to be a generous compensation offer to gain their consent.
The Western territories were only important insofar as they meant 2 additional votes in the Senate for either side. There was no question about the House given the North's larger population but in the Senate, the Southern states could still block ruinous economic legislation. Once the Southern states decided to secede, they were happy to do so without making any claim upon the western territory of the US. If they were out they would no longer need votes in the Senate and much of the west was quite unsuitable for cotton/tobacco growing anyway.
Jefferson Davis when still in the US Senate said it explicitly. “What do you propose, gentlemen of the free soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of slavery. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all. What then do you propose? It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States and convert the government into an engine of Northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim. You desire to weaken the political power of the Southern states, - and why? Because you want, by an unjust system of legislation, to promote the industry of the New England States, at the expense of the people of the South and their industry.”
Lincoln's first inaugural address stated this clearly. Slavery where it existed was safe, but there would be no expansion.
Correct. In his first inaugural address Lincoln made it quite clear that slavery was safe but it was all about the tax money he wanted to collect. He said it more clearly in discussion with the Virginia delegation sent to ask him if he was going to start a war. "But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.
The people who you claim were simply fighting tariffs, not only failed to mention tariffs, but knew intuitively that without new markets to sell their excess slaves to, they would soon be demographically swelled by the slave population. Finding new markets for slaves was of the upmost importance to them if they didn't want to end up dead like in Haiti.
Yeah this is bunk. The slave population was growing no faster than the White population. As for not mentioning Tariffs, Southern politicians mentioned tariffs over and over again. The two largest newspapers - in both Charleston and New Orleans talked about tariffs extensively. Georgia's declaration of causes went on at length about tariffs and grossly unequal federal government subsidies to Northern interests. South Carolina attached the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett to their declaration of secession and sent it out along with their declaration. In his address, Rhett talked at length about tariffs. To wit:
The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self government, and self taxation, the criterion of self government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.
The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.
And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.
There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated…… To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union in other words, on any constitutional subject for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.
Yeah this is bunk. The slave population was growing no faster than the White population.
The slave population grew twice a fast as the white population in the south. Back for more later.
Your link does not show this. It is a calculation of the total number of slaves and their population growth rate only. The data from the US Census is pretty similar to what he estimated. It showed the slave population increased by 30.6%, 23.8%, 28.8%, 23.38% decade on decade starting in 1820 and running through 1860. Meanwhile the total White Population grew 34%, 34.25%, 37.12%, 37.53% in those same decades. It is impossible to disentangle the native born White population vs immigrants and/or children of native/immigrant marriages. For slaves however few were imported after 1808 so the population rate increase is a good indicator of birth rate. If the slave birth rate was higher than the White population's birth rate then that was more than offset by immigration gains in the White population. The percentage of the total population which was Black actually decreased over time due to this.
It was very bad.
How bad was it. What was the death rate.
If you want to see it, it’s here. See page 16 of this report to see how New York and Brooklyn (two separate cities then) stack up against other countries. They actually were much better than the “more advanced” Europeans. So in actuality, it would be bad today but for that time, it wasn’t that bad at all. The biggest change since then has been the ability to keep young children healthy. As anyone who has ever walked through an old cemetery knows, those places are full kids who died of childhood diseases that we don’t even think of today.
I said WAS. Can’t be compared to today.
We have an old family cemetery full of dead kids months apart in Ark.
I’d imagine the filfh in the cities was worse given the number of people in small areas.
Yuck.
Bottom line is it wasn’t sunshine and roses. Comparison is frankly useless and silly IMO.
Man, you want to have your cake and eat it too. The immigration gains were in the northern states. Most immigrants settled in the north where the jobs and opportunities were.
The slave population was in the south. By the time of the civil war, slaves represented approximately half the population of the Deep South states. Half! Slaves had twice the birth rate of the white population. That made economic sense to the slave masters… each slave was worth a lot then, but as time went on, it would pose a major problem if they didn’t find new markets to sell the excess to.
Well they didn’t seem to mention them in their declaration of causes.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
As Mississippi said in their declaration…
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.
Can’t be much more explicit about what you’re going to war for than that.
There were immigration gains in the Southern states, just not as many. The Southern states were less industrialized and it was large factories that were really sucking in lots of labor.
The slave population was in the south. By the time of the civil war, slaves represented approximately half the population of the Deep South states. Half! Slaves had twice the birth rate of the white population.
There were some states in which slaves represented roughly half the total population. Their birth rate was not anything remotely approaching twice the birthrate of Whites. As a whole in the South, the White 1860 population was closer to twice as large as the slave population 9,103,332 people out of which 3,521,110 were enslaved.
That made economic sense to the slave masters… each slave was worth a lot then, but as time went on, it would pose a major problem if they didn’t find new markets to sell the excess to.
There wasn't any great "excess" of slaves as witnessed by their high price. Had they really needed markets to sell to there was always Brazil and Cuba which perpetually had to import more slaves because their death rates were so high. This whole theory of them needing new markets to sell excess slaves to is bunk. Notice when they seceded they made no claim on any of the western territories of the US.
They did mention them in Georgia's declaration of causes. To wit:
“The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country.
But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.
All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success. An anti-slavery party must necessarily look to the North alone for support, but a united North was now strong enough to control the Government in all of its departments, and a sectional party was therefore determined upon……”
Texas mentioned several causes from a malicious refusal to provide border security to unequal taxation and sectional partisan legislation against Southern states in addition to deliberate attempts to foment bloody slave insurrections as well as interference in enforcement of the fugitive slave clause of the US Constitution.
South Carolina attached the address of Robert Barnwell Rhett to its declaration of causes and sent it out along with the declaration.
Mississippi was the only one of the 4 states issuing declarations of causes that did not list any of the economic grievances.
And bear in mind that no matter how much Southerners hated the unequal taxation and government largesse, this was not unconstitutional. There was no limit set in the constitution on high high the federal government could set the tariff. Nor was there any requirement that each state bear a proportional share of the tax burden. Do you know what was unconstitutional though? Refusal to enforce the Fugitive Slave Clause of the US Constitution by the Northern states. That gave the Southern states a legal cause to say the Northern states had violated the compact between them....even though it was not the true cause of their desire to secede as evidenced by the fact that they refused all efforts to remedy it.
As for going to war, that did not happen until Lincoln deliberately started it by sending a heavily armed flotilla of warships to invade South Carolina's sovereign territory.
Hummm? Only helped the North? In time of war, do you think we need a Navy? What’s a Navy need? Sailors and ships? So if the federal government made sure we had both by spending a relatively small sum assuring we had experienced sailors and shipyards with skilled craftsmen to build ships, I’d say the entire nation benefited.
BTW. Nothing kept fishermen and woodbe boat builders in the South from taking part in that… nothing other that the fact that the wealth of the south was heavily invested in plantations and slaves. Why bet your money on ships and sailors that could easily be lost in a storm when you could make more money by driving slaves rather than sailing the seas.
No, just helped the North overwhelmingly more than the South despite the fact that the South was paying a grossly disproportional share of the tariff.
In time of war, do you think we need a Navy? What’s a Navy need? Sailors and ships? So if the federal government made sure we had both by spending a relatively small sum assuring we had experienced sailors and shipyards with skilled craftsmen to build ships, I’d say the entire nation benefited.
Southerners noticed after a little while all these supposed "national" benefits always benefitted the North directly and overwhelmingly.
BTW. Nothing kept fishermen and woodbe boat builders in the South from taking part in that…
By and large the better fishing grounds (seas) were up North while the better climate for producing lucrative cash crops was in the South.
nothing other that the fact that the wealth of the south was heavily invested in plantations and slaves. Why bet your money on ships and sailors that could easily be lost in a storm when you could make more money by driving slaves rather than sailing the seas.
Capital generally flows to the investment that yields the highest return. This phenomenon has been noted repeatedly in numerous countries. Quick! Name a company from the Middle East that makes something. You can't. Their investment overwhelmingly goes into oil production because that yields the highest return. Same deal for Russia. There isn't a single big Russian brand. Energy production yields the highest returns so it gets most of the investment.
You telling me the Gulf Coast is not good fishing grounds. Or the Gulf Stream off of Florida, Georgia, and the Carolinas? Hummmm? They sure support a lot of fishermen today.
A little thing called the US Constitution Article 1, Section 9 made selling slaves to foreign owners very problematic. Even among slave owners, the international slave trade was considered evil.
There were some states in which slaves represented roughly half the total population. Their birth rate was not anything remotely approaching twice the birthrate of Whites.
Well all those slaves had to come from somewhere. In 1810, two years after importation was shutdown, the slave population was a little more than 1 million nation wide. By 1860, the slave population had reached nearly 4 million, concentrated in basically 15 southern states. That’s a four times increase.
I'm telling you New England is a helluva lot closer to the Grand Banks which was probably the richest fishery in the world for centuries. The US insisted on and got fishing privileges on the Grand Banks as part of the 1783 Treaty of Paris it was so economically important.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
Read that more carefully. No it doesn't. This only cover the importation of slaves. It says nothing about export.
Well all those slaves had to come from somewhere. In 1810, two years after importation was shutdown, the slave population was a little more than 1 million nation wide. By 1860, the slave population had reached nearly 4 million, concentrated in basically 15 southern states. That’s a four times increase.
Have you done any genealogy research? The birth rate back then was tremendous. You'd be stunned by the number of families with 7, 8, 9 surviving kids. With a 26% population growth rate per decade, the population doubles every 30 years. That's roughly what the natural population growth rate was in the early 18th century.
You say. I’d be willing to bet agood constitutional lawyer, looking at the Federalist Papers would argue differently.
I seriously doubt that Miss Scarlet wanted to be knocked up that much. ;~)
A common refrain from the neo confederates.. If only it were true. But it isn’t. Not even close to being true.
But it is true. Where the cargo lands is IRRELEVANT. WHO PAYS the tariff is what is relevant. The owner of the goods is the one who pays - not the port.
Not what I say. Read the plain words. I provided them. They say import. They do not say export.
As to birth rates, I offer you this. Despite some differences in methodological approaches and assumptions, all researchers have agreed that slave birth rates in the nineteenth century were very high, near a biological maximum for a human population. Melvin Zelnik used stable population methods to estimate a crude birth rate for the black population of “around 60” births per thousand population in 1830 and “about 54” in 1850. Reynolds Farley used slightly different methods to obtain an estimated birth rate of 53 in the 1840s and 49 in the 1850s. Jack Elben used stable population methods to calculate a crude birth rate of 53.1-53.2 births per thousand population between 1810 and 1830. The estimated rate declined to 52.1 in the 1840s and to 51.3 in the 1850s.
I looked at the US Census data. The growth rate among slaves per decade was 23%, then 28%, then 23% etc from 1820-1860. That worked out to something like 26% or so on average which would double the population every 30 years. The birth rate for Whites was similarly extremely high. The big difference between America and Europe or America and the Caribbean and Brazil was not the birth rate. It was the survival rate. America was not crowded. People were nourished rather well. They were not crammed in such that disease could spread easily. Babies and toddlers were far far more likely to survive in America. That is how relatively few people in the 1600s and 1700s could turn into a very large population today. Yes we got lots of immigrants but a huge number of people trace their ancestry to early America. My dad's family came over in 1649. Not sure exactly when on my mom's side but 3 of them served in the Maryland Militia during the war of Secession from the British Empire....so early to mid 1700s at the very latest.
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.