If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Posted on 03/17/2004 8:23:46 AM PST by Global_Warming
If this occurred, it would have been among the black creole/cajun populations of Louisiana. I don't know for certain if they voted, but they definately married interracially (they had some old spanish legal tradition for designating the offspring of interracial couples) and they did allow blacks to serve various capacities in the militia dating back to at least the War of 1812. Tennessee also passed and enacted a law in June of 1861 to prepare for the defense of the state. One of its provisions was to recruit blacks as soldiers.
Never mind all the southern states that made it illegal for blacks to move in there
Wrong. Southern states typically had laws that placed either time restrictions or certain residency or property requirements on free blacks that wanted to live there. The northern states I spoke of previously, tu quoque boy, banned blacks from setting foot their outright. The census bears witness to this fact as the majority of free blacks lived in slave states.
were there any Northern laws that sold free blacks into slavery?
New Jersey, where emancipation effectively declared all slaves free but grandfathered some of them from enjoying that freedom, requiring that they continue in a servitude status if they didn't meet certain age requirements. Most of the Jersey slave owners simply sold their investments down south. A few kept their slaves until the civil war.
Not entirely. Before the war Illinois had a bizarre "indentured servitude" system where people (mostly blacks who had been unfortunate enough to set foot on Abe Lincoln's lily white soil) were sold into specified work terms (often to pay a debt, real or otherwise, but sometimes they'd "sell" their kid or something to get a little quick money) at auction and through contracts. They normally exceeded a year in length and some of the terms went on for decades, all of it involuntary. It technically wasn't called slavery, but in every legal sense it was just that.
Yeah, way before the war. The Illinois Constitution adopted in 1818 limited any future indentures to one year maximum. While not repealing the Indentured Servant Act of 1807 the provisions of that law were stripped by legislation and state Supreme Court decisions until the new state Constitution was adopted in 1848 voiding indentures made under the 1807 law.
So to what do you attribute the growth in the black population of Illinois between 1820 and 1860? At a time when the free black population of southern states like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas was declining?
Births to blacks already there plus the successful movement of blacks there in violation of the state's laws. In a similar pattern, it is currently illegal for people to immigrate into the United States without going through customs. Even so, the illegal mexican population here grows by several million every decade.
At a time when the free black population of southern states like Louisiana, Mississippi, and Arkansas was declining?
A quick comparison from 1850 to 1860 indicates the states of Maryland (where almost half of the black population was free), Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Missouri, Kentucky, and Delaware ALL had net gains in the number of free blacks over the decade. Florida remained the same. You are also incorrect about Louisiana, which went from 17,462 to 18,647.
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Now that's an odd assertion. According to this site at the Illinois State Archives, indenture records exist through 1863, or about half way through the war.
http://www.sos.state.il.us/departments/archives/servant.html
And that's just the tip of the iceburg for Illinois, which had one of the most complex system of Black Codes in the entire nation (and yes, they were called Black Codes in Illinois as early as the 1820's). Heck, in 1824 an Illinois Court even convicted its Governor for the "crime" of manumitting his slaves in violation of the state's Black Codes. In 1848 the Illinois Constitution made it illegal to bring blacks into Illinois for the purpose of setting them free. In 1853 it was made a crime in Illinois for any person to bring any free black across the state border. All the while, Lincoln sat in silence and declared his support of keeping Illinois "pure" as a land for free white people alone.
Slavery was illegal. Owning someone for 99 years (indentured servitude) was not. They were sold to anyone with cash. The slave indentured servant was sold to the highest bidder/lowest term, who had to pay the fine and other charges. If two people both bid 1,000 the person offering the shortest term of service won. But it wasn't slavery was it? </sarcasm>
But you had called it "Abe Lincoln's lily white soil" or some such crap. Yet the black population more than doubled between 1840 and 1860, something which did not happen in any of the southern states. Were free blacks in Illinois unusually fertile?
You are also incorrect about Louisiana, which went from 17,462 to 18,647.
But it had stood at 25,502 in 1840. Where did they go? Illinois?
Not odd at all, given your usual level of scholarship. The Black Codes required any black or mulatto to prove his status as a free person and not a runaway slave. Any one unable to provide a proper certificate of his freedom was deemed a runaway slave and was subject to arrest. His arrest was advertised by the sheriff and, if no owner appeared, he was indentured for one year, at the end of which time he was entitled to a certificate of his freedom. But the indenture was for a year only, not your 'forever and a day' period.
And that's just the tip of the iceburg for Illinois, which had one of the most complex system of Black Codes in the entire nation...
No, they were rather straight-forward.
...and yes, they were called Black Codes in Illinois as early as the 1820's
A name later taken by the southern states.
Heck, in 1824 an Illinois Court even convicted its Governor for the "crime" of manumitting his slaves in violation of the state's Black Codes.
Again, total bullsh*t. Governor Coles's "crime" wasn't that he manumitted his slaves, something allowed by law, but that he had not posted the necessary bond. Any person bringing slaves into Illinois with a view towards emancipating them was required to execute a bond in the sum of one thousand dollars as a guaranty that the person emancipated would not become a county charge. Governor Cole did not, so he was fined $2000, two hundred dollars per freed slave.
In 1848 the Illinois Constitution made it illegal to bring blacks into Illinois for the purpose of setting them free.
Crap again. Here is a link to the text of the 1848 Constitution. It's a pdf so you need Acrobat. It says nothing of the kind.
All the while, Lincoln sat in silence and declared his support of keeping Illinois "pure" as a land for free white people alone.
I would imagine Lincoln would have kept silent. Most of what you said was wrong, the rest just ain't true. What was there to comment on?
That's what he certainly wanted it to be, and that's what Illinois' laws were explicitly intended to do - keep blacks out and make it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE if one even so much as crossed the state's borders.
Yet the black population more than doubled between 1840 and 1860, something which did not happen in any of the southern states.
The illegal mexican population in the US grows by several million every decade yet by definition not one of them is obeying the laws by being here. So was the case in Illinois.
As for doubling the population, Illinois' free blacks went from a tiny 3,598 in 1840 to 7,628 in 1860 - technically doubling in number yet a numerical gain of only 4,000 - a gain that only puts it barely ahead of the geographically tiny and rural state of Delaware.
Check out Maryland for a comparison, which had 62,078 in 1840 and 83,942 in 1860 - a gain of over 20,000 free blacks.
Virginia gained almost 10,000 in this same period.
North Carolina gained 8,000 in this same period.
CSA vets came in asian,black,latino,red & white. we LOVE them ALL-each & every one.<P.free dixie,sw
There you go again, parrot boy - taking facts that I used to prove YOU were wrong, spicing them up with a few googled details, and parroting them back to me as if you were actually correcting something!
The fact is that you stated in post 63 that "yeah" the indentured servitude in Illinois had happend "way before the war." Under any reasonable definition "way before the war" means several years if not decades. Yet as I showed you by that link to the Illinois State Government's archives, indentures persisted until 1863.
But the indenture was for a year only, not your 'forever and a day' period.
Well then. I guess since it was only a "slave for a year" program it must be alright in your mind. Yeah. That makes it a lot better for the victim. /sarcasm
A name later taken by the southern states.
Quoth the Non-Sequitur: "Squack! Tu quoque! Tu quoque!"
Again, total bullsh*t. Governor Coles's "crime" wasn't that he manumitted his slaves, something allowed by law, but that he had not posted the necessary bond.
Not according to the Illinois State Library's website, which reads "In March [of 1824], Governor Coles is sued for having manumitted his slaves—a clear violation of the state’s "Black Codes" ("Black Laws"). Found guilty in lower courts, this verdict is later overturned by the State Supreme Court." (http://www.state.il.us/hpa/lib/GenPrideAfAm.htm)
If this is in error, the fault rests with the Illinois state government. If it is not in error, you are the one in the wrong.
Crap again. Here is a link to the text of the 1848 Constitution. It's a pdf so you need Acrobat. It says nothing of the kind.
That link is incomplete and lacks Article XIV, which was approved with the 1848 constitution but ratified separately from it in a statewide referendum. It became a part of the document when voters approved it that year. It reads as follows:
"The General Assembly shall, at its first session under the amended constitution, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state; and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this state for the purpose of setting them free."
There are any number of possibilities for the discrepency. First and foremost probably has to do with Louisiana's Spanish and French legal provisions. They designated the offspring of interracial marriages into distinct categories of "mulatto" (first generation), "quadroon" (second generation, or quarter ancestry), and "octoroon" (third generation, or eighth ancestry). Often by the second and almost always by the third of these generational categories, the exact distinction of record became blurred in official records of events. Somebody who was classified as "octoroon" in one census, and thus a free black, could be classified in Louisiana as white in another only a few years later if his skin was light enough.
Interesting, considering that Lincoln wasn't born when the original indenture law passed, and was all of 10 years old when those Blake Codes were passed. If he was expressing an opinion on these subjects at that age then he was even more precocious than I thought.
As for doubling the population, Illinois' free blacks went from a tiny 3,598 in 1840 to 7,628 in 1860 - technically doubling in number yet a numerical gain of only 4,000 - a gain that only puts it barely ahead of the geographically tiny and rural state of Delaware.
But far ahead of states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc. In fact, the free population of Illinois in 1860 was larger than 7 of the 11 confederate states, and grew at a faster rate than all of them. And all without a slave population to emancipate, and in the teeth of those darned Black Codes.
He was also a famous and experienced Illinois politician when the notoriously anti-black provisions of the 1848 Constitution passed. He was still a famous and experienced Illinois politician in 1853 when the legislature made it a criminal offense for blacks to simply cross the state's borders.
But far ahead of states like Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, etc.
Always quick to indulge in the tu quoque, eh non-seq? It's amusing to see your list choices considering that "etc." in your case is in reality very little beyond those three you mentioned. And the three you mentioned aren't even accurately portrayed by you! Alabama actually did have growth in its free black population. It and Mississippi did not have a large free black population to begin with though (IIRC MS was just a few hundred) so growth wasn't every really expected there. Arkansas was a rural frontier state at the time with virtually no urban populations and a low population in general. It is therefore of little surprise that they didn't grow in much of anything during that era.
No, it just shows your 'slave for at least a year' claim to be the nonsense that it is.
Not according to the Illinois State Library's website...
But according to the Illinois State Historical Society Link
That link is incomplete and lacks Article XIV
And of course you can provide a link to the 1848 Constitution containing the mysterious missing article?
A population drop of a few hundred might be a discrepency. A population drop of 30% is a bit more than that.
First and foremost probably has to do with Louisiana's Spanish and French legal provisions.
Or it might be one of the explusion laws passed by the Louisiana legislature?
Please provide me the number of the post in which I used the phrase "slave for at least a year." In doing so, also please note that I have already identified the post where you claimed the end of indentured servitude to have predated the war by the equivalent of several years or decades.
But according to the Illinois State Historical Society Link
Take it up with those two agencies then.
And of course you can provide a link to the 1848 Constitution containing the mysterious missing article?
Its passage is mentioned under 1848 on the previous State Library link I gave you. You can find the article itself at this page from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/RiverWeb/Projects/Ambot/Archives/vignettes/people/Black%20Illinoisans-19th%208B9.html
It is also referenced in the artice here: http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilmaga/macoupin/1879bios/palmer_johnm.html
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.