Posted on 11/15/2004 12:05:16 PM PST by nosofar
African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]
When the minutemen marched off to face the redcoats at Lexington in 1775, the wives, boys and old men they left behind in Framingham took up axes, clubs, and pitchforks and barred themselves in their homes because of a widespread, and widely credited, rumor that the local slaves planned to rise up and massacre the white inhabitants while the militia was away.[2]
African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery. Robert Steinfeld's deservedly praised "The Invention of Free Labor" (1991) states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England," ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England. Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. “African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,” The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).
(Excerpt) Read more at slavenorth.com ...
Tell that to those who revolted. They, to a man, affirm that slavery was the total issue and it was not new but had been roilling the nation for the last decade. During the 1850s many Southern leaders and newspapers called for secession. The idea did not just pop up out of nowhere in 1861.
The blather you quote explains nothing and is false on its face. Sounds like something written for Junior High or elementary school. What idiot believes the Mississippi was closed?
The only State's "right" that was at issue was the "right" to hold slaves. Of course, this was never a "right" in the first place and was fundamentally at odds with the motive forces which produced the USA. I have no more "right" to hold you a slave than you have a "right" to kill me at a whim.
All the leaders of the South frankly admitted, and went on about it at length, that the fight was over slavery. It is only their intellectual descendents who pretend that there were other issues. Without the issue of slavery there would have been no War.
Lee said he didn't like slavery and a number of southerners didn't like it. But to say that the majority of southerners felt that way is pure BS. Read the Confederate Constitution. Read what people like Jeff Davis said about slavery. Read the Cornerstone speech.
You think idiots who believe King Cotton would bring the British as ally to the CSA were far-sighted leaders? You believe that a culture which glorified ignorance and degraded education was not produced by fools? You believe competent leaders would have believed that a war against a industrial power can be won by states with no industry, no experience in industrial organizations, no navy, a poverty stricken white class, too few railroads, with a hostile work force at its back?
These people were clueless and did not understand the world they lived in as GWTW ably illustrates. Their fantasies were put to rest by Abe.
But, please, don't let me stop you from admiring these goofs. Just don't expect me to take you seriously. As a young boy in SE Arkansas I did believe the myths you seem to but it did not take much research to show them just that.
What are your thoughts on the Northern States that had slaves -- that were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation ?
Blame the English language. Someone who says that we fought in WWII to free France or Belgium or to liberate those in concentration camps is wrong if the meaning is that that was our purpose in getting into the war or the reason why soldiers fought, but right in that this was one of the results of our involvement in that war. In other words "to" refers not to the initial purpose but to the final result. It may be misleading, but it's not an invalid use of the language or a false view of history.
The argument on the other side seems to be that the slaves were going to be freed "sooner or later" if the South had just been "left alone." Probably much later rather than sooner. From our post-Cold war perch in history we can delude ourselves into thinking that "eventually" things would always work out right whether or not people took action. But it's a delusion. People have to make decisions based on what they know and can see at the time.
The proclamation, contrary to popular belief, only freed slaves in states that were in opposition to the federal government and not controlled by union forces. All slaves in northern controlled areas were not freed by this, which included a large number of blacks in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Kentucky, and western Virginia.
Blame the Constitution. The government couldn't simply take the slaves away from loyal slaveowners. A constitutional amendment was necessary. But using its war powers it could announce that slaves in rebel areas would be free. And when US troops arrived there they were. Looked at one way, it was a simple refusal to return slaves to their masters or enforce slave laws, but it was quite a momentous step.
So much of the Confederate propaganda circulating today cuts the Emancipation Proclamation out of its context, but that distorts things. One can't pretend that no subsequent steps were taken against slavery. One has to see the Proclamation in its context as a step on the way to the 13th Amendment which did bar slavery. Alan Guelzo's recent book tries to do just that.
Pennsylvania had no slaves in the 1860s. Under Quaker influence they'd abolished slave labor in 1780. 18th century Pennsylvanians and 19th century unionists didn't have the ideal racial attitudes by 21st century standards, but emancipation was a momentous step and a great moral achievement. Simply dismissing or condemning such achievements undercuts America's political tradition, and leaves us with only desperate radicals, defensive or complacent slaveowners, and the indifferent.
I suppose the point in posting the article was to point out "Northern hypocrisy." But if one's only concern with slavery is "Northern hypocrisy" than that is in itself a form of special pleading and distortion. There was plenty of hypocrisy to go around in 19th century America, North and South.
Was it hypocritical for Northerners to condemn slavery in the South if slavery had been legal in the North in their fathers' or grandfathers' days? If so, such hypocrisy is inevitable, whenever improvements are made in social arrangements. Are we hypocritical to oppose Islamic treatment of women if our ancestors came from countries with similar customs? Once we're all up to speed on the hypocrisy of the freedom to own slaves, and really address that question, we can talk about the nuances.
But Lincoln's preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, issued in Sept 1862, gave the "...South four months to stop rebelling, threatening to emancipate their slaves if they continued to fight, promising to leave slavery untouched in states that came over to the North : ...."
[ A People's History of the Unaited States, 1492 - Present , Howard Zinn, p 187 ]
That's the ships. What about the crews?
You're right, anger against the north had been brewing since before the 1860s. The government passed the Tariff of 1828, which increased the cost of foreign products to encourage manufacturing in the north. It was the highest tariff in the nation's history. The south sold cotton to Europe and bought items in return, but this tariff made these goods the farmers needed too expensive. Also, the Constitution does not ban secession, not mentioning it as a power denied to the states in Article 1, Section 10. The Declaration of Independance even supports the right to secede, stating "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." The northern states illegally invaded the Southern states to force them to remain under their government, which is tyranny by any definition.
That is an extremely Machiavellian point of view. We fought WWII to defeat an evil that would seek to destroy all peace loving people. The invasion of the South was to force southerners to remain under federal control. The positive byproduct of an end to slavery was already on its way to being quickly acheived, and would have been accomplished in a way that did not destroy a society and leave the freed slaves in a position of serfdom. Had Lincoln been so concerned with obeying the Constitution he would have seen that in Article 1, Section 10, the rights denied to the states, it does not prohibit secession.
The "Tariff of Abominations" provoked the South Carolina nullifiers to threaten secession until Andy Jackson threatened to hang them. Then some of the rates were reduced but the point is that these tariffs were voted in when the South had majorities in the House and Senate. Those tariffs affected the farmers of the West and North just as negatively as those of the South but the North had the initiative to build industries under their protection which, except for Virginia, was never done. Slavery prevented the South from modernizing and putting its capital into industry. No foresight killed any chance of success in the modern world.
There was no invasion by the North of a legitimate country.
By trying to destroy the Constitution the RAT Rebels forced Lincoln to abide by his oath and preserve and protect the Constitution.
It is a falsehood that there was ever a right to secede from the Union had there been it would have been spelled out as to how to do it. Nor would we have had a real constitution if there had been such a right. If you don't believe me just ask James Madison who proclaimed once in the Union always in the Union.
The only legal way to split the Union is through Constitutional amendment which was never tried. According to the Southern argument there was no such thing as a Constitution just a sort of list of suggestions. The DoI does not apply to this case since the means of changing the government was provided to the people within the Constitution. Nor was there any "tyranny" threatening the South prior to the War the only tyranny there was that run by the Slavers.
Protecting the Union and Constitution was not "tyranny" either since the latter clearly spells out the power to put done insurrections and rebellions.
There are no valid arguments to support the traitors who carried out the RAT Rebellion. Not one.
the "shipping company" is the OWNER/broker of the freight/passengers.
in "shipping jargon" slightly different terms mean ENTIRELY different things.
free dixie,sw
Here are a few facts on Northern shipping of slaves. It is evident that your question on the crews is irrelevant at the least.
1805..... Between 1795 and 1805 more than 100,000 Africans were sent to America on 934 Rhode Island based vessels.
1831..... More than two decades before, the US Congress had banned the importation of slaves into the country. New England slave traders continued to carry on the slave trade into the Caribbean, Central, and South American markets. In this year, an English seaman, a Captain Isaacs made this statement about New England slave traders,
“Few have visited this port (Lamu) except the enterprising Americans whose star-spangled banner may be seen streaming in the wind where other nations would not deign to traffic.”
1856..... The United States Dept. Marshall for that New York district reported in 1856 that with regard to the construction and preparation of Northern slave ships:
"the business of fitting out slavers was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present."
12/1858..... In a report to the Secretary of State, the British admiralty reported that during the previous year, the British Navy on patrol in African waters, and searching for ships involved in the slave trade, had captured 33 American slave ships. The British also stated that another 23 American ships had escaped their patrols.
4/21/1859..... The US Navy sloop of war, Marion, was on station near the coast of Africa. It discovered and seized the American slave trade ship, Orion.
4/27/1859..... The Marion, just off the Congo, seized the American ship, Ardennes of New York, as it was engaged in the slave trade.
9/21/1859..... The US Naval vessel, Portsmouth, seized the sloop Emily, of New York, for being engaged in the slave trade.
12/2/1859..... In a report to President Buchanan, Secretary of the Navy Isaac Toucey stated that US Navy vessels were actively seeking to interdict slave trading vessels in Caribbean waters. The steamers Crusader, Mohawk, Wyandott, and Water Witch were cruising the waters of Cuba seeking American ships carrying on the slave trade.
Two weeks earlier, the Mohawk had discovered a brig at anchor near Cuba. Upon investigating it, the Naval Commander discovered that the brig was the Cygnet, of Baltimore, and had evidently recently landed a cargo of slaves. The ship was taken into custody and moved to Key West.
In a year and a half preceding the War Between the States eighty-five slave trading vessels were reported as fitting out in New York harbor and an author of the time wrote that,
"from 1850 to 1860 the fitting out of slavers became a flourishing business in the United States and centered in New York City."(Dubois)
8/8/1860..... Under command of Capt. Nathaniel Gordon, the ship Erie was discovered by the United States steamer Mohican, on the morning of the 8th day of August, 1860. She was then about fifty miles outside of the River Congo, on the West Coast of Africa, standing to the northward, with all sail set. She was flying the American flag. A gun from the Mohican brought her aside.
Lieutenant Todd of the USS Mohican went on board himself about noon, and took command of the prize. He found on board of the Erie eight hundred and ninety-seven (897) Negroes, men, women, and children.
Mr. Gordon was probably the most successful of the individuals engaged in the trade. A native of Maine, he had engaged in the business many years since, and had always eluded justice.
The United States was established July 4, 1776. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued by the president on January 1, 1863.
That's 87 years that slavery existed in the United States and not in all states, not 400 years and not 200 years.
Slavery was instituted on this continent by Europeans, Arabs and Africans.
LOL!
"Some evidence"?
That's like sayng that there is "some evidence" that the Pope is Catholic!
Isn't it wonderful how much simpler impressions are when unencumbered by facts?
The United States did not establish slavery in North America. It was an European institution, and it cost us mightily to get rid of it.
I find it interesting that so many of those who are so quick to condemn the idiots in "Old Europe" find it so necessary to accuse the North of being a mighty slave-based power for 400 years!
Ye gads!!!!
The Erie Canal opened in 1825, and the Illinois & Michigan Canal in 1848. The vast majority of rail connections to the west were via the north. So why would the northern business interests still be worried about competition from New Orleans?
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.