Posted on 07/07/2015 3:17:08 AM PDT by dennisw
In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
The rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of thisnumber, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Look, I understand why you’d be happier if there was no mention of slavery in any of these threads. It’s an embarrassment to you that the cause you champion was such a bad one, so you want to shut down the conversation and divert it to other issues.
Oh, I dunno, maybe because that is what the facts of history amply demonstrate? Why do you want to deliberately lie and say that it did?
What possible kernel of evidence do you have that the Declaration was intended by it's authors and signatories to apply to slaves?
I would think that the fact there was not a mass abolition of slavery by all the signatories on the day of the signing ought to be pretty good evidence that it was not, but if that wasn't sufficient, I would have thought that four score and seven years of subsequent history ought to have done the trick.
What we have here with people like yourself, is a Liberal interpretation of History and the "living constitution" phenomena as applied to the Declaration. It means whatever you want it to mean, because you change it's meaning after the fact to suit your own preferences.
Yes, those are two words. What about it?
The government is the servant of the people. It is obligated to retain no more property than the people will allow.
Conflating government ownership with private property rights is just another obfuscation dodge which is your usual modus operandi.
Certain bodies of “the People” i.e. western counties of Virginia broke off and seceded from another state. There is your example.
But we're not talking about the facts of history. We're talking about inalienable, self-evident rights.
What possible kernel of evidence do you have that the Declaration was intended by it's authors and signatories to apply to slaves?
Hey, Justice Taney! Lookin' good!
This makes more sense. At $750.00 of valuation in today's dollars, you would think the Abolitionists could have gotten together and bought them out.
Who got robbed and Killed? You can't even get your false outrageous in the proper order to present them.
My family on my mother’s side owned slaves. My great, great grandfather freed his the day of the emancipation. Most chose to stay. They had been a part of the family and its what they had known.
I take this from The Use and Need of the Life of Carry A Nation (her autobiography).
Interesting stuff.
But isn't it your contention that only states can secede? Haven't you said, on other threads, that West Virginia's actions were illegal?
No you are deliberately, obdurately wrong.
BS.
Meaning the only issue that matters in the context of the time. You see, since the Union condoned slavery in the South while it ruled there, and since it condoned it in the North all throughout the War, the North has no moral leg to stand on vis a vis the issue of slavery. It is an equally bad player.
Given that it was equally bad, the weighing of the issue must move on to the more serious principle of rebellion against our founding document, the Declaration of Independence.
I want to focus on this because THIS is where our current freedoms were lost. This blatant violation of the founding principles of this nation was the act from which much of our successive misery and abuses has flown.
I recognize that Slavery wasn't the reason the North Invaded the South. I recognize that it is a red herring and emotional bludgeon for which weak emotional minds always reach when they can't address the larger crises of the war.
That be you, and no, I don't want to focus on your "Look! Squirrel!" arguments.
Yes it shows the hypocrisy in play.
More Liberal Projection™ on your part. Tsk tsk.
Only if you are people without any sense of right and wrong.
No doubt they taxed your vocabulary.
You dimwit, he is responding to you and stating why the SOUTH WENT TO WAR. You dimwit.
And this is where you try to torture an incorrect meaning out of words instead of comprehending them in the context in which they were intended.
It's the "Living Constitution" methodology applied to the Declaration.
It is a form of deliberate lying. You are lying, and you are perfectly content to continue doing so.
But it's impossible to separate those issues. If I understand you correctly, then announcing that I'm now a foreign country because I want to, say, kill all the left-handers, is just as fine a reason as any, and opposing by force such an announcement is somehow more evil than breaking up the United States in order to murder left-handers.
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.