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 ...
So you agree then with the Dred Scott decision?
Hmmmm....maybe that's why when I traced my momma's line back it went to the Scottish Wemyss line in the late 1600s(changed to Weems here in the 1700s). My daddy's line was in SC but they were mostly Heinz 57 I think. Not many records on them.
I guess I just got a little tied up in the terminology and in the English/Scottish thing, but it seems to make sense. Regardless, we are now left with a very distinct difference between the North and South - completely different mindsets about nearly every subject, IMO.
No you are deliberately, obdurately wrong.
You disagree? You think we should just roll over and beg for a bigger mouthful of sh*t Sandwich?
BS.
Disagreeing for the sake of being disagreeable? What possible reason would anyone who is arguing a right to leave, bring up Slavery? What possible benefit is it to my side of the argument?
I address it because it is the constant "LOOK SQUIRREL!!!!" argument of those who insist on justifying what their side did with an ex post facto moralism. I have no interest in discussing the topic at all.
Like the Founders?
The South went to war to defend itself from a 35,000 man Union Army invading it. *THAT* is why the South went to war. Dimwit.
If "Left-Handers" are deprived of rights under the existing Union, then the Union has no moral high ground from whence to condemn whatever happens to "Left-Handers" when someone else does the same thing they did.
This argument is pushed even further into the realm of absurdity when the Union argues that "We'll let you keep killing left handers just so long as you rejoin the Union."
It shows that their priority is control, not creating new rights for others.
I think it is legally valid while morally repugnant, which is the exact same circumstance as slavery was at that time.
The Central claim of Dred Scott, that the Declaration was never intended to comprehend rights for slaves, is demonstrably correct, and ample evidence is available to prove this claim beyond the requirements of even the most stringent, but intellectually honest critics.
Now where Tanney goes too far is by claiming it was never intended to comprehend the rights of "Blacks". This is demonstrably incorrect, because Black Freemen exercised the same rights as Whites prior to the Declaration of Independence, up to and including owning slaves.
I say again, according to the laws of that time period, the Dred Scott decision was legally correct while remaining morally repugnant.
I thought it was very interesting. Not to say it's proven, but it is something to keep in the back of your mind when discussing this demographical split.
What's your beef with Kelo?
That you can use the power of Imminent Domain to seize the property of one person and give it to another. You don't find that objectionable?
But why did the South fire on Sumter to begin with?
Dimwit, the south went to war BEFORE the north called upon those troops to defend its homeland.
Dimwit.
No, just dimwits like you.
The court that ruled that the state had the power to use eminent domain to take the proprty was the Connecticut Supreme Court. All the U.S. Supreme Court did was uphold their decision. Now we can argue if the state court decision was proper all we want, but for someone who claims to be a 10th Amendment supporter then I would think you would be completely in favor of the Kelo decision.
Or are you saying there are limits to what states can be trusted with in regards to 10th Amendment powers?
Let’s put it another way:
When you say “If others didn’t bring it up, I assure you I wouldn’t either” you are lying through your teeth. It isn’t us bringing it up it’s you, you dolt. You constantly and deliberately mischaracterize the positions of others.
Except that, as you've repeatedly said, states have the power to sever their relationship with the United States for any reason at all, so a state's desire to kill all left-handers is just as valid legally, if not morally, as any if one follows your line of reasoning.
I've been pondering that question (once again) since Tuesday, and as near as I can tell it was because they were gullible @ssholes.
Thinking that they had the ability to weigh pros and cons of doing such a thing, I can conceive of only one calculation which puts firing on Ft. Sumter into the "pro" category.
Now someone had mentioned to me before, and perhaps it was you, that some states were having mixed feelings about secession and were thinking about re-joining the Union, and so Jeff Davis needed such an incident to galvanize them into staying the course, and perhaps to convince others to also join them.
Perhaps this is what they were thinking, but one of the Cabinet members (and I forget who) told them in no uncertain terms what would very likely happen, so it cannot be argued that they weren't and clearly warned.
What did they expect to happen when you Humiliate a much larger and more powerful adversary? Especially when you consider that they are just looking for an excuse to kick your @ss anyway?
Hubris, is probably the most intellectually honest reason for why they did it.
While it may be argued that kicking people out of a Fort on their own territory is a belligerent and ill thought out act, the response was excessive.
The strike on the Fort was an affront, but of no real threat to the Union or it's interests.
Dimwit.
You really don't like it when I point out how similar were the two events. It doesn't fit your narrative. :)
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.