LOL. The South before the war had it's onw black codes called slavery. Any white man could kill any black for any reason at any time, and provided he owned him, the state would compensate him for the trouble and the loss. Stop dreaming.
Indiana and Ohio statutes were typical; NO free negroes were allowed to enter the state or own property in the state.
Some obscure law never really enforced. By 1860, these two states had nearly as many free blacks (and not one slave) as Florida had slaves. How do you account for that? Perhaps they moved in during the night?
Illinois used a different approach. Blacks could come if they posted a $1,000 bond.
Since you have dated any thing, we must guess. The 1000 dollars is a giveaway though, as Federal Law after 1850 meant that any white with a Black found on it could be charged with harboring a slave, and the penalty was 1000 dollars. Many of these laws were enacted to placate the bastard southern flesh mongering barbarians, but they were never enforced by the states themselves.
There were laws against blacks assembling "for the purpose of dancing or reveling" that carried a $20 fine.
Probably still are. If you have a loud enough party the cops will come for you too. Whoopee doo, and you equate that with the right to void all contracts or kill a white man for marrying a black! Wierd. That's weird.
Illinois had a tradition, dating back to its territorial period, of restrictive and exclusionary legislation against blacks, culminiating in the 1853 black law that in effect barred black people from residing in the state..
Same thing. Many awful and horrifying incidents occurred under the Fugitive Slave Act and most good folk were appalled and disgusted. The laws were on the books to placte the slavers and to discourage the flesh mongers from coming North to abduct free blacks back into horrid slavery. The Federal flesh mongers had unlimited compensation for their troubles from the Federal government, and this was indeed abhorrent to the free people in the North.
lincoln never spoke out against this law.
It was not enforced consistently by any means. Mostly it was enforced in communities along the border as they were largely populated by black hating southern racists who had moved out of the south to avoid the economic collapse and state governments with few civil rights. It did hold down the black population some, but Illinois still had a black population proportionately larger than Massachusetts by 1860.
Oregon, a latecomer in the union, in its 1859 constitution prohibited blacks from coming into the state, holding property, even making contracts or filing a lawsuit...wasn't just the border states that suffered from Negrophobia.
The Oregon government under 'Old Buck' was a railroad job to make the state slave so that southern dominance of Congress would not be lost. Hence the BS constitution and laws which were overthrown by the free citizens after Lincoln's election.
In Conneticut, Prudence Crandall, a Quaker, set up a small school to educate black children. It was against the law to do so, and she went to jail.
She was not sent to jail, but she was harrassed out of the state by some morons. This happened in the 1830's, and afterwards the state apologized to her for the extremely bad 'southern type' behaviour of a few bigots and gave her a lifetime pension to support her work and herself until her death many many years later. It was a rare case.
When the leader of the abolition movement held a meeting in Boston and distributed his publication, the Liberator, a lynch mob formed and he barely escaped with his life.---Adams, p130
Nice reference. Given that blacks were free and full state citizens in the state by law from 1780 on, it's a bit of twist, even for a trash fabricator of junk books like Adams. No names, no dates, no facts just fiction.
But what did lincoln think of these people? Hmmmm..wait I've got a quote from the Tyrant himself!!
When asked if it was all right to have Abolitionists with the Republican party, he replied in the affirmative, "as long as I am not painted with the Abolitionist brush"---Johannsen, Lincoln the South, and Slavery
I will proclaim emancipation, entirely, or partially, or not at all, according to whichever of these measures shall seem to me best for the Union---Civil War Quotations, Pennsylvania, 1995
Lincoln was a southerner. Like many hundreds of thousands, his family moved north to find freedom. The concepts of the founders were rather obscure to him in his early days, but he gradually learned to become more civilized. He never became a Abolitionist, and no Abolitionist ever pretended that he was, but it was clear that he was not just some simple southern racist. In many ways, one could argue that the best thing that ever happened to blacks in this country was his assasination. In no way did Abolitionists count him among them as one of them, but they did find him a practical man to deal with.
lincoln could have cared less about the slaves, from the ass's mouth shall we say, as evidenced in these two quotes. What's worse by the second one is he has deemed all by himself that not only what course is to be declared, but he chooses the course.
Lincoln did not believe that segregation was practical or possible, though by the end of the war he thought it desireable. Like I said, he was a southerner. So much so that he did not even run on the Republican ticket in 1864.
Gosh, I guess I better read the Constitution more. I thought there were three branches of the government to decide the nation's course. But it was all over slavery. Okey-dokey
Yes, indeed it was over slavery. It was over the destruction of freedom by illiterate overbearing psychopaths, of the destruction of prosperity by a leacherous and defunct lazy people, and of the destruction of the dream of the founders by a southern dominated federal government which believed not in democracy but in slavery, rigged elections and control by armed militia.
It was a glorious revolution by a God fearing and morale people for the soul and future of a country with the potential to be a great nation instead of a hopeless failed anachronism. The revolution is not completely over, as you stand in testimony of that fact, but it is slowly being won. It has been a long road, and it will continue.
Nice reference. Given that blacks were free and full state citizens in the state by law from 1780 on, it's a bit of twist, even for a trash fabricator of junk books like Adams. No names, no dates, no facts just fiction
And what I find truly amazing is the fact that when evidence is produced with historical backing that you refuse to look up you dismiss it out of hand because you disagree with it. You just refuse to accept facts when presented to you, if they disagree with your point of view. Believe me sir, The information about the abolitionists was gathered from Blackwood's Magazine, 1 November 1862.
As for your date and time perhaps you might find this interesting
On October 21, 1835, Garrison was dragged through the streets of Boston with a rope around his neck. He was rescued and turned over to the mayor, Theodore Lyman. Lyman, claiming it was the only way to assure his safety, charged him with disturbing the peace and ordered him jailed. The mob, however, attached the carriage transporting him and almost captured him again. On the wall of his jail cell, Garrison wrote:HEREWm. Lloyd Garrison was put into this cell Wednesday afternoon, October 21, 1835, to save him from the violence of a 'respectable and influential' mob, who sought to destroy him for preaching the abominable and dangerous doctrine that "all men are created equal..."
It's amazing what you can find if you produce fact instead of worthless rants