Slavery in the North

There was no question concerning slaves on the 1810 census like there was on the 1800 (at least not in NY where I have been researching,) but there were detailed categories for slaves and free on the 1820. It seems correct that there were very few slaves in the north by 1820. I thought that perhaps the popularity of anti-slavery societies in the north could account for that, but they were not established until the 1830's.

I don't have to establish it it is not even a controversial topic. Having from the South I am very familiar with its cultural shortcomings as well as its greatest contribution to American culture, music, in which it has no peer. My love for the South and its people is not to be surpassed merely because I refuse to except the Insurrectionists and Slavery as adding to the Good when they were a disaster for it. That is the same kind of thinking that would have me defending my present state, Illinois, by defending the Daley Machine and the corrupt clique which rules it.

Its very late acceleration in founding colleges merely demonstrates how far behind it had falled after near equality. Apparently some in the ruling class realized that without doing so the region would have no chance to win independence if their desire for secession ever succeeded. I would also presume that the number of students in each region was not close to being equal.

This inferiority was partially a result of the lack of public schools there and the disdain which the Planter class had for education. It remained throughout our history
and still has its effects today as the best Universities are in the North. It would be debatable whether any from the South would make the Top Ten list in any department. This is not to say there are NO excellent schools there certainly Texas, Tulane, GTech, Duke and NC can be called that. And Forrest MacDonald puts the U of Ala at the top of the list in American History in my opinion being our greatest living historian.

My opinion regarding MS colleges is definitely pulled outta my @ss but I contend that that is good enough. There is no reason for me to research it as I am very familiar with the quality of the schools there now and do not believe they declined. Comparing raw numbers shows little at any rate since some had 80 students and some 1000. Why don't you show me that there were more students per capita in the South than the North. I won't even quibble about the effect of immigration on the North's numbers.

A good measure of a university's quality and impact throughout our history is the number of movers and shakers who attended it and where the rich send their children. This measure showed the same thing in 1790 that it does today: Harvard, Yale and Princeton led the pack. You are deluded if you think that the Schools you mentioned do not ape the left-wing views of their betters. In some cases they are worse. Duke takes second place to no one for Loony Left idocrination.

Illiteracy rates of Native Born was higher in the South only by adding the immigrants (which was a trivial part of the South's population) can you beat down its rate to near equality to the North. Some Northern states had near 100% rates among its younger people while none of the South did.

I haven't particularly been concerned about the pre-Revolutionary comparision because the problems had not surfaced yet and most Southern leaders were trying to figure out how to end Slavery while those of a century later were pressing every nerve defending it and trying to assure its survival.

Virginia's wealth and cultural history gave it a lot of capital to expend and the nature of its slave system made it an exception in many cases.

Border States were not part of the Slaver political empire and did not share its cultural void. They remained part of the Union.

You are incorrect. The legislature of the border state of Missouri adopted a secession ordinance and its populace split between the two sides. The border state of Kentucky officially declared neutrality while a rump government seceded and the population again split. A secession movement was underway in the border state of Maryland but the military invasion of the state and the arrest of pro-secession legislators by Lincoln preempted them from acting. The state nevertheless had units fighting in the armies of both sides.

Again I do not consider the educational potential the same from one college to another. Neither do authorities on this issue.

Given that you have neither established the educational potential of any college nor cited any authorities on the matter, what you personally "consider" to be the case is, at the present, irrelevant to the truth of this discussion.

Your statement, if true, has nothing to do with my comment at any rate. Given the decline in trade to the South as the War was ramping up I would expect a decline in traffic.
Your contention that the North did not have a significant export trade also supports my statement that the tariffs had the same negative impact on the farmers of North and South.

I think you need to have your eyes examined. I said H's Report was NOT accepted. Since bounties were the main reason he wrote it their rejection meant it was rejected as well.

Uh, the 1800s include the years from 1800 to 1899 not merely those before 1861.

Criticism coming from you is music to my ears. The more vitriolic the better.

None of those states were part of the CSA which was the Slaver Empire. Your history lesson was interesting but not at issue as none of the states left the Union. Since 100,000 from the CSA states fought for the Union by your logic those states were part of the Union still.

Opinion is what this discussion is about contrary to those who believe they can post a couple of quotations (or yards of them) and think they have proved something. I could post a quotation from God Almighty saying that everything I say is 100% true and you would not accept it anyway.

I don't have to establish it it is not even a controversial topic.

I agree that it is not controversial - the south in 1850 very clearly had more colleges numerically, more colleges per capita, more colleges per state on average, and an equally well established colonial college system prior to 1776. You are, however, challenging those statistical facts and have yet to establish, source, support, or substantiate any of your challenges in any reasonable or commonly accepted way.

Having from the South I am very familiar with its cultural shortcomings as well as its greatest contribution to American culture, music, in which it has no peer.

Your personal feelings and tastes are again of no concern to me. You made a specific claim about southern antebellum education and presented that claim as fact. Now it turns out that your claim was anything but factual so you evade, obfuscate, and attempt to inject the conversation with equally unsustainable personal feelings and opinions that have no bearing upon what is fact.

Its very late acceleration in founding colleges

Unsubstantiated garbage. As I have already shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, the south was on par with the north in establishing colleges by 1776 and AHEAD of the north in establishing colleges by 1850. The only late acceleration is to be found in states like New Hampshire and Rhode Island which founded one single college each in the colonial period and didn't move beyond that number for another for a hundred years!

It should tell you something when the rural state of Arkansas had three times as many colleges in 1850 than two original colonies in New England. It should tell you something when the state of Mississippi had more colleges than every single state in New England in 1850. Those are the stats, fakeit, and you'll never get around them by throwing out unsubstantiated garbage.

It remained throughout our history and still has its effects today as the best Universities are in the North.

Wrong as usual. The northern universities today are almost without exception left wing dumpsters of cultural rot, marxism, homosexuality, atheism, and America-hate. The only redeemable northern schools today are either small private institutions in remote and rural locations like Hillsdale in Michigan and Grove City College in Pennsylvania or schools like the University of Chicago that are renowned for one single standout department (economics).

My opinion regarding MS colleges is definitely pulled outta my @ss but I contend that that is good enough.

At least you admit that you like to play with your own waste products. That's a lot more than can be said for the majority of Brigadeers. Comparing raw numbers shows little at any rate since some had 80 students and some 1000. Why don't you show me that there were more students per capita in the South than the North.

Happily. Here are the top 15 states by students enrolled in college per capita in 1850 starting with the highest.

CONNECTICUT KENTUCKY OHIO MARYLAND GEORGIA TENNESSEE DELAWARE MISSOURI VERMONT PENNSYLVANIA MISSISSIPPI INDIANA SOUTH CAROLINA MASSACHUSETTS RHODE ISLAND

You will notice that southern states occupy 8 out of the top 15. The remainder of the list has a comparable dispersion, though obviously rural frontier states like California and Minnesota fall at the bottm for similarly obvious reasons unrelated to their region.

A good measure of a university's quality and impact throughout our history is the number of movers and shakers who attended it and where the rich send their children.

Fair enough. Four of our first 15 presidents attended one single southern university: William and Mary. And that number increases to five if you count George Washington's surveyor's classes he took there. Number two on the list is Harvard, which produced a father-son legacy with Adams I and II. No other university, north or south, has more than one presidential student to its name in the antebellum era.

This measure showed the same thing in 1790 that it does today: Harvard, Yale and Princeton led the pack.

The first president from Yale was William Howard Taft. Princeton has produced only two: Madison and Wilson. Harvard gave us Adams I and II but no other until Roosevelt. Contrast that with W&M that gave us 4 of the first 15 (5 if you count Washington).

You are deluded if you think that the Schools you mentioned do not ape the left-wing views of their betters.

They may ape them, but I don't ever recall seeing Cornel West and Peter Singer on the faculty lists for William and Mary or the University of Virginia.

Uh, the 1800s include the years from 1800 to 1899 not merely those before 1861.

Seeing as our discussion is specifically about the antebellum period, any material you attempt to introduce beyond it is both extraneous and irrelevant to the subject matter.

I said H's Report was NOT accepted.

And I said you are simply wrong about that. The bounties were rejected but the tariffs were not. Nor were the tariffs an inconsequential matter - they take up more pages in the report than any other item.

Illiteracy rates of Native Born was higher in the South only by adding the immigrants (which was a trivial part of the South's population) can you beat down its rate to near equality to the North. Some Northern states had near 100% rates among its younger people while none of the South did.

...none of which is substantiated in anything you have posted here given the complete absence of any source, citation, or reference of any form.

None of those states were part of the CSA which was the Slaver Empire. Your history lesson was interesting but not at issue as none of the states left the Union.

You are arbitrarily redefining the terms to suit your agenda. The geographic definition of the south is the Mason-Dixon line and always has been. Three border states on the southern side of the Mason-Dixon line had DIVIDED LOYALTIES in the war and simply do not fit neatly into either side of it. Missouri and Kentucky simultaneously had congressional delegations in both the Union AND Confederate congresses for that matter. From the fall of 1861 to the war's end Missouri even had two legislatures, two governors, and two sets of state officers, with the confederate one actually having the stronger claim to legitimacy as it was the government that was elected by Missouri in the 1860 election. Kentucky was the reverse with two governments, the rump one going confederate. Nor is it accurate to claim that any of these states stayed "loyal" as all three sent several units of soldiers to both armies. At times and in many places of those three states there was virtual anarchy during the war. Elsewhere there was pure heavy handed undemocratic despotism by whoever happened to control that region at that particular time.

Why can't we get past this and work together to make this a better world to live in?

Mideast peace negotiators should us that line.

IT'S OVER...GET OVER IT!!!

Economic Slavery?

In some ways slavery never ended
it just changed its look.

Consequently, Americans owe $2,027, the Brits owe $1,100, and the Aussies owe $675 in "real credit card debt," for every man, woman and child in their respective countries, based on current population figures.

____________________________

Yet us American must also deal with the Nation Debt of 7.2 trillion dollars and 51 trillion off book future social security debt.

Slavery, what to do about slavery.

GWC was recognize for his intellect at an early age and well educated. This decision benefited humanity.