Slaveowners in the North

AJC ^ | 03/02/2003 | Mike Toner

[groanup]

"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg..."

"There is always one flea a dog can't reach." Abraham Lincoln.

[jlogajan]

Lincoln ONLY abolished slavery in the seceding states NOT the northern states

By 1865 the Emancipation Proclamation had the effect of eliminating all slavery in the USA. Lincoln further pushed the 13th amendment approval in the US House, personally ensuring 2/3rds majority vote. Lincoln was shot in the back and killed by one of those "southern gentlemen" before the states could ratify the 13th amendment, but clearly Lincoln was indeed fundamental in ending slavery in the US both in fact and in law.

[jlogajan]

And I firmly believe that the practice would have eventually been banned in all states, north and south in fairly short order

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

[jlogajan]

The south did not fight to maintain slavery. There were more significant reasons for the Civil War.

The seceding states always seemed to mention slavery as a fundamental cause. Funny how the neo-Confederates want to sweep that under the rug.

[groanup]

"Lincoln was indeed fundamental in ending slavery in the US both in fact and in law."

THAT is a very debatable point. The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slave. It was a war measure. To quote A. Lincoln:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it be freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."

Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, 22 August 1862.

[jlogajan]

The Emancipation Proclamation freed no slave.

By 1865 (before the ratification of the 13th amendment) slavery ceased to exist in the US. The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 had been the undoing of slavery -- it had wider effects than its literal interpretation. Lincoln (and the might of the north) freed the slaves -- nutty neo-Confederate claptrap to the contrary notwithstanding.

[groanup]

"Denial is not a river in Egypt"

Cute.

"Although the South would have preferred any honourable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. This is an event that has long been sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia."

Gen. R.E. Lee, 1866.

[jlogajan]

Everybody ready for more pathetic hand-wringing and wailing about the nasty old slaveowners?

Spoken like a true neo-Confederate. Oh the poor maligned slaveowners. Woe is us.

[jmax]

Wonder what they would find if they dug up Martha's Vineyard?

[x]

Both the writer and the historians he interviewed have to say that they were "surprised" by the findings or there's no story. Would an academic looking for funding ever say that he or she found nothing that they didn't expect? But it's long been known that there were slaves in the North, particularly in Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey. Seeing physical artifacts may be dramatic, and it will add to our knowledge of the details, but it's not as though scholars didn't know that slavery existed throughout the colonies, and throughout the New World for most of the 18th century. In a few years, there may be another story here about how many of the slaves were actually White.

At the heart of the arguments here are moral and emotional ideas of guilt and innocence, rather than more impersonal or objective concepts of causation or development. Also, there's a desire for clear answers and unambiguous characterizations. What was Woodrow Wilson's line on WWI? What was Churchill's attitude towards Stalin or Hitler? Or Reagan's approach to taxation? The answer is that these things changed over time. To be sure, there were constant convictions in the minds of such men, but practical policies changed as circumstances and opportunities changed.

So it was with Lincoln's attitude towards slavery. What was possible and desireable at the time changed as circumstances changed. But in contrast to many other politicians of the day, Lincoln did have a bedrock conviction that slavery was wrong, though practical accomodations would have to be made to circumstances and changing priorities.

We demand that everything be subjected to moral convictions that we have already come to agree on. But is that the case with contentious issues in our own day? Were there is no consensus, policy can't take on contentious questions head on. It has to procede by zigzags and half-measures, a step backwards for two forwards.

The controversy also gets complicated, because slavery was the issue in the 19th century, and people today are talking more about racial equality and integration, which were very radical ideas at the time. It was too much to ask for any serious candidate to office to support racial equality.

[billbears]

Slaveowners in the North

Well we all know this couldn't be true. The statists here on FR and the infinitely wise over at the Claremont Institute know much more than silly old facts

Some states did take action, enacting bans one by one, so that by 1863 the practice was illegal in most of the North.

Notice most, and considering that many of the states that had banned slavery didn't even allow blacks to live in their borders such as Oregon and lincoln's home state Illinois

And, those rumors that some of slaves were of European-American descent??? This internet is crazy...

Ff--150, now don't get upset. Everyone knows that all the 'valid' information comes from AOL chat sites. Well that and the World Socialist Web Site. That's where James McPherson gives us a three part interview on the 'real' causes of the war

Now can someone tell me again why we're supposed to listen to anything McPhernut has to say?

[Non-Sequitur]

Notice most, and considering that many of the states that had banned slavery didn't even allow blacks to live in their borders such as Oregon and lincoln's home state Illinois.

Gee how can that be, billbears? According to the census of 1860 there were 7,628 free blacks living in Illinois. That was more than the number of free blacks in Tennessee (7,300). That was more than twice as many as lived in Georgia (3,500). That was almot 3,000 more than the number of blacks in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, and Florida combined (4,873). Even Oregon, teeny little Oregon, had almost as many free blacks (128) as there were in all of Arkansas (144), even though Arkansas had 8 times as many people as Oregon. So it seems that, once again, you're wrong, billbears. Better luck next time.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lincoln was indeed fundamental in ending slavery in the US both in fact and in law.

I don't think it's debatable at all. Emancipation Proclamation aside, President Lincoln was instrumental in getting the 13th Amendment passed in 1864-65 and sent to the states.

[wasp69]

archaeologists are getting glimpses of a chapter of America's past that written histories have either ignored or forgotten.

Not forgotten, ignored. Either way, the wall of historical revision comes down one more brick.

[wasp69]

Oh brother, more neo-Confederate "everybody did it therefore the civil war wasn't about slavery and Lincoln was like Hitler or Stalin."

Really? I didn't read any such thing in this article. Sounded more to me like true history finally being told, warts and all.

Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery.

Really? Lincoln abolished slavery? When did that happen?

[Savage Beast]

Yes. So did American Indians, i.e. Native Americans.

Another little touted FACT is that people in Africa and Asia, including those in Muslim countries, OWN SLAVES TODAY!

"Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."

The American Anti-Slavery Group is working hard to end this horror. They deserve the support of all of us.

[Ff--150]

Everyone knows that all the 'valid' information comes from AOL chat sites. Well that and the World Socialist Web Site.

Lol...FReepmail on the way...

[billbears]

Oregon Constitution 1859

No free Negro, or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption of this constitution, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state, or hold any real estate, or make any contract, or maintain any suit therein; and the legislative assembly shall provide by penal laws for the removal by public officers of all such free negroes who shall bring them into the state, or employ or harbor them therein

For the better part of Illinois' antebellum history, free blacks were only allowed to enter the state after posting a $1000 bond. In 1848, Illinois changed its constitution to absolutely prohibit the entrance of free blacks. In 1853, Illinois enacted legislation to enforce the ban. Further, Indiana's Constitution barred free blacks from owning property or entering contracts. Perhaps we need to discuss how many free blacks there were in a slave state such as Virginia (58,042) or North Carolina (30,463) compared to the 'free' states of Vermont (709) and Maine (1,327). But did Oregon's constitution work? Well apparently it did because in 1860 only 128 free blacks lived in the state out of a population of 52,456. From my understanding of the Illinois codes, blacks could be grandfathered in, so that any that lived there before 1853 still lived there. But it looks as if Oregon and Vermont (who both sided with the union) did quite well in enforcing their black laws now doesn't it?

[XRdsRev]

I am baffled by the statement that the existence of slavery in places like New Jersey came as a shock to historians. What historians are these ? They certainly cannot be very proficient in their craft if they are ignorant to the existence of slavery particularly in a State like New Jersey.

Any even cursory investigation of primary or secondary documantery sources for pre 1860 New Jersey history will reveal the existence of slaves or former slaves. The census records are full of them as are early newspaper accounts which printed numerous runaway advertisements.

New Jersey as a whole was also very lukewarm to the concept of fighting the rebellious Southern States. Throughout the War, a sizable portion of the New Jersey population supported copperhead and peace democrats. Lincoln could not win New Jersey's popular vote in the 1864 presidential election. Strong Southern sympathies were evident in portions of the state and it had a long track record of familiarity with southerners themselves. Princeton University and Theological Seminary had a fairly large number of Southern Gentlemen as students in the 1840-50s and Cape May was a favorite resort for many wealthy Southerners in their travels north.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh crap, billbears. We've been down this road time and again and every time you get challenged you toss out wild-ass guesses as to why you claims don't hold water. Grandfathered in Illinois? The number of free blacks rose 50% between 1850 and 1860. If your claim was true then that number should have remained constant or declined. Like the way the number of free blacks declined in Mississippi and Arkansas during that period. Nobody is denying the Oregon Constitution, but you mention Virginia which had a Constitution that required any slave freed in the state to leave within 12 months or else face being sold back into slavery. Sure Virginia had 58,000 free blacks in 1860. In 1850 Virginia had 54,000 so during the same period that the free white population was increasing 25% the free black population increased 7%. During the same period the free black population in Illinois was increasing 50% the free black population in Mississippi decreased by 20%. So if the North was the one with these restriction why wasn't the free black population in the south growing? The slave population sure was.