[groanup]

Posted for discussion purposes only.

[jlogajan]

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

Well, it was the north and Lincoln that abolished slavery. The south fought to maintain slavery.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

There were also many white indentured servants (essentially slaves), probably far exceeding the number of black slaves in the North.

The article seems to imply that all Northern slaves were black.

[sweetliberty]

Ping! This could prove to be an interesting development. Wonder how the yankee apologists will try to spin it.

[sweetliberty]

"strayed from the history books"

Imteresting and appropriate turn of a phrase.

[sweetliberty]

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

And I firmly believe that the practice would have eventually been banned in all states, north and south in fairly short order had the invasion from the north not occurred.

[Ff--150]

oh my! and they found the largest graveyard for slaves on...Wall Street ten years ago, or so???

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

[Savage Beast]

"Slaveholding plantations, usually thought of as uniquely Southern institutions..."

Usually thought of by whom? Those who believe propaganda?

And slavery is alive and well today, especially in Asia, Africa, and the Muslim world. Don't forget that.

"...a chapter of America's past that written histories have either ignored or forgotten."

Correction: "ignored, forgotten, or intentionally obfuscated."

"Most Northern states abolished slavery before the Civil War"

Yes, New York abolished slavery 32 years before the Civil War.

Ever heard of Sojourner Truth? Born into slavery in New York.

When the U.S. was formed, slavery was legal in every state. That was 84 years before the Civil War.

"Historians are stunned by some of the evidence"

So much for the quality of these particular "historians". If they had wanted to know, they could have known long before now--and they would not be quite so stunned.

"It's hard to believe that such a significant and pervasive part of the past could be so completely erased from our history."

No it's not. Rewriting history is a lot easier than it might seem.

And denial is available to everyone--including "historians".

Say, does anyone besides me see a connection between "historians" and "journalists"?

[Peoria]

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

-- Abraham Lincoln

[Pern]

A little history humor.

Q: What did Lincoln say after his 3-day drunk?

A: I freed WHO?!

[fightu4it]

If there was less slavery in the North, one of the reasons for that was the fact that the Northwest Ordinance forbade slavery in the new territory. That serves as proof positive that the federal government was already taking steps toward ending slavery. While many people in the North were against slavery, they were also against negros setteling in their area. That is why the underground railroad we hear so much about ended in Canada and not the Northern States. Also one must not forget that even after Lincoln's emancipation there was still the "Black laws" that dealt with land ownership and the right to vote.

The reasons for much of what happened can be laid at the feet of the families along the Hudson and their dreams of empire. An empire who's bright future would be dashed to pieces once north and south were two seperate countrys. Which also explains why the north brought such devestation on the southern economic base. They wanted to make sure the south could not ever mount such a challange to their quest again. The family names that are written large on the industrial revolution that followed the war are proof of the success of their planning.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[savedbygrace]

For later reading.