Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is the American civil war really over??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Crocodylus View Post
    (Bold emphasis mine :)))

    Original article: Slavery in the North
    I'm not sure what your point is with your bolded part. The evidence as presented doesn't support the conclusion you highlighted. Additional questions that aren't addressed include: Why didn't the North then develop large scale industrial slavery? Why didn't the North maintain smaller scale agrarian slavery?

    The article does confirm what's already been agreed to: that slavery did exist in the North, that it did fade away, and that there was a moral component to it fading away.
    "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

    Comment


    • My $0.02 on the decline of slavery in the North

      Originally posted by Shek View Post
      I'm not sure what your point is with your bolded part. The evidence as presented doesn't support the conclusion you highlighted. Additional questions that aren't addressed include: Why didn't the North then develop large scale industrial slavery? Why didn't the North maintain smaller scale agrarian slavery?

      The article does confirm what's already been agreed to: that slavery did exist in the North, that it did fade away, and that there was a moral component to it fading away.
      Well... the emphasized part was not a conclusion on my part, but rather a point that I made in an earlier post.

      The moral component cannot be denied. The Puritan and other Protestant religious traditions usually discouraged slavery and eventually it died out in most of the Northeast. In New York City and some parts of Pennsylvania slavery still persisted, albeit on a scale smaller than what was typical of the Southern States.

      However, two other things may have had a greater influence on the decline of slavery in the North. One is the cool climate of the North, which made large-scale farming impractical and therefore made redundant large retinues of slave laborers. Thus, it might've been more economical for many to free their slaves than to maintain them. Only the wealthiest families would've had the money & resources needed to keep slaves. Also, since the Blacks-are-subhuman mindset still prevailed at the time, there was often the risk of Black freedmen being kidnapped by underground slave traders and sold as slaves in the South.

      Another is that most people in the North believed that America was a country for White men, particularly those of Northern European extraction. Of course those of African descent were not considered part of the mainstream and so were often treated as second-class citizens in many, many places. Enslavement of Blacks on any large scale would've been unpopular (due to the fear of mass insurrections) and so eventually slavery was outlawed. This kept the total number of Afro-Americans in the North rather small, thus making them easier to control and lessening any race-based tensions in public.

      A kind of "industrial slavery" did develop in the North, but factory workers were actually paid in money and had a regular workday after which they would go home. Despite the dangerous working conditions and long hours, industrial jobs were not generally considered demeaning and thus plenty of Whites worked in factories.

      The website is interesting, so I'll be reading it some more :)

      Comment


      • Croc,

        I've highlighted what appear to be the key points of your argument (tell me if I'm wrong. A few things occour. My main question is 'which of these were untrue of the South?'.

        The moral component cannot be denied. The Puritan and other Protestant religious traditions usually discouraged slavery
        Obviously the strength of the abolitionist movement was stronger in the North.

        cool climate of the North, which made large-scale farming impractical
        I'll take your word on agriculture. I don't know enough about it to agree or disagree. I am curious to know, however, if the North really was agriculturally unsuited to larger scale agricultural slavery.

        Also, since the Blacks-are-subhuman mindset still prevailed at the time, there was often the risk of Black freedmen being kidnapped by underground slave traders and sold as slaves in the South.
        I really don't see much in this. The real issue is not the humanity of blacks, but their status as property. That would surely be no less true within the South & would be dealt with in the same fashion as any other theft. If the South could push through legislation forcing non-slave states to return runaways then the Nth could have found plenty of powerful allies to defend the sanctity of their human property.

        Another is that most people in the North believed that America was a country for White men, particularly those of Northern European extraction
        I assume you are getting at the 'free soil' movement here. Southerners were no less inclined to see their country as being for whites, they were just more prepared to use or accept the use of black property to extract profit from it. While there were political & economic dimensions here, but there were also moral ones.

        Enslavement of Blacks on any large scale would've been unpopular (due to the fear of mass insurrections) and so eventually slavery was outlawed.
        This was one of the most potent fears in the antebellum South, and was used as a justification for precisely the opposite course.

        My other question is 'what here prevented the importation of blacks as slaves for factory work?'. Northern employers had been happy enough to use indentured labor & treat workers appallingly, why not buy in slaves? They would probably have been cheaper, more expendable & easier to control.

        No one here is going to disagree with the contention that the death of slavery in the North was more than simply an issue of morality. In fact, I'm pretty sure that to this point no one has. It has never been at issue here. Which leads me to the question - what is your point of contention?
        sigpic

        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

        Comment


        • my (hopefully) last tuppence

          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
          My other question is 'what here prevented the importation of blacks as slaves for factory work?'. Northern employers had been happy enough to use indentured labor & treat workers appallingly, why not buy in slaves? They would probably have been cheaper, more expendable & easier to control.

          No one here is going to disagree with the contention that the death of slavery in the North was more than simply an issue of morality. In fact, I'm pretty sure that to this point no one has. It has never been at issue here. Which leads me to the question - what is your point of contention?
          When one asks a question like that, there is not much else to be said. I'll need to read up a bit more on the topic before posting again.

          To answer the above quoted question, after 1 January, 1808 the US government prohibited the importation of slaves into the States. Thus, the price of slaves began to rise and only a wealthy families could employ them in large numbers. Wealthy families in the South often prospered greatly and so were able to purchase and maintain slaves. Northern industry would've not been competitive if they employed slaves. Even if no money were paid out, housing and feeding them would've been really expensive. This would've dissuaded Europeans and Americans alike from buying US-made products due to the high final price. Thus, it was more profitable just to hire citizens and pay them a small wage.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Crocodylus View Post
            When one asks a question like that, there is not much else to be said. I'll need to read up a bit more on the topic before posting again.

            To answer the above quoted question, after 1 January, 1808 the US government prohibited the importation of slaves into the States. Thus, the price of slaves began to rise and only a wealthy families could employ them in large numbers. Wealthy families in the South often prospered greatly and so were able to purchase and maintain slaves. Northern industry would've not been competitive if they employed slaves. Even if no money were paid out, housing and feeding them would've been really expensive. This would've dissuaded Europeans and Americans alike from buying US-made products due to the high final price. Thus, it was more profitable just to hire citizens and pay them a small wage.
            These are all the same costs born by all other slaveowners. The price of slaves fluctuated around a pretty steady average (the same price as in 1808) for about 4 decades. While slave importation was outlawed, slaves reproduced and therefore the supply increased over time.

            Which brings us back to the same question, which is why they weren't used in the northern factories.

            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

            Comment


            • The last U.S. census slave schedules were enumerated by County in 1860 and included 393,975 named persons holding 3,950,546 unnamed slaves, or an average of about ten slaves per holder. The actual number of slaveholders may be slightly lower because some large holders held slaves in more than one County and would have been counted in each County.

              Excluding slaves, the 1860 U.S. population was 27,167,529, with about 1 in 70being a slaveholder. It is estimated by this transcriber that in 1860, slaveholders of 200 or more slaves, while constituting less than 1 % of the total number of U.S. slaveholders, or 1 out of 7,000 free persons, held 20-30% of the total number of slaves in the U.S.

              Largest US County Slaveholders in 1860

              Comment


              • 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. 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).

                In 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.

                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 this number, 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.

                To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

                The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

                In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000. That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978.

                In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings. In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners.

                In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

                At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.

                On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."

                Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.

                Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.

                Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

                In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop. In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.

                On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

                In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.

                Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.

                Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations.

                In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."

                Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property.

                The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.

                In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.

                By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father. They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.

                In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.

                Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves. Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.

                While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

                As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.

                William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.

                Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.

                The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."

                Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877.

                A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

                Black Slave Owners Civil War Article by Robert M Grooms

                Comment


                • Julie,
                  I'm not sure what point you're addressing with your posts, but I find it curiously strange how the author wants to compare micro-level statistics to macro-level statistics as if they were both apples (or both oranges).
                  "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                  Comment


                  • I find it fascinating how often these threads alone have attracted mention of the small number of black slaveowners. I'm yet to work out what their purpose is, apart from some interesting trivia (which I'm pretty sure is not the purpose).
                    sigpic

                    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Crocodylus View Post
                      When one asks a question like that, there is not much else to be said. I'll need to read up a bit more on the topic before posting again.

                      To answer the above quoted question, after 1 January, 1808 the US government prohibited the importation of slaves into the States. Thus, the price of slaves began to rise and only a wealthy families could employ them in large numbers. Wealthy families in the South often prospered greatly and so were able to purchase and maintain slaves. Northern industry would've not been competitive if they employed slaves. Even if no money were paid out, housing and feeding them would've been really expensive. This would've dissuaded Europeans and Americans alike from buying US-made products due to the high final price. Thus, it was more profitable just to hire citizens and pay them a small wage.
                      Croc,

                      Do you have any figures to suggest that using slaves for industrial labor would have been more expensive than using workers? I can see more money being needed in the startup phase, but would it really work out more expensive over a few years (let alone the longer term)?

                      Indeed, the family units that were often used for slavery in the Sth were ideal for many of the 'cottage industries' that produced goods in the antebellum period, and to some extent they can grow their own food.

                      There is another point implicit in what you wrote, however, and it is the act of banning the slave trade. Why do it? An ongoing slave trade would have made factory & farm labor dirt cheap & disposable. It would also have made mechants in Boston, New York, Philadelphia etc. wealthy. Yet all but a few southern colonies voted to outlaw the slave trade as early as the constitutional convention.

                      Why were the ruthless & money grubbing capitalists of the Nth so prepared to turn their back on the ultimate source of cheap & pliable farm & factory labor?
                      sigpic

                      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                      Comment


                      • In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.
                        Wishful thinking allied to blame shifting. The South had generations to begin the process of ending slavery. It did not do so. All it had to do to spare the nation the trauma of the Civil War was not start the damned thing. The only part of America prepared to go to war over slavery was the Sth.
                        sigpic

                        Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                          I find it fascinating how often these threads alone have attracted mention of the small number of black slaveowners. I'm yet to work out what their purpose is, apart from some interesting trivia (which I'm pretty sure is not the purpose).
                          I find it fascinating the small number of slaveholders in comparison to the entire population at the time. But at $400.00 as the going rate, that would be understandable. 650,000 lives were lost because 1% of the population owned slaves, and of that 1%, some of them were black slaveowners.

                          Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                          Wishful thinking allied to blame shifting. The South had generations to begin the process of ending slavery. It did not do so. All it had to do to spare the nation the trauma of the Civil War was not start the damned thing. The only part of America prepared to go to war over slavery was the Sth.
                          Blame should be spread around to everyone involved in that process, including the slave trade in Africa. Had they not been sold, they would not have been bought. Lincoln even said in one of his addresses, that they were much better off than being sent back to Africa. That I would agree.

                          After the war, slaveowners came in all colors, not just white. I'm not shifting the responsibility, just placing back where it obviously was.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Julie View Post
                            I find it fascinating the small number of slaveholders in comparison to the entire population at the time. But at $400.00 as the going rate, that would be understandable. 650,000 lives were lost because 1% of the population owned slaves, and of that 1%, some of them were black slaveowners.
                            Little Jane and Little Bobby didn't own slaves. So looking at it as solely a function of population is misleading (and your figure is skewed by the fact that you're quoting a low figure that is based on the entire US population in 1860). When you translate it to families that owned slaves, you come up with a 36% ownership rate in the deep South (seceded before Fort Sumter) and a 25% ownership rate in the middle South (seceded after Fort Sumter).

                            Slavery permeated deeply throughout the social fabric of the South.

                            Originally posted by Julie
                            Blame should be spread around to everyone involved in that process, including the slave trade in Africa. Had they not been sold, they would not have been bought. Lincoln even said in one of his addresses, that they were much better off than being sent back to Africa. That I would agree.

                            After the war, slaveowners came in all colors, not just white. I'm not shifting the responsibility, just placing back where it obviously was.
                            Yes, there are Northern fingerprints in the slave trade. However, that trade had ceased half a century earlier, so it's a weak argument. Did they fire the shots at Fort Sumter? Did they vote to secede from the Union? No. The North tried several major compromises to avert the war and bring the Southern states back into their proper relationship to the Union. However, they would accept only a Constitutional amendment that would allow slavery to be spread far and wide across all new territories of the United States.

                            The beginning of the war can be traced to specific actions - secession and aggression by the Southern states. Occam's Razor applies here.
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Shek View Post
                              The North tried several major compromises to avert the war and bring the Southern states back into their proper relationship to the Union. However, they would accept only a Constitutional amendment that would allow slavery to be spread far and wide across all new territories of the United States.
                              The North tried, the North tried. Did you know that Jefferson Davis was against secession from the Union? Do you know he introduced 7 pieces of legislation in the final attempt to stop states from seceding, and they were shot down by the opposition? Did you know that a few states had right of secession clauses in their ratification into the Union? Did you know that Charleston Harbor was a checkpoint to collect tariffs by force?
                              Last edited by Julie; 14 Dec 09,, 20:30.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Julie View Post
                                The North tried, the North tried. Did you know that Jefferson Davis was against secession from the Union? Do you know he introduced 7 pieces of legislation in the final attempt to stop states from seceding, and they were shot down by the opposition? Did you know that a few states had right of secession clauses in their ratification into the Union? Did you know that Charleston Harbor was a checkpoint to collect tariffs by force?
                                1. Yes, I knew that Davis was against secession for much of his time in the Senate. However, I believe you are referring to the six resolutions, which were an attempt to consolidate opinion amongst Democrats against popular sovereignty, the prevailing policy of his own party at the time. Instead of preventing secession, his resolutions ended up splitting the party and electing Lincoln, which the Southern Democrats then used as an excuse to start secession and then the war. He was also part of the team that created the compromises post-secession but pre-war that the South rejected.

                                2. Madison sent back those ratifications and told them that they were null. I've posted that about three or four times already.

                                3. Fort Sumter belonged to the United States government. It was given to it by the state of South Carolina.
                                "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X