Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And the North didn't profit 1 cent off of slavery? Not only did they profit from slavery they allmighty moral North had something even better, child labor which went on long after 1865.
I don't know, did the North profit from slavery? How? And if so I assume not so much as the southern slaveowners did.
Child labor wasn't slavery. Better to be poor than to be property, wouldn't you agree?
No, but they engaged in it with great enthusiasm and for profit.
And if ole Bobby Lee didn't hold with slavery he sure had an odd way of showing it, you know, in effect fighting to preserve it.
It's hard to believe that every Confederate soldier fought in defense of slavery when 90 percent of them owned no slaves (you can find this statistic in virtually every reputible publication on this topic), and also considering that the majority of them were impoverished by the planter aristocracy. I don't see how your average Johnny Reb was going to make any profit by taking a bullet. When you talk about fellas like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stevens, I am inclined to agree with you. I honor the Confederate soldiers in the field who died defending their soil, not the rich folks in Richmond sitting comfortably in the Confederate Congress or at home in their mansions. That's the difference. Most of the boys that enlisted believed that they were defending their native soil, but the politicians (as in all wars) were just looking to make a buck. Men like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee are American heroes, as are the men they led. The Fire-Breathers like Davis and Stevens are something less. I like looking at things more evenly. Does fighting for the side that freed the slaves to prevent Great Britain and France from allying themselves with the South excuse its post-war Indian genocide? Most people leave that part out. The Indian Territory overwhelmingly sided with the Confederacy, and the highest ranked American Indian on either side was Confederate General Stand Watie. Also, interestingly, the highest ranking Mexican-American was a Confederate Colonel descended from the founder of Laredo, Texas.
The very site you cite says that New Jersey abolished slavery long before the Great Rebellion whereas in the rebelling states slavery was legal until 1863, midway through the rebellion, or 1865 after the rebellion's end, depending on how you view it.
In any event the claim that there were a few slaves in the North pales to the number of slaves in the South and the fact that the South rebelled to preserve slavery, something New Jersey certainly didn't do.
It's hard to believe that every Confederate soldier fought in defense of slavery when 90 percent of them owned no slaves (you can find this statistic in virtually every reputible publication on this topic), and also considering that the majority of them were impoverished by the planter aristocracy....
It's simple, they were duped by their political and social leaders. Such a thing is not uncommon.
Note too that poor Whites had a stake in the slavery system in that the presence of slaves kept poor Whites above the bottom of the social scale. Also poor Whites aspired to becoming slave owners. This is similar to why the modern American working class is not socialist though socialism would be in it's interest.
Areas of the rebellious states that had low numbers of slaves such as eastern Tennessee, western North Carolina and southwestern Mississippi were also areas with strong Unionist sentiment and heavy recruiting into the Union army. That's no accident.
That's nice. But if we're going to talk about historic hostility towards blacks in the South, then it's equally fair to rehash race riots in supposedly-enlightened venues such as Indiana, New York, Springfield, East St. Louis, Omaha, Chester Pennsylvania, Detroit, and Chicago. And, of course, the KKK enjoyed a great deal of recruiting success in places such as Washington state, Oregon, California, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Rhode Island. Heck, during the Klan's resurgence in the 1920s, most of its membership was in the Midwest.
OK, people in the North disliked Blacks. People in the South owned Blacks. Would you rather be disliked or owned? How about disliked AND owned?
This is perhaps the most amusing defense used by those defending slavery and secession. It's the 'People in the North didn't like blacks either, so it was perfectly OK for the South to own them, buy them, sell them, and abuse them'.
It's also the lamest.
I do feel some compassion for the ignorant farm boys who actually were convinced by their supposed leaders that they were fighting for some noble cause. They were just stupid and cannon fodder. I have no compassion for the traitors who made war on the United States and were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. None. Nor do I have any respect for them. Unlike the dumb Mississippi farm boys, they did know better.
The very site you cite says that New Jersey abolished slavery long before the Great Rebellion whereas in the rebelling states slavery was legal until 1863, midway through the rebellion, or 1865 after the rebellion's end, depending on how you view it.
In any event the claim that there were a few slaves in the North pales to the number of slaves in the South and the fact that the South rebelled to preserve slavery, something New Jersey certainly didn't do.
They abolished slavery, but allowed slaves to remain under the euphemism of permanent indentured servitude, which meant they were slaves in all but name.
No question, that the South had the vast majority of slaves in this country. But to imply that somehow the North was enlightened on the question of race would be a seriously ludicrous position.
I don't know, did the North profit from slavery? How? And if so I assume not so much as the southern slaveowners did.
Child labor wasn't slavery. Better to be poor than to be property, wouldn't you agree?
Oh come on you know better. Plenty of Northern ships flying the U.S. flag brought slaves over here to begin with. Why go catch whales when human cargo brought in more profit? Some Southern plantations if they were not outright owned by Northern interests were certainley financed by them.
Better to be poor than property? I don't know, many slaves were fed, clothed, and recieved medical attention to their grave. If your a 7 year old child halfway through your 14 hour work day on your $1 a week job and you get your arms caught in machine in 1889, there is no disability, unemployment, workman's comp. You'd be out in the street unable to provide for yourself and it's unlikely anyone would provide for you.
OK, people in the North disliked Blacks. People in the South owned Blacks. Would you rather be disliked or owned? How about disliked AND owned?
Oh, no question. But that's not really the point here. The treatment of blacks everywhere in the country was egregious. It seems rather pointless of you to argue otherwise.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
