U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,089 posts, read 10,604,044 times
Reputation: 13438

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coon dog View Post
Must we have 'straw' man arguments?
African-American scholars John Franklin and Alfred Moss:
There can be no doubt that many blacks were sorely mistreated in the North and West. Observers like Fanny Kemble and Frederick L. Olmsted mentioned incidents in their writings. Kemble said of Northern blacks, “They are not slaves indeed, but they are pariahs, debarred from every fellowship save with their own despised race. . . . All hands are extended to thrust them out, all fingers point at their dusky skin, all tongues . . . have learned to turn the very name of their race into an insult and a reproach.” Olmsted seems to have believed the Louisiana black who told him that they could associate with whites more freely in the South than in the North and that he preferred to live in the South because he was less likely to be insulted there. (From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, p. 185)



In an 1858 speech, Lincoln left no doubt about his views on race:
I will say, then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858, New York: The Library of America, 1989, edited by Don Fehrenbacher, p. 751)

The North has nothing to do with the Negroes. I have no more concern for them than I have for the Hottentots. . . . They are not of our race. (In Klingaman, Abraham Lincoln and the Road to Emancipation, p. 295)

Thomas E. Woods says the following about the black codes:
These codes curtailed black liberty in various degrees and the Radicals described them as a continuation of slavery. But the codes were essentially based on Northern vagrancy laws and other restrictive legislation that was still on the books when the Reconstruction Acts were drawn up. Historian Ralph Selph Henry contends that “there was hardly a feature of the apprenticeship and vagrancy acts of Mississippi , and of the other Southern states, which was not substantially duplicated in some of these Northern laws, while many of the Northern provisions were more harsh in their terms than anything proposed in the South.
In the northeast, as well as in Indiana and Wisconsin , the vagrancy laws were as broad as anything in the South, with more severe punishments for violating them. “One without employment wandering abroad, begging, and ‘not giving a good account of himself,’ might be imprisoned as a vagrant, for periods varying from ninety days to three years, in various Northern states.”
Two modern scholars, H. A. Scott Trask and Carey Roberts, contend that the black codes have been misunderstood in their intent and exaggerated in their impact:
“Most granted, or recognized, important legal rights for the freedmen, such as the right to hold property, to marry, to make contracts, to sue, and to testify in court. Many mandated penalties for vagrancy, but the intention there was not to bind them to the land in a state of perpetual serfdom, as was charged by the Northern Radicals, but to end what had become an intolerable situation—the wandering across the South of large numbers of freedmen who were without food, money, jobs, or homes. Such a situation was leading to crime, fear, and violence.”
The sense of moral righteousness that dominated fashionable Northern opinion often blinded Northerners to their own problems. The Chicago Tribune protested the black codes of Mississippi without for a moment reflecting on the laws in its own state. In Illinois , any free black in the state who could not produce a certificate of freedom and who had not posted a bond of one thousand dollars was subject to arrest and to be hired out as a laborer for a year. Illinois continued to forbid the testimony of blacks in cases involving whites. (The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, pp. 80-81)
Objection: Irrelevant.

The relations between the races in the Northern states, and the undisputed oppression of blacks in those states, has nothing to do with why the Southern states attempted to secede, and started a war by attacking a United States military installation.

 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,378,778 times
Reputation: 699
Henry Clay said in 1851 why the US Government should not allow secession of the South Carolina. Slavery was not mentioned. He stated the following:

"You asked what is to be done if South Carolina secedes. I answer unhesitatingly, that the Constitution and the laws of the United States must continue to be enforced there, with all the power of the Union, if necessary... he continues:

"no human government can exist without the power of applying force, and the actual application of it in extreme cases. My belief is, that if it should be applied to South Carolina, in the event of her secession she would be speedily reduced to obedience and that the Union, instead of being weakened, would acquire additional strength...

Source: The Confederate newspaper The New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...BE66838D649FDE
 
Old 01-11-2010, 10:54 PM
 
48,519 posts, read 80,998,062 times
Reputation: 17978
First and foremost it was economic rerasons.Slavery was not at all the top reason;just look at what the union did after the war;certainly it didn't promte black to equal status. Heck ;even during WWII that was not US government policy under FDR.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 11:03 PM
 
900 posts, read 514,590 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
Henry Clay said in 1851 why the US Government should not allow secession of the South Carolina. Slavery was not mentioned. He stated the following:

"You asked what is to be done if South Carolina secedes. I answer unhesitatingly, that the Constitution and the laws of the United States must continue to be enforced there, with all the power of the Union, if necessary... he continues:

"no human government can exist without the power of applying force, and the actual application of it in extreme cases. My belief is, that if it should be applied to South Carolina, in the event of her secession she would be speedily reduced to obedience and that the Union, instead of being weakened, would acquire additional strength...

Source: The Confederate newspaper The New York Times.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...BE66838D649FDE

What on earth does this have to do with anything? Was Henry Clay the President of the United States in 1861?

Or is this a case of 'let's drag out everything anybody ever said about slavery and secession and pretend that the south really didn't secede over slavery'?

Never mind, I know the answer.
 
Old 01-11-2010, 11:05 PM
 
900 posts, read 514,590 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
First and foremost it was economic rerasons.Slavery was not at all the top reason;just look at what the union did after the war;certainly it didn't promte black to equal status. Heck ;even during WWII that was not US government policy under FDR.
No, equality would come later. For most of the rest of the country, it began to arrive when Harry Truman integrated the armed forces and Jackie Robinson integrated baseball.

For the South, judging by the numerous posts on here defending inequality, it still hasn't arrived. But it will eventually. Eventually all the neanderthals will die and the young right wing punks with their white sheets and their confederate flags will be overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

Last edited by Angus Podgorny; 01-11-2010 at 11:17 PM..
 
Old 01-11-2010, 11:15 PM
 
900 posts, read 514,590 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
In 1645 John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote his brother-in-law Emanuel Downing complaining, “I do not see how we can thrive until we get a stock of slaves sufficient to do all our business.”

During the 17th and 18th centuries, New York boasted the largest urban slave population in mainland North America. Slaves made up one-fifth the population. And white New Yorkers lived in terror of slave revolt. An alleged 1741 plot led to the jailing and torture of scores of slaves, 30 of whom were executed, 17 by burning at the stake.

Regarding your "the slave trade stopped in 1810" is not based on fact. For example, the slave ship Wildfire departed the New York harbor on 16 December 1859. On March 18, 1860, Wildfire left the Congo River with 615 Africans, bound for Cuba.

The US ship Mohawk sighted the ship and boarded her on April 26 1860.

I will not list the horrors found on the slave ship.
Let's see, the 17th and 18th centuries. That would be the 1600's and the 1700's. The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. Your point?

The Wildfire, by the way, was owned by a slave trader named Pierre Lepage Pearce. I'm not sure what your point is, since the ship was stopped and seized by a U.S. Navy ship. The slave trade was outlawed in 1810, but as long as their were unscrupulous slave dealers in the south willing to violate the law, the slavers kept trying.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Mississippi
3,049 posts, read 2,378,778 times
Reputation: 699
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
Let's see, the 17th and 18th centuries. That would be the 1600's and the 1700's. The Civil War was fought from 1861-1865. Your point?

The Wildfire, by the way, was owned by a slave trader named Pierre Lepage Pearce. I'm not sure what your point is, since the ship was stopped and seized by a U.S. Navy ship. The slave trade was outlawed in 1810, but as long as their were unscrupulous slave dealers in the south willing to violate the law, the slavers kept trying.

I guess the slave trader Captain Nathaniel Gordon from the state of Maine is really from the South. He was hung in New York city in 1862 to set an example to the other slave traders that prospered in the city.

Between 1859-1860, 85 slave ships were outfitted in New York harbor. This does not count the ones being outfitted in Boston and Portland.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 01:34 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,148 posts, read 18,123,288 times
Reputation: 9868
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe View Post
I guess the slave trader Captain Nathaniel Gordon from the state of Maine is really from the South. He was hung in New York city in 1862 to set an example to the other slave traders that prospered in the city.

Between 1859-1860, 85 slave ships were outfitted in New York harbor. This does not count the ones being outfitted in Boston and Portland.

And were these people in a state of rebellion and war against The United States?

This is just more of your Pee Wee Herman defense of slavery and rebellion.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 01:37 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,148 posts, read 18,123,288 times
Reputation: 9868
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
First and foremost it was economic rerasons.Slavery was not at all the top reason;just look at what the union did after the war;certainly it didn't promte black to equal status. Heck ;even during WWII that was not US government policy under FDR.

Another guy that can't grasp the simple fact that The United States was crushing rebellion regardless of it's reason; a reason that happened to be...slavery.

By the way, the South's defending slavery WAS an economic issue.
 
Old 01-12-2010, 01:46 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
10,148 posts, read 18,123,288 times
Reputation: 9868
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
High tariffs broke the camels back, North was being industrialized on the South expense

Actually tariffs had been on a downward trend and were only raised after the southern states had rebelled and were no longer represented in Congress. Sometimes when a spoiled child takes his ball and goes home the game continues without him.

Also note that several of the secession declarations of rebelling states specifically mentioned the defense of slavery as the cause of secession.

In any event to justify rebellion over tariffs is actually an even worse reason than defending slavery since slavery was at least a deeply ingrained social institution whereas tariffs are just the normal give and take of day to day politics.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top