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.
There was a law in place that prevented the 1807 act from being implemented until 1808 thus in fact voiding it almost immediately. Slave trade in Boston harbour continued well in the 1860's, and there is ample documentation to that fact.
Additionally, while other laws were in fact put in place to "stop" the slave trade, a blind eye was in fact turned to the obvious taking place, many ships flying flags under other nations such as Venezuela.
Another interesting factoid, while the slave trade was in fact (outlawed) many northerners had slaved (to include the wife of Ulysses Grant).
Your information about the midwest territories is semi correct, and perhaps you should look up the 1850 accords and the fact that it left slavery intact for many territories including the district of columbia.
There is a distinct difference between stopping the importation of slaves and actually slave trading that accorded within the United States. I'm aware that slave trading took place in the United States after 1808.
I'd love to see some information regard how the law associated with the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves and how it was "voided". Can you supply a source I can reference? I'd also like a reference to the slave trading that occurred in Boston AFTER 1808.
Also I clearly stated that the importation of slaves into the United States was illegal and considered an act of piracy after 1808. I never stated that it stopped so we agree on that.
And yes, I'm aware that slavery was permitted in New Mexico and Utah territory based on the Compromise of 1850. But it never really took hold in either territory due to climate and a population that was not really pro-slavery. I mentioned that fact about western territories in my last post.
Also the slave trade was never completely outlawed in the District of Colombia prior to the Civil War and I never said it was.
There is a distinct difference between stopping the importation of slaves and actually slave trading that accorded within the United States. I'm aware that slave trading took place in the United States after 1808.
Correct.
Quote:
I'd love to see some information regard how the law associated with the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves and how it was "voided".
I would love read that as well if it is referring to legally sanctioned trading, if it was not legal but based upon smuggling, I will pass.
Quote:
I'm aware that slavery was permitted in New Mexico and Utah territory based on the Compromise of 1850.
Not exactly since the Compromise of 1850 allowed for the territorial government to decide, and neither ever got around to doing that. Neither New Mexico or Utah were ever "slave territories".
It's always been known that slavery was a "side issue" to the Civil War - where were you during American History classes?
In one that actually taught history.
Anyway, maybe this will help clear up this controversy.
In the 1950's the Civil War was about slavery.
In the 1960's the left (for their own reasons) decided to knock Lincoln down a peg or two and to establish a very neo-Marxian view that the war was nothing more than a clash of the bourgouise.
In the 70's and 80's the Civil War dropped off the radar screen.
In the 1990's states rights once again became the rallying cry of the Republican Party, conservatives in general and neo-Confederates in particular.
For me, the conflicting arguments can be framed in this manner:
Despite the protestations to the contrary, the contemporaneous documents are clear once you cast aside the 19th century rhetorical flourishes and histrionics, the war for the South was about preserving slavery and nothing else.
For the north, slavery was an issue for some, but it was preservation of Union that drove the federal government.
As Lincoln put it:
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
1. I mis-spoke, and meant to say. the act of 1807 to prohibit the importation of slaves could not be implemented till 1808 due to constitutional issues. It wasn't that it could not be implemented it was that it could not be done until 1808.
2. Yes the importation of slaves was banned, but the government turned a blind eye to it, and it was still taking place. Below is a link with has some good information concerning this statement.
3. Slavery was alive and well in the north, and you can argue against that statement all you want, however look up Ulysses Grant and you will see that during the civil war, how wife and his family owned slaves.
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States.
1. I mis-spoke, and meant to say. the act of 1807 to prohibit the importation of slaves could not be implemented till 1808 due to constitutional issues. It wasn't that it could not be implemented it was that it could not be done until 1808.
2. Yes the importation of slaves was banned, but the government turned a blind eye to it, and it was still taking place. Below is a link with has some good information concerning this statement.
3. Slavery was alive and well in the north, and you can argue against that statement all you want, however look up Ulysses Grant and you will see that during the civil war, how wife and his family owned slaves.
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States.
Anyway, maybe this will help clear up this controversy.
In the 1950's the Civil War was about slavery.
In the 1960's the left (for their own reasons) decided to knock Lincoln down a peg or two and to establish a very neo-Marxian view that the war was nothing more than a clash of the bourgouise.
In the 70's and 80's the Civil War dropped off the radar screen.
In the 1990's states rights once again became the rallying cry of the Republican Party, conservatives in general and neo-Confederates in particular.
For me, the conflicting arguments can be framed in this manner:
Despite the protestations to the contrary, the contemporaneous documents are clear once you cast aside the 19th century rhetorical flourishes and histrionics, the war for the South was about preserving slavery and nothing else.
For the north, slavery was an issue for some, but it was preservation of Union that drove the federal government.
As Lincoln put it:
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Same war, two different motivations.
A lot has been said and argued about the south and the north, slavery or not. I am a second generation American, so what knowledge I have comes from learning, study, debates, and yes, finding out that information I had was wrong, and learning from someone else with more knowledge on the subject.
Lincoln who in Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858, against Stephen Douglas, said the following.
"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 or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone."
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.
same person 2 faced information
