Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 04-20-2014, 10:05 PM
 
2,933 posts, read 4,097,441 times
Reputation: 2784

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
Here is a good question in return. If it had not been for the northern slave trade, would slavery have ever existed in the South to begin with. Read this link (and sub-links) when you get a chance!


Slavery in the North

The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North.

This argument, embraced almost universally by New England abolitionists, made good sense as part of a strategy to heap blame for everything wrong with American society on southern slavery, but it also had the advantage, to northern ears, of conveniently shifting accountability for a locally specific situation away from the indigenous institution from which it had evolved."


Because up until 1865 the growth in the black communities in those northern cities was made up almost entirely of illiterate and destitute escaped slaves from the South.

Quote:
Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England's antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.
This is about as disingenuous as blaming Liberians for an oil spill in Asia because the tanker was flying their flag . . . even though the owners of the ship are British and the crew is Filipino.

Slavery in the english and french Caribbean was over by 1833/1848 so not sure what your point is with rum. Blaming northern abolitionists for not cutting off interstate commerce fast enough is also disingenuous because, if you're american you should know that interstate commerce is the purview of the federal government in which the South had an outsized and skewed voice in. You'd also know that the abolitionists pushed the country to war over the issue so to say they weren't doing enough is preposterous.

Quote:
Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans.
Baltimore is in Maryland. Maryland was a slave state until 1865 and was occupied by Federal troops for the duration of the Civil War. To most people in 2014 Maryland is a "northern state" but it was still segregated until the 60s so, up until 50 years ago it most certainly wasn't "northern".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2014, 10:50 PM
 
10,238 posts, read 19,535,811 times
Reputation: 5943
Quote:
=drive carephilly;34452426]Because up until 1865 the growth in the black communities in those northern cities was made up almost entirely of illiterate and destitute escaped slaves from the South.
No, it wasn't. Most of the blacks in the northern states were there because that part of the country was where slavery on the American continent first began (Massachusetts was the first to legalize slavery).

Quote:
This is about as disingenuous as blaming Liberians for an oil spill in Asia because the tanker was flying their flag . . . even though the owners of the ship are British and the crew is Filipino.
No, it isn't. The analogy is ludicrous and doesn't hold up at all in terms of the writing of history. The northeastern states made a pure profit off the slave trade, and later wanted to deny it.

The northern states only abolished slavery because they found it was much easier and convenient to hire and fire "free" workers" bound by labor contracts and to the "company store", not out of any altruistic concerns for black people. Also? None of them abolished it outright, only when there would be no economic inconvenience.

Here is a good one:

Northern Emancipation

Edgar McManus, the historian of Northern slavery, finds that �abolitionists of the 1780's belonged to the business elite which thirty years before had reaped handsome profits from the slave trade. The precipitous decline of the trade after 1770 apparently sharpened the moral sensibilities of those who had formerly profited. ... The leaders of the abolition movement were honorable men who sincerely regarded slavery as a great moral wrong. But it is also true that they embraced antislavery at a time when it entailed no economic hardship for their class.�


Quote:
Slavery in the english and french Caribbean was over by 1833/1848 so not sure what your point is with rum. Blaming northern abolitionists for not cutting off interstate commerce fast enough is also disingenuous because, if you're american you should know that interstate commerce is the purview of the federal government in which the South had an outsized and skewed voice in. You'd also know that the abolitionists pushed the country to war over the issue so to say they weren't doing enough is preposterous.
This "point" makes absolutely no sense in turn. Try and be a little more explanatory in what point you are trying to make (whatever it might be). For one thing, as a general rule, abolitionists were generally despised in the northern states (the worst race-riot in American history as related to the War was in New York City and the violence was directed at blacks).

Quote:
Baltimore is in Maryland. Maryland was a slave state until 1865 and was occupied by Federal troops for the duration of the Civil War. To most people in 2014 Maryland is a "northern state" but it was still segregated until the 60s so, up until 50 years ago it most certainly wasn't "northern".
By the way? New Jersey was actually the last state to officially outlaw slavery. Regardless though, the most "segregated" cities in the US were in northern states...and the most violent resistance in northern cities (Boston, MA, Pontiac, MI), and Dr. King once said along the lines of "If you want to teach a white Southerner how to hate, send him to Chicago.."

So just come to terms with it and yourself. You are a self-righteous northerner who cannot stand the fact that some of your own region's history can come back to haunt you!

Before signing off though, gotta add this one for the edification of those New Englanders who think Rhode Island was some sort of bastion of freedom and liberation...

Slavery in Rhode Island
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 07:06 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,156,115 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyborgt800 View Post
The Civil War was NOT about slavery and did NOT outlaw slavery! Get educated people and quit just believing revisionist history....GEESH!
You're the one who needs to get educated. It's only "revisionist history" that pretends that slavery was NOT why the South attempted rebellion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 07:19 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,156,115 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
For one thing, it wasn't necessary; the Constitution did not give any authority for the federal government to use force to coerce any state into a Union it no longer wanted to be part of. No reason to take it to a federal court, because things like this go much beyond 9 men ruling.

And besides, what if the SCOTUS had ruled the Southern states had no right to secede? Think that would have stopped it? But more importantly, what if SCOTUS had said, yes, go ahead you have every right? Would that have stopped Lincoln and his minions from still using military force to coerce them...as they needed the South's tax money? (and that was all it was about anyway...)

In some ways, all this backs up a goodly portion of what you say...and yes, most northerners did oppose the war and wanted to say, ok, big deal, you Southerners, hit the road! But Lincoln chose to invade a people who had done the north no wrong to begin with...
Lincoln wasn't even President yet when the southern states seceded and set up the Confederacy. He still wasn't POTUS when Confederate forces seized US federal property in much of the South. Furthermore, it wasn't Federal forces who fired on Charleston but Confederate forces who fired on Ft Sumter in Charleston Harbor.

The Confederates rebelled. That's called treason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 08:33 AM
 
Location: Earth
4,505 posts, read 6,462,454 times
Reputation: 4962
Quote:
You're the one who needs to get educated. It's only "revisionist history" that pretends that slavery was NOT why the South attempted rebellion.
Honest Abe
History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."


The Civil war was about states rights and an increasingly obtrusive Federal Government....slavery was only a small part of the problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Backwoods of Maine
7,486 posts, read 10,445,399 times
Reputation: 21460
When the OP speaks of "the South" I assume they mean a group of states that secede as a unit. That is economically very different than a single state, or a portion of one, seceding by itself. Granted, most states are extrememly dependent upon federal funding...but where does federal funding come from? It's the income taxes paid by the population of the states. Without having to pay income taxes, gasoline taxes, Social Security taxes, and (fill in the blank) taxes, the residents of those states would have much more money. These efforts usually revolve around taxes.

Let's follow the "money" a bit further. What would the residents of a new sovereign nation use as "money"? The Federal Reserve (neither federal, nor has it any reserves) prints our unbacked paper fiat currency. Every nation in the world now has an unbacked paper fiat currency. But that requires a central bank. And our central bank - the Federal Reserve - is the promulgator of policies that so many Americans see as anti-American, anti-constitution, and anti-"the way things used to be". The Federal Reserve uses politicians and big corporations to further their agenda.

Maine, which separated from Massachusetts in 1820, was the last state to "secede".

Some folks in the South, disgusted with the hubris and arrogance of the DC gang, imagine that they can correct the direction this country is going in ("wrong" according to them) by separating from the US. Perhaps they can, I don't know. I do know it has nothing to do with slavery, nor with Obama being part black. It has more to do with taxes and burdensome regulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 09:21 AM
 
Location: The High Desert
16,033 posts, read 10,596,558 times
Reputation: 31283
"The South" doesn't threaten to secede -- just some big mouths too stupid to know any better.

I grow weary hearing about "the South" and its wondrous virtues and how it has been victimized and wronged for so long by "the North", liberals, Federal guv'ment , outside agitators, etc., etc. On the other hand, "the South" isn't the cause or source of all of our problems. The Civil War is over. "The South" doesn't exist as any kind of common experience or monolithc entity. It mostly exists between the ears of folks who constantly drag it into these discussions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
1,584 posts, read 2,074,548 times
Reputation: 2134
I grew up in the south (I'm 29) and this topic is a load of hot garbage. No one is seceding. No one talks about seceding outside of an extremely small minority of buffoons. I couldn't tell you the last time I'd even heard the word secede before reading this thread. If you told those people that seceding would mean the end of SEC Football, they'd never mention it ever again. That's way more important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,579 posts, read 86,681,866 times
Reputation: 36642
Short answer? Same reason Vermont does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2014, 12:35 PM
 
1,021 posts, read 2,295,791 times
Reputation: 1478
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyborgt800 View Post
Honest Abe
History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."


The Civil war was about states rights and an increasingly obtrusive Federal Government....slavery was only a small part of the problem.
You clearly did not read my initial reply to you on Page 9 (or any of these history books you claim are misleading). It was Confederate States of America Vice-President Alexander H. Stephens who declared secession was about slavery. If the Civil War was about "States' Rights" it wasn't about the rights of Southern States. Northern states wanted the right to NOT enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and Southern states wanted the federal government to intervene and force private citizens of Northern states to be involuntary deputized to track down the private property (slaves) or private Southern citizens.

When the federal government only marginally enforced the Fugitive Slave Act under Doughfaces like Pierce and Buchanan and states such as Wisconsin, Missouri, and Pennsylvania had long since challenged the constitutionality of such laws, only then did the Southern states (Senators) want to take their toys home and try to secede as it was clear that President-elect Lincoln was not going to be their lapdog.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top