Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2019, 04:59 AM
 
Location: New York Area
35,078 posts, read 17,024,527 times
Reputation: 30228

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The above is not quite accurate. The Dred Scott decision was bizarre in the extreme, regardless of how you felt about the issue of slavery. The Court first ruled that since Dred Scott was not a citizen, he had no standing before the US courts and no right to have sued in the first place. Having made such a ruling, the logical thing to have done was to then dismiss the case since they had in effect just said that there was no legal case. Instead, the Court went further and issued a ruling on a matter which wasn't even before the court...the legality of the Missouri Compromise. The Court declared it unconstitutional.
Besides the legalities, the practical impact of the Dred Scott decision was to make slaves "portable" to free states. The narrow issue before the court was whether or not the slave, transported to the North, was freed by virtue of being in a "free" state. The Court came down on the side of the slaveowners, Which resulted in an untenable situation. This decision, i.e. the status of slaves brought into free states by their owners or by virtue of escape, became necessary because of the increase in travel occasioned by the railroads and better stage roads.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2019, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,725 posts, read 11,719,194 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The above is not quite accurate. The Dred Scott decision was bizarre in the extreme, regardless of how you felt about the issue of slavery. The Court first ruled that since Dred Scott was not a citizen, he had no standing before the US courts and no right to have sued in the first place. Having made such a ruling, the logical thing to have done was to then dismiss the case since they had in effect just said that there was no legal case. Instead, the Court went further and issued a ruling on a matter which wasn't even before the court...the legality of the Missouri Compromise. The Court declared it unconstitutional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Besides the legalities, the practical impact of the Dred Scott decision was to make slaves "portable" to free states. The narrow issue before the court was whether or not the slave, transported to the North, was freed by virtue of being in a "free" state. The Court came down on the side of the slaveowners, Which resulted in an untenable situation. This decision, i.e. the status of slaves brought into free states by their owners or by virtue of escape, became necessary because of the increase in travel occasioned by the railroads and better stage roads.
And yet every time there's a thread on this subject, several people jump in and say that slavery was already dying out before the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 02:40 PM
 
Location: New York Area
35,078 posts, read 17,024,527 times
Reputation: 30228
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
And yet every time there's a thread on this subject, several people jump in and say that slavery was already dying out before the war.
Which it was not at all. There was a risk of death if a slave could utilize modern transportation to aid an escape. Thus the need for a Dred Scott decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 05:40 PM
 
Location: North America
4,430 posts, read 2,709,280 times
Reputation: 19315
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
And yet every time there's a thread on this subject, several people jump in and say that slavery was already dying out before the war.
Those claimants are either lying or, as likely as not, are just spewing League of the South nonsense that they've been fed and have accepted uncritically.

1830 Census:
total population: 12.9 million / slaves: 2.0 million (15.5%)

1840 Census:
total population: 71.1 million / slaves: 2.5 million (14.6%)

1850 Census:
total population: 23.2 million / slaves: 3.2 million (13.8%)

1860 Census:
total population: 31.4 million / slaves: 4.0 million (12.7%)

Furthermore, the 1860 Census showed that 57% of the population of South Carolina was enslaved. In Mississippi it was 55%. In Alabama, Florida, Georgia and Louisiana, it was over 40%.
1860 Census Results

So we see that slavery was decreasing very slowly as a percentage of the American population. But 'dying out'? By no means. And most of the drop in the percentage was because new states were being added beyond the South - either free states, or where slavery just wasn't a viable economic model.

Census data shows that in the South alone, the percentage* of the populace that was enslaved went from 33% in 1810 to 32% in 1860, a drop of a whopping 1% in half a century. At that rate, slavery would have ied out by the year 3300! And the 'but it was dying out!' apologists think that it would have been more fair for another few dozen generations of slaves to suffer under the yoke of slavery that for plantation owners to have been deprived of their 'property'.
https://eh.net/encyclopedia/slavery-...united-states/

*That's percentage. In terms of sheer numbers, the slave population increased from 1.1 million in 1810 to 4.0 million in 1860. That's their 'it was dying out!' claim.

That's the crux of this discussion: where you and I see in emancipation the reversal of a horrible wrong, an appalling denial of liberty put to an end... the apologists for the Confederacy see the so-called travesty of a plantation owner deprived of his 'capital' - that said 'capital' comprised human beings bothers them not at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,133,502 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
And yet every time there's a thread on this subject, several people jump in and say that slavery was already dying out before the war.
In the severe step of secession which was employed to protect the institution of slavery, in the South's willingness to go to war against fellow Americans to protect that institution, you certainly don't find evidence of a prevailing southern desire to end it. Consider the words found in the Texas Declaration of Secession. Addressing Texas's joining the Union:
Quote:
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
That doesn't suggest that slavery was on its last legs in Texas. The same document also complained of hostility on the part of the free states toward Texas and...
Quote:
their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law
Texas Ordinance of Secession

Geez, These folks declared that abolition was against nature, against common wisdom and against God. Do they sound like people who are looking to free their slaves a few years down the road?

Last edited by Grandstander; 06-28-2019 at 06:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2019, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,725 posts, read 11,719,194 times
Reputation: 9829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
In the severe step of secession which was employed to protect the institution of slavery, in the South's willingness to go to war against fellow Americans to protect that institution, you certainly don't find evidence of a prevailing southern desire to end it.
And yet, in a bit of historic karma, secession directly led to the end of slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2019, 02:22 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,133,502 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trash burnz View Post
Why was it called "the civil war"?
Because it was not civil because the Yankees were not civil.

General lee gave strict orders not to steal anything from anyone in the North when they were in Northern Territory.
If they stole a stalk of corn they would be punished.

But the yankee souldiers busted into southern homes and helped themselves to their jewelry and silverware etcetera.

Messed up.

But you can still see the difference in manners in the North and the south today.
Many northerners just aren't raised to have good manners.
Go to a convenience store in the south and to one in the North.
Huge difference in the manners that the clerks have.
Based on your post I'm going to guess that trying to educate you will be a futile undertaking, however...

The Confederate army which invaded the North in 1863 took whatever they liked from whomever they wished, and offered absolutely useless Confederate money as a sham cover for their theft. It wasn't manners, it was naked hypocrisy because they were aware that the currency being offered had zero value in the north. Further, they also rounded up whatever black people that they could, assumed them runaway slaves regardless of their actual status, and sent them south into slavery. I'll charitably assume that you have been ignorant of this rather than aware and being dishonest, but so that you do not have to take my word for it:
https://www.post-gazette.com/news/st...s/201306300221

The same charity of spirit will allow me to assume that you were unaware of the June 11th to July 12th 1863 invasion of the north by General John Hunt Morgan, who defied orders from General Bragg and crossed the Ohio River and ravaged Indiana and Ohio, stealing hundreds of horses, ransoming towns by threatening to burn them if they did not pay, and robbing whomever they wished of whatever they wanted. The raid continued until Morgan was captured in West Virginia. Again, you need not take my word for this, it is extremely well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgan%27s_Raid

So, it is obvious that your romantic view of southern chivalry when invading the enemy, is a false one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2019, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Wartrace,TN
8,069 posts, read 12,787,809 times
Reputation: 16513
I've been on a "Civil War" kick lately.

I listened to Shelby Foote's "Civil war narrative" and it went into great detail about the war.
I followed that up with a bio on W.T. Sherman and am now listening to a Bio on Grant.

Interesting stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2019, 10:07 AM
 
50 posts, read 24,717 times
Reputation: 80
Quote:
... If the Union were to undertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate States by military means, it would be in a position very analogous to that of England at the time of the War of Independence.

However strong a government may be, it cannot easily escape from the consequences of a principle which it has once admitted as the foundation of its constitution. The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and, in uniting together, they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people.
Alexis de Tocqueville
from Chapter 18 of his book Democracy in America
archived at marxists.org

Last edited by TedF0ster; 06-30-2019 at 11:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2019, 12:51 PM
 
50 posts, read 24,717 times
Reputation: 80
At the beginning of my quote above, de Tocqueville said that "... if the Union were to undertake to enforce the allegiance of the confederate States by military means ...". Since de Tocqueville wrote his book during the period 1835-40, the word "confederate" might unintentionally mislead someone. If I were now able to edit the post, I would substitute "(confederated)" for "confederate", which would still carry the meaning that he wanted to convey.
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

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