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.
Because only Revisionist Rebels care about it. Nobody else does, because everybody knows that slavery was a southern birthright, and they were willing to destroy the nation in order to preserve it.
Oh Please! Grant owned slaves, his wife owned a couple of them. Illinois practiced slavery hid under the guise involuntary servitude. Read your history.
You've got to stay away from those 'South's Gonna Rise Agin!' websites.
Here's a clue - if they have confederate flags at the top of the site and the speak about 'The War of Northern Aggression', they are pure fiction and they will rot your mind if you continue to read them.
Oh Please! Grant owned slaves, his wife owned a couple of them. Illinois practiced slavery hid under the guise involuntary servitude. Read your history.
Grant did not own them. His wife's family did in Missouri. Slavery in Illinois at that time was almost non-existent.
The slave trade stopped in 1810. We're talking here about 50 years later.
Your defense of slavery is like a schoolchild's argument; an "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber you're glue" kind of thing. I picture you looking like Pee Wee Herman.
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.
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.
A lame and meaningless post that fails to make any point.
Grant did not own them. His wife's family did in Missouri. Slavery in Illinois at that time was almost non-existent.
From the National Park Service website..I saw no Confederate Flag at the top of the web page.
"Many visitors to Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site are surprised to learn that slaves lived and worked on the nineteenth century farm known as White Haven. During the years 1854 to 1859 Grant lived here with his wife, Julia, and their children, managing the farm for his father-in-law, Colonel Dent."
"In Mary Robinson’s July 24, 1885, recollections, during an interview for the St. Louis Republican memorial to Grant following his death, she noted that “he always said he wanted to give his wife’s slaves their freedom as soon as he was able.” In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned."
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.”
But they thrived anyway didn't they? In any event this was 1645 not 1860 (you know, when the rebellion started) and is another example of your childish reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DraggingCanoe
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.
But it was an illegal act and one stopped by The United States government. Nor have you shown the ship was owned by a northerner; it seems from a short bit of reading that it was owned by a man with a French name possibly working for a Spanish company. Foreigners in the slave smuggling business were buying American ships since it seems there was quite a surplus because of overbuilding in the 1850s.
I also found out there was a company based in Georgia involved in the slave smuggling business.
"IN 1856, just five years before the outbreak of the Civil War, the Charter Oak Life Insurance Company printed a pamphlet offering slave owners in six Southern states the option of insuring the lives of their slaves.
For just $2, Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee residents, for example, could purchase a 12-month policy from the Hartford-based insurer on a 10-year-old domestic servant that would yield $100 if the slave died. Policies for older slaves, like a 45-year-old, were more expensive, costing the slave owner $5.50 a year."
A Hartford, Conn. company. Source: The Confederate newspaper New York Times.
High tariffs broke the camels back, North was being industrialized on the South expense, high tariffs forced Southerns to buy inferior and expensive Northern goods while getting nothing in return. It would be just matter of time for the tariff protected Northern capitalists to supercede Southern planter elites in controlling Southern resources and labor thus demoting proud planters from master class to managerial sub-caste ( in the very best case). That what happened after Civil War anyway, national (read Northern) capital became sweat&resource master leech instead of old South elites. That was the goal.
Resources & power squabbles are the only true causes of any war. There were all kinds of contributing factors to Civil War, but tariffs issue was the powder keg which caught fire. Slavery was way, way in the back. Lincoln (a racist himself) would gladly "accommodate" Southern slave concerns in order to preserve Union but he was unwavering on tariff issues, yup, one who buys a dinner (northern capital) dances with a girl (Lincoln). Need I remind you that Lincoln' emancipation proclamation "freed" Southern slaves (Lincoln had no control over at the time) while Northern slaves of border states (Lincoln had power to free) remained in bondage.
So you believe in American society that one should look at the reason, rather than the legality of one's actions?.....
Last I checked, if you murder a man, the law doesn't care if the man you killed got away with burning your house down and killing your family. You committed murder, PERIOD.
If you get pulled over for DWI, the law doesn't care if you were celebrating your sister's wedding and didn't know you'd drank too much.
Bottom line? The law doesn't work that way Angus. It didn't then, and it doesn't now. I mean is your argument honestly that, had the South seceded because it was upset about something else that it would have been okay? That the legality of secession depends on WHY a state wishes to secede?
I'm afraid you're mistaken. The legality of your actions may have everything to do with the reasons.
I kill a man. Is there a difference in legality if I did it because someone paid me to do it, or because I just saw him kill my family, or if he was coming toward me with a knife to kill me? You know it does. It might be murder one, it might be murder two, it might be manslaughter, it might be self-defense.
I'm driving my car and I'm pulled over by the police because I'm speeding. Does it make a difference if I'm doing it because I'm an idiot kid racing another idiot kid, or I have a bleeding child in the seat beside me and I'm trying to get him to the hospital? The answer again is yes.
Or, let's take a look at something that we know is legal under all circumstances: filing a lawsuit against someone. I sue somebody in court. There is no question about my right to file the lawsuit. In one instance I am suing because the defendant has moved onto my land and built a house there, and I'm trying to get rid of him. In the other instance one of my slaves has escaped and the defendant is sheltering him so I don't capture him and return him to slavery.
Do you really mean that my reasons for taking an admittedly legal action have nothing to do with whether I deserve to be condemned for taking it? And that I should not be condemned for filing either one of these lawsuits?
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.
