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.
I hear this argument all the time, but I call BS. The issue was slavery. What "state's rights" were they talking about? And please tell me what slaves existed in the North that was sanctioned by law.
In reality, there are STILL slaves in this country, but it's not legal. Human trafficking is real. And we had a recent case in my hometown of a Nigerian couple that had a Nigerian nanny as a slave. They got caught, thankfully. Hopefully, they will be deported and the nanny gets to stay.
You obviously don't know history, read a book and you will have your answers. You actually think states in the north having slaves wasn't legal, oh my....
You obviously don't know history, read a book and you will have your answers. You actually think states in the north having slaves wasn't legal, oh my....
The Gadsden was the FIRST American , official flag. Before Old Glory.No other meaning for me. Except to throw LCD the home lg oppression. If blacksfly it, is it still racist? Maybe they should have hijacked if the way the Klan did the battle flag then.
Can we get rid of the EEOC? What purpose does that agency serve besides pushing liberal/Democratic agendas? Talk about an agency that sits around looking for issues to create work for itself.
You obviously don't know history, read a book and you will have your answers. You actually think states in the north having slaves wasn't legal, oh my....
I don't think it was legal to have slaves in the North after the civil war, which is what was said. If it was, than I admit my ignorance. No need to be insulting about it. You could have just posted something about slaves in the North after the civil war.
I don't think it was legal to have slaves in the North after the civil war, which is what was said. If it was, than I admit my ignorance. No need to be insulting about it. You could have just posted something about slaves in the North after the civil war.
You are correct for all practical purposes. New Jersey was the only northern state with legal slavery at the beginning of the Civil War and they had a whole 18 slaves in the 1860 census.
State Mass. N.H. N.Y. Conn. R.I. Pa. N.J. Vt.
European settlement 1620 1623 1624 1633 1636 1638 1620 1666
First record of slavery 1629? 1645 1626 1639 1652 1639 1626? c.1760?
Official end of slavery 1783 1783 1799 1784 1784 1780 1804 1777
Actual end of slavery 1783 c.1845?18271848 1842 c.1845?1865 1777?
Percent black 1790 1.4% 0.6% 7.6% 2.3% 6.3% 2.4% 7.7% 0.3%
Percent black 1860 0.78% 0.15% 1.26% 1.87% 2.26% 1.95% 3.76% 0.22%
I believe it is someone else who needs to pick up a history book.
You are correct for all practical purposes. New Jersey was the only northern state with legal slavery at the beginning of the Civil War and they had a whole 18 slaves in the 1860 census.
State Mass. N.H. N.Y. Conn. R.I. Pa. N.J. Vt.
European settlement 1620 1623 1624 1633 1636 1638 1620 1666
First record of slavery 1629? 1645 1626 1639 1652 1639 1626? c.1760?
Official end of slavery 1783 1783 1799 1784 1784 1780 1804 1777
Actual end of slavery 1783 c.1845?18271848 1842 c.1845?1865 1777?
Percent black 1790 1.4% 0.6% 7.6% 2.3% 6.3% 2.4% 7.7% 0.3%
Percent black 1860 0.78% 0.15% 1.26% 1.87% 2.26% 1.95% 3.76% 0.22%
I believe it is someone else who needs to pick up a history book.
No, Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri were slave states at the beginning of the Civil War that were part of the North.
Additionally, the North purchased goods produced by the slave states, thus supporting the slave states economically.
You are correct for all practical purposes. New Jersey was the only northern state with legal slavery at the beginning of the Civil War and they had a whole 18 slaves in the 1860 census.
State Mass. N.H. N.Y. Conn. R.I. Pa. N.J. Vt.
European settlement 1620 1623 1624 1633 1636 1638 1620 1666
First record of slavery 1629? 1645 1626 1639 1652 1639 1626? c.1760?
Official end of slavery 1783 1783 1799 1784 1784 1780 1804 1777
Actual end of slavery 1783 c.1845?18271848 1842 c.1845?1865 1777?
Percent black 1790 1.4% 0.6% 7.6% 2.3% 6.3% 2.4% 7.7% 0.3%
Percent black 1860 0.78% 0.15% 1.26% 1.87% 2.26% 1.95% 3.76% 0.22%
I believe it is someone else who needs to pick up a history book.
Thanks for the information. I know that some northern or border states had slaves at the beginning of the war. The post I was responding to said there were slaves in the North even after the war. Maybe that's true because it took some time for the news to trickle out that the slaves were emancipated. I know it was several months or maybe even years that the slaves in Texas got the word.
Anyway, I still contend that the war was about slavery ultimately because what else were they fighting over? It all boiled down to that main issue. If slavery had already been abolished everywhere, there would have been no dispute. And there was a dispute because many people were anti-slavery at the time, which was the original response that was replied to that I replied to.
Boy, that's a mouthful.
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.
