The American Civil War had more than its share of scenes fraught with symbolism, from the capitulation of Fort Sumter to Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox. An episode that should be similarly well remembered is the trial and execution of Nathaniel Gordon, who in 1862 had the dubious distinction of being the only American ship captain to be executed for the crime of slave trading. For the first time, laws that equated slave trading with piracy were implemented to the fullest.
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
Amazing even after the slave trade was outlawed there was still a huge demand for it.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Terry & Neil- There was significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade among Southern delegates at Montgomery putting together the Confederacy. The feeling being that if we pulled out of the Union to protect our investment in slavery, and that it is the right thing for our society and for the black race, then to continue to outlaw the overseas slave trade is inconsistent with our beliefs, hence we should open the African slave trade. This impetus was blocked by moderates who still wanted to control slavery, out of necessity and not have it run amok, and as an inducement to the upper and border South to consider joining their sister Southern states. Also it served as a palliative to the Union and abroad- opening the slave trade would send shudders up the spines of friend and foe alike, as well as tend to scare off any potential friend or ally. There were many men at Montgomery who understood statecraft, unlike what appearances would suggest, and these men effectively ended any such thoughts about the African slave trade. To their unutterable relief, no doubt.
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Fascinating. The captain was hung, but how was the crew punished? Did they serve time in prison?
__________________ Chaplain Rob Stroud, USAF Son of SgtMaj Chuck Stroud, USMC Grandson of Private Charles Stroud, USA Great-Grandson of Corporal Chauncey Stroud, Fifth Iowa Volunteer Cavalry
It should go without saying that although I am a proud member of the military, my posts in no way reflect the official policies of the USAF or the United States government.
Terry & Neil- There was significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade among Southern delegates at Montgomery putting together the Confederacy. The feeling being that if we pulled out of the Union to protect our investment in slavery, and that it is the right thing for our society and for the black race, then to continue to outlaw the overseas slave trade is inconsistent with our beliefs, hence we should open the African slave trade. This impetus was blocked by moderates who still wanted to control slavery, out of necessity and not have it run amok, and as an inducement to the upper and border South to consider joining their sister Southern states. Also it served as a palliative to the Union and abroad- opening the slave trade would send shudders up the spines of friend and foe alike, as well as tend to scare off any potential friend or ally. There were many men at Montgomery who understood statecraft, unlike what appearances would suggest, and these men effectively ended any such thoughts about the African slave trade. To their unutterable relief, no doubt.
This is tired ole BS propaganda from abolitionist pamphlets.
*
"...significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade..."
How many delegates at the Montgomery Convention even proposed re-opening the African slave trade?-
Answer: Zero.
What was the vote to outlaw?
Six states to one. The one vote against was from South Carolina who objected to the punishment...not to the law.
*
How many Southern Congressmen proposed re-opening the African slave trade in either Senate or House from the year it was outlawed (1808) to the time of the secession of Southern states?-
Amazing even after the slave trade was outlawed there was still a huge demand for it.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
Other New England Slave Traders
(the destination for shipment was Cuba or Brazil)-
Margaret Scott (of New Bedford, Massachusetts) ...Captured 1861. Brutus (of New Bedford, Massachusetts) ...Destination Cuba. Captured 1861.
"...in the New Bedford Shipping List of December 3, 1861, the following item appears:
SENTENCE OF SAMUEL P. SKINNER
In the U. S. Court in Boston on Friday, Judge Clifford sentenced Samuel P. Skinner, convicted of fitting out the Barque Margaret Scott of New Bedford for the slave trade, to pay a fine of $1,000 and to be confined at hard labor for the term of five years in the jail at Taunton.
In the same year the bark Brutus of New Bedford fitted out for a slave voyage and succeeded in landing a cargo of 650 blacks in Cuba, but one of her owners was convicted and served several years in the penitentiary while others were heavily fined...." http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/verrill.htm
(Chapter IX)
Wildfire (Boston or New York) ...Destination Cuba. Captured 1860.
"The Africans of the Slave Bark, Wildfire
Key West, Florida, May 20, 1860.
On the morning of the 30th of April last, the United States steamer Mohawk, Lieutenant Craven commanding, came to anchor in the harbor of this place, having in tow a bark of the burden of about three hundred and thirty tons, supposed to be the bark Wildfire, lately owned in the-city of New York. The bark had on board five hundred and ten native Africans, taken on board in the River Congo, on the west side of the continent of Africa. She had been captured a few days previously by Lieutenant Craven within sight of the northern coast of Cuba, as an American vessel employed in violating our laws against the slave-trade. She had left the Congo River thirty-six days before her capture...." http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Il...nSlaveBoat.htm
This is tired ole BS propaganda from abolitionist pamphlets.
Oh, for crying out loud, Battalion!! 'Abolitionist pamphlets' be blowed!!! This information does not come from 'abolitionist pamphlets' as you assert, which I have never read and which I very much doubt you have either, but from William C Davis's A Government of Our Own. The fact of the matter is that though by no means a majority of delegates, nor Southerners, favored opening the African slave trade, it was very much a consideration among a group of diehard fire-eaters headed by Robert Barnwell Rhett, the archsecessionist editor of the Charleston Mercury, a delegate at the convention/Congress, and a member of both the Constitution and foreign affairs committees. What's more, Rhett's logic is flawless- why indeed, if we opt to leave the Union and set up for ourselves over this vexing question of slavery, and we pledge to uphold our rights in regard to slavery in our new league to the death, and furthermore we hold the institution of slavery to be the proper condition of the status of the Negro in our society and in fact a conceivable good, do we allow this shameful onus on slavery by agreeing to abolish its' trade among nations? It is not the logic per se that is a problem, but its' practical application, for every moderate and cooperationist, and even perspicacious fire-eaters, saw that such a policy would lose it, the new Confederacy, support among the still in the Union slave states and also general goodwill in the North. It would also lose the new nation sympathy and endanger aid in Europe and abroad.
The sentiment was indeed significant in that it was cherished by fire-eaters and indeed discussed and as you even point out, voted on at Montgomery. If not significant,then why the vote? And this vote had a state in favor!!
The fire-eaters were in a minority at Montgomery, moderates predominated, and moderates were going to make policy. But again, issues held by the fire-eaters were significant, for without the fire-eaters, no secession takes place, and with no secession, no Confederacy. And with a Confederacy born of a radical group, that radical group's policy would matter, whether in the forefront or not, whether adopted or not. Your arguments about the merits and details of the issue are irrelevant because the issue indeed existed and was a concern to the delegates. In fact, it was not the only issue that you might call inconsequential that the delegates debated. There was talk of how to handle in the new Constitution too many states seceding from the Union; what would the Confederacy do if all the states of the Union seceded and joined the Confederacy?? Then the 'Confederacy' would be back where it started, God forbid!! So we must limit admittance to only slave states and take others on a state by state basis, and by the way, God **** the bloody abolitionists!! Perhaps laughable to us now, but serious matters to insecure and security minded revolutionists.
So all in all, I have to say your argument, though perhaps indeed with abolitionist pamhlets, here moreso lies with William C Davis and the facts. That you have facts yourself to rant and rave with, your fits and conniptions lack logic and applicability. To say that this is, what- tired ol BS propaganda- is in itself the purest manure with which to sow a field of perdition, and I might add, uinworthy of the honorable Southern gentlefolk I have come to admire both on this board and in our great land and among whom I would wish to include you. regards, ed
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
There was talk of how to handle in the new Constitution too many states seceding from the Union; what would the Confederacy do if all the states of the Union seceded and joined the Confederacy?? Then the 'Confederacy' would be back where it started, God forbid!! So we must limit admittance to only slave states and take others on a state by state basis, and by the way, God **** the bloody abolitionists!! Perhaps laughable to us now, but serious matters to insecure and security minded revolutionists.
regards, ed
Powerful post, ewc!
I do recall the issue of limiting "admittance to only slave states and take others on a state by state basis", from Davis' Look Away, but was unaware that the idea may have emerged that "all the states" might have seceded. I wonder who might have imagined that!
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
Oh, for crying out loud, Battalion!! 'Abolitionist pamphlets' be blowed!!! This information does not come from 'abolitionist pamphlets' as you assert, which I have never read and which I very much doubt you have either, but from William C Davis's A Government of Our Own. The fact of the matter is that though by no means a majority of delegates, nor Southerners, favored opening the African slave trade, it was very much a consideration among a group of diehard fire-eaters headed by Robert Barnwell Rhett, the archsecessionist editor of the Charleston Mercury, a delegate at the convention/Congress, and a member of both the Constitution and foreign affairs committees.
Anybody else in his club-of-one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
The sentiment was indeed significant in that it was cherished by fire-eaters and indeed discussed and as you even point out, voted on at Montgomery.
Again, BS...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewc
If not significant,then why the vote? And this vote had a state in favor!!
They were establishing their Constitution.
They had to have votes on what they put in it.
No one proposed any law to re-open the slave trade.
The only debate concerning the issue was over the severity of the penalty for engaging in the trade. That is why South Carolina voted against the law as written...not because they wanted to re-open the trade.
__________________ "In this great struggle, this form of Government and every form of human right is endangered if our enemies succeed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized by every one." Abraham Lincoln - August 18, 1864 Speech to the 164th Ohio Regiment
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Hanging Captain Gordon 
Linear Mode
