Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Once again evidence please; especially as to the 1-2% you cite. I haven't read the book yet but judging how many on both sides of the aisle are reacting to it I think it might be a legit must read. As I understand it the scope f her work is considerably greater than what was included in the book.
From a review of Chandra Manning's book by Fredric Smoler in American Heritage (http://www.americanheritage.com/arti...-slavery.shtml):
=========
She has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. She is perfectly aware that soldiers do not all think the same thing; she knows that their views alter over time (she traces that evolution with great care and subtlety); and as a rule she does not count something as a representative view unless the soldiers who held it outnumbered dissenters by at least three to one.
Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.
=========
and a little later in the review:
=========
As for the other side, her work continues in the interpretive tradition of the historian James McPherson: The defense of slavery was as much the main motive for Confederate combatants as its destruction was for Union men. This, too, is something of a paradox for those who like to cite the fact that only one in three Confederate families owned slaves, and who describe the Rebel effort as a rich man’s war and a poor man’s fight. Manning believes that the hope of owning slaves was a real motive for men who didn’t already possess them, and she argues most forcefully, and with strong evidence, that the fear that four million freed slaves might seek revenge after two and a half centuries of torment was also a strong impetus for defending the institution. She also believes that guaranteed social superiority on the grounds of pigmentation motivated poor whites. In her view, shared beliefs about the value of slavery were what held the Confederacy together, rather than a class issue that could ever have wedged it apart.
=========
I wished the spelling were more correct, but ... I sure can't complain abou that. $30 to $40. Hummm? Times ain't changed much I reckon.
Confederate privates made, IIRR, $14/month. Free Black teamsters in Virginia (exempt from the conscription by basis of not being White), made $2/day serving the Confederate Army, or about $60/month.
Of course, there weren't a whole lot of free Black Confederate teamsters about.
And people wonder why the Civil War was fought. Over 140 years later we are still fighting it, via the pen, the keyboard, etc.
That said, there is NO DOUBT that slavery was the driving political force which led to the formation of the Confederacy. I'll give everyone a perfect example of how those in power, no matter what the minority they were, drove the political issue of slavery. When Patrick Cleburne (who never owned a slave) suggested giving slaves freedom in exchange for 12 months of honorable service in the Confederate armies some went completely berserk. W. H. T. Walker went over Joe Johnston's head right to Jeff Davis. He actually accused Cleburne of sedition. Moreover, William Bate (later governor of Tennessee I might add) wrote that Cleburne was a traitor. Bate said slavery and independence were inexorably linked. He said the latter was not the goal without the former.
I can guarantee you Bate was not alone. Alexander Stephens said nearly the exact same thing. Politicians (manipulators that they often are) knew exactly what they were trying to defend. Unfortunately, many brave men and boys, from both North and South, got sucked into a situation that cost many of them their lives. Plenty of contemporary evidence indicates the average fellow didn't think he was fighting for slavery. But most Southern politicians and upper class weren't stooges, they knew exactly what the fight was really about.
Well alive and a slave sure sounds a sweeet deal compared to being free but dead, or free but unequal and free to starve to death. Dont you think?.
No. Not at all. "Give me liberty, or give me death." [Patrick Henry]
"If I thought I was goin' to be a slave agin I'd get a gun 'n shoot myself in the head. 'Cause you're nothin' but a dog [as a slave], nothin' but a dog." [Former slave in audio recording from Ken Burns' "The Civil War."
[quote=Hanny]
[quote] Trice
Scott first filed suit in 1846 and lost in 1847.
Quote:
Scott brought suit against Emersons widow and heir in the circuit court in MO ( he who had bought and owned Scott in 34,
1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
moved from Mo to Ill where slavery was banned by the NWT
NWO.
Northwest Ordinance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
with his slave, Scott there he purchased a wife( in Wisconson) for Scott and returned to Mo,
Not all at once. Dred Scott and Harriet were married in 1836 and returned to Missouri in 1838.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
sciott lost in 46 because he could not prove he was owned by emerson widdow,)
True.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
in MO Scott using the law i said he could use, residence in another state for one year, brought suit for freedom for wife and now 2 daughters and himslef, on the basis that the owner of that property had willingly and voluntary taken his proprty onto free soil for one year,
State law, not federal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Judge agreed made everyone free in 47. Dont see how being made free counts as loseing watson......perhaps i missed something?.
In 1847 the court ruled the case could be retried. In 1850 the jury found that the Scott family should be free; however, the case was appealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
In 1850 the MO Sc rulled he was not free.
Wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
In 52 the SC of MO again rulled that the first court was wrong because it lacked jursdiction over Wisc/Ill and that the law of MO appied instead, and that ment no your not free and upheld the 5o rulling returning him the slavery.
1852 was the first and only ruling in the case by the Missouri Supreme Court, and they overturned the jury's decision from the 1850 trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
No, the court upheld the 50 rulling.
Wrong. It's obvious you don't have a command of the facts in this case at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
The courts both refernced the rule of law
Singular, not plural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
wherby any chattel property that had been aquired under the laws of a certain place whwere the owner was domicile, these propriotry charteristicas remain, even though the thing had been removed to another jusdiction which might otherwise establish title or distribute rights, the MO SC found 2:1 that this applied to human chattel property, goes onto other cases as being case law in Strader v Grahem also in 52, in which muscicions owned by a Ky man were hired out to Ohio and become free after stying for a year, and the owner sued the hirer for loss of proprty, and Tanney found that the NWT provision had been supresceded by Ohio state laws, and dismissed the suit for compensation, so you see after DS in 52, others were filling for freedom for residence in one state for a year and obtaining freedom.
As usual, you have the facts all muddled here. The controlling factor was that the slaves had gone to Ohio, with the permission of their owner, Christopher Graham, periodically to perform as musicians and had returned each time. Taney ruled in Strader v. Graham that since the slaves were domiciled in Kentucky, Kentucky's slave law applied. Had the slaves been taken to Ohio and left there by their master voluntarily, and then had they not returned to Kentucky, they would have been freed by Ohio's law. In the actual case of Strader v. Graham, the slaves had gone to Ohio without his knowledge and had actually escaped and gone to Canada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
MO SC makes no such finding as you believe, Gambon of MO said in his rulling, while not amkeing DS Free because of a lack of jursdiction to do so, "In this state, it has been recognised from the beggining of government as a correct position in law that a master who takes his slave and resides in astate or Terr for a year where slavery is prohibited, therby emancipates his slaves".
Once again, you've completely muddled things. Justice GAMBLE dissented from the Missouri Court Ruling. His opinion was not the law--it was the DISSENT!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
later Tanney in 57 as SCOTUS rules the SC of MO rulling a nullity because it lacks jurisdiction, says SCOTUS is the only court that has jurisdiction in these cases.
As usual, you're wrong. Taney ruled that the Missouri Circuit Court, whose jury had declared Scott free, had no jurisdiction because Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri. Taney further ruled that Scott wasn't a citizen of the US and therefore had no standing to sue in Federal Court. He denied jurisidiction of the Supreme Court here as well. He never declared the Missouri Supreme Court's ruling a nullity.
You fail to comprehend Dred Scott, you completely muddle the facts, and because of that, you therefore misrepresent them.
No. Not at all. "Give me liberty, or give me death." [Patrick Henry]
"If I thought I was goin' to be a slave agin I'd get a gun 'n shoot myself in the head. 'Cause you're nothin' but a dog [as a slave], nothin' but a dog." [Former slave in audio recording from Ken Burns' "The Civil War."
Regards,
Cash
I'll add a couple more... while not all directly dealing w/ US slavery I think all appropriate.
-Freedom is never voluntarilly given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Martin Luther King
-Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. Thomas Paine
-In the final choice a soldier’s pack is not so heavy a burden as a prisoners chains. Eisenhower
Life is precious,
Love beyond price;
but both , for freedom,
I would sacrifice. Petofi
-Is it not possible to eat me without insisting that I sing the praises of my devourer? Feador Postoievski
-You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything, he’s no longer in your power. He’s free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
-Those who can make us believe absurdities can make us commit atrocities. Voltaire
-You can’t hold a man down without staying down with him. Booker T. Washington
-God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are ready to guard and defend it. Daniel Webster
-Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities because it is the quality that guarantees all others. Winston Churchill
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Wild deviation here, for which I'll apologize in advance -- but I'm gonna do it anyway. If there was no slavery in Illinois or Wisconsin. How was a wife for Dred Scott purchased?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
That would be the next census, or more post/prior the states emancipation,
The 1870 Census then. You really are making this up as you go along, aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
I was looking at Historical statastics of the USA when i was typing that, for much earlier than the 60 census.
Rhode Island adopted a plan of gradual abolition, by declaring that all slaves born in that State after March 1, 1784, should be free. Her census figures stand thus: 952 in 1790, 381 in 1800, 108 in 1810, 48 in 1820, 17 in 1830, and 5 in 1840.
As usual, you're wrong. The Rhode Island law provided that all the adult slaves at the time the law was passed [February, 1784] would remain slaves. Their female children born after 1 March would be freed at age 18 and their male children born after 1 March would be freed at age 21.
Rhode Island in 1790: 958 slaves, 3,484 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1800: 380 slaves, 3,304 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1810: 108 slaves, 3,609 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1820: 48 slaves, 3,554 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1830: 17 slaves, 3,561 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1840: 5 slaves, 3,238 free blacks.
Rhode Island in 1850: 0 slaves, 3,670 free blacks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Connecticut passed laws at the same time similar to those of Rhode Island: her slave population was 2,759 in 1790, 951 in 1800, 310 in 1810, 97 in 1820, 25 in 1830, and 17 in 1840.
New York in 1799, passed an Act making free the future issue of her slaves after the males had attained 28, and the females 25 years. Another law was adopted in 1817, declaring them free on the 4th of July, 1827. She held within her borders 21,344 in 1790, 20,343 in 1800, 15,017 in 1810, 10,088 in 1820, 75 in 1830, and 4 in 1840.
simply put, the North sold of the prime assets before the date set to make them free, leaving an unsustanable body of people to wither and die, as it lacked the wage earning part of the family group, as they, as the cenus age shows, were largely not present due to have being sold.
In the fall of 1799, Rhode Island banned the sale of any slave outside the state without his consent. [Arthur Zilversmit, _The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North,_ p. 120]
"The law made elaborate provision for the protection of the property rights of slaveowners. Although freeborn Negro children would remain with the master who owned their mother for at least one year, the towns would assume the expense of raising and educating them. Furthermore, masters would now be allowed to free any healthy slave, twenty-one to forty years old, without assuming any financial responsibility." [Ibid., p. 121]
In January of 1784, Connecticut adopted statutes providing for the gradual abolition of slavery. [Ibid., pp. 123-124]
"The action of Connecticut and Rhode Island meant that within a year of the conclusion of the Revolutionary War provision had been made for the abolition of slavery in all the New England states. As a result, the 1790 federal census reported only 3,763 slaves in New England, out of a total of 16,882 Negroes. Ten years later, there were only 1,339 slaves in New England, and by 1810 the total was reduced to 418--108 in Rhode Island and 310 in Connecticut." [Ibid., p. 124]
Vermont abolished slavery outright before it ratified the Constitution, and Massachusetts abolished slavery immediately by judicial decree--neither used gradual emancipation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
This is not new, it comes out of studies into why free northern blacks lived less years than whites in the years upto the war, the answer was of the unusual age range of northern free blacks, lots of yound and old, not many in mid life,means the death rate of principle age groups likly to die was over represented. Not that free blacks in the north were somewhow unable to live as long on avarage as whites.
Once again, as usual you're wrong. You're making up your reference to "studies," aren't you? The fact is that while there were a number of slaves who were sold to southerners, the Northern states cut off the practice, and some of the Northern states didn't allow it to happen to start with. Of course, after laws were passed to stop selling slaves some scofflaws did still sell their slaves south, but they were the tiny minority of slaveowners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
I am?, im shocked, do you want my little pinky or my first born?, perhaps my facts are not as persausive to all the facts you know and have not got around to posting, oto, maybe your just not aware of my facts, dont like the conclusion they support and simply *want* them to be unfacts.
Let's stick with what's actually the case. Very little of what you post bears any relation to the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
You are in error in your conclusion, thats not the same as being factualy wrong, ToTC got some stick for national extrapolation from a stastistical small sampling when it first went to print, what they did not know was that the fuller detail was still being worked on and was presented in Without consent or contract, which on those specific extrapoltaiosnused state wide data sets rather than natioanl, this change of methodogy was underway to provide sharper focus but not ready for print.
As usual, you're wrong. Fogel's research on treatment of slaves used the same methodology in _Without Cause or Contract_ as used in _Time on the Cross._ And don't get me wrong. Fogel did a lot of good things in his work. I'm actually a big fan of his work as a whole. But his results on slave treatment are the chink in the armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Just to satisfy my curiosity, which studies specificly contradict TOC contents?, what exactly in TOTC statistics dont you trust?.
His discussion of the treatment of slaves, while not entirely wrong, are slanted due to his methodology. He's contradicted by nearly every other historian of slavery, including Ira Berlin and David Brion Davis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
No one denies some familys were broken up by sale, Jefferson on occaision sold slaves to balance his acounts at years end, but put into perspective, its rather like the same amount of people kicked to death by mules in the WBTS as a % chance of it happening to you, you know its posobilty, when it does happen to you its big news, but its not common, nor was jeferson breaking up of familys common.
It was in fact common enough that all the slaves knew of it and feared it would happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Really how is my maths on your figures wrong?. Answer that question please, dont just make statements.
You just make statements, little of which relate to the actual facts.
The fact is that the system for control of the slaves was intact during the Civil War.
"Both slaveowners and government officials did what they could to increase wartime surveillance and controls over all sections of their black populations. A month after the fall of Fort Sumter, the Tennessee legislature thus passed a law to raise 'a Home Guard of Minute Men' whose duties included the responsibility 'to see that all the slaves are disarmed; to prevent the assemblage of slaves in unusual numbers; to keep the slave population in proper subjugation; and to see that peace and order is observed.'
"During and after the war, Confederate apologists regularly pointed to the lack of open slave revolts as proof of black loyalty to their masters. As already noted, the same argument has recently been revived. But in fact, attempting an insurrection when nearly all white men were not only armed but also organized in the military would have been suicidal. Even trying to reach and join the Union army risked the most severe potential penalties. As an insightful Georgia writer reminded his countryfolk early in 1865, 'Evidences are not wanting to illuminate the ill suppressed discontent of many of our slaves.' Because this discontent had not exploded in open revolts, he warned, some of his neighbors had grown 'over secure.' But 'they should remember that the whole white population being under arms, any uprising of the negroes was more than ever impracticable.' The South, he admonished, should not mistake the slaves' understandable caution for contentment." [Bruce Levine, "In Search of a Usable Past: Neo-Confederates and Black Confederates," in James O. Horton and Lois E. Horton, eds., _Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory,_ p. 205]
lets see what youve now introduced now, the 20 slave rule, lets see if i can do the maths on that for you, that 62 law applied to 4/5000 whites who excerised that right to be exempt, so the 5000 exemptions from 62-65 is holding down population of 3.5 million a year, any takers on the parcitpation ratio required in a prison to maintain order?, or who about number of troops per head of population when its in a state of civil unrest?. How a about the police to population index, ie most people are willing to obey the law, so how many police do you need per head of pop when that is the case.
clearly your confused about maintaing law and order over populations.
Are you always this confused? It would help you avoid confusion if you didn't simply make up statistics out of thin air.
The 1860 Census gives a total of 44,614 owners of at least 20 slaves in the confederate states. Remember the 20-slave rule applied to owners and overseers. Additionally, there were slaveowners who hired substitutes to fight for them, and others who joined home guards and militia to keep the slaves under control. Add to that sheriffs, marshals, and other law enforcement officers. The whites were all armed, the slaves had no weapons. The whites had superior mobility, being allowed to ride horses anywhere they wanted. The slaves had no such mobility. The whites were organized in military units, the blacks had no such organization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
So not wrong but more right with every post you make.
Once again, wrong as usual. Not only are you wrong, but you are more and more wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Another fact thing i guess, as a prime field hand he earnt 15% more as a slave than did free white labourers, there is no economic advantage to being free,
Another ignorant defense of slavery, eh? The reality is that slaves weren't paid. That's why they're slaves. The money went to their owners. In some cases the owners would allow selected slaves to keep a portion of their hiring fee, but that was AFTER the owner had gotten his due. The slave never "earned" as much as a free worker would earn.
The true facts will always trump the stuff you make up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Which free terr do you mean?,
Canada or US states that outlawed slavery.
Your red herrings are irrelevant, since blacks were indeed actually allowed to stay in the free states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Nice avoidence of any use of maths,are you tired of shooting your own argument down with your own numbers?. So how many of these slave patrols and armed whites are there then?, is that why the CSA armys are so small dispite having a extrodinary high call up ration of white males to them?. Who exactly makes up this untapped hidden army of armed whites?, one would normaly asume that since most had been called up for war service this uber secret army would be at most 10% of what it had been right?. Or if your logic for enyering the 20:1 slave rule holds for you whole line of argument, there must be 175,000 men in the slave patrols and exemption, since 20:1 is the intent of the act to allow coercion of 20 by 1 white, so when the CSA armies were being bled dry, you claim there was a vast reservior of armed whites holding down the negro poulation, and it must be 175k or so to hold down 3.5 million, so how comes no book ever mentions this level of misuse of human resource by the south?.
whats your best guess to what would happen if 90% of US open prison gaurds left, how many unwilling prisoners would also leave? and how would the remaining 10% of guards prevent them?.
Nope, not unaware, it just does not support any practibale argument that it operated in the manner of coercion you suggest, it is only possible to conclude that millions of people were apathetic or unwilling to do anything about the condition, because the level of pyshical coercion precludes holding them down by force, because there simply was too few to do so. The 1;20 rule is the ratio of how many whites are required to coerce negros right, thats one intent of the act, that implies 100k population base to be coerced. whats the rational for the millions of others who dont need to be coerced?. If as you say the slave patrols were intact, why have the 20;1 exemption law passed in the first place?, your line of reasoning, is unsound, and the maths behind it, frankly absurd.
You keep proving your ignorance of the actual conditions that existed in the confederacy at the time.
"Both slaveowners and government officials did what they could to increase wartime surveillance and controls over all sections of their black populations. A month after the fall of Fort Sumter, the Tennessee legislature thus passed a law to raise 'a Home Guard of Minute Men' whose duties included the responsibility 'to see that all the slaves are disarmed; to prevent the assemblage of slaves in unusual numbers; to keep the slave population in proper subjugation; and to see that peace and order is observed.'
"During and after the war, Confederate apologists regularly pointed to the lack of open slave revolts as proof of black loyalty to their masters. As already noted, the same argument has recently been revived. But in fact, attempting an insurrection when nearly all white men were not only armed but also organized in the military would have been suicidal. Even trying to reach and join the Union army risked the most severe potential penalties. As an insightful Georgia writer reminded his countryfolk early in 1865, 'Evidences are not wanting to illuminate the ill suppressed discontent of many of our slaves.' Because this discontent had not exploded in open revolts, he warned, some of his neighbors had grown 'over secure.' But 'they should remember that the whole white population being under arms, any uprising of the negroes was more than ever impracticable.' The South, he admonished, should not mistake the slaves' understandable caution for contentment." [Bruce Levine, "In Search of a Usable Past: Neo-Confederates and Black Confederates," in James O. Horton and Lois E. Horton, eds., _Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory,_ p. 205]
Odd you of all people should ask that. The answer is of course no,
Your posts contradict you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
lets look at what youve found, you did read those links right? which isnt really what i was talking about
It directly contradicts your statement and proves you're wrong as usual.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
yes thats what i said.
Wrong. You said " the women who bear children become slaves." Go back and look if you can't keep up with your own posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
How does a limted number ( in proportion to total numbers involved) of first hand acounts of mixed blood children, which number as a % of the US population is shown in US census data to be, so a number value of it can be adduced, mean my maths is wrong?.
Is English not your native language? Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary and learn the meaning of "every family."
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
