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.
Most people who understand the history of this time will know that free blacks wouldn't be sold south. However, some may have been kidnapped by slave catchers who came up north from the south.
Being free, they were free to move wherever they wished to move, including out of state if that was their desire.
The number of letters I've read over the years would be well into the hundreds. I don't recall one that described slavery as a cause for fighting.
Then the letters you read must have been very carefully selected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
1%-2% is a guess based on my own accounting of slavery as a causeat 0%.
You can return your guess to the place you pulled it out of, because Prof. Manning details her methodology in the book. She included letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers. It's clear the average confederate soldier knew slavery was the cause of the war and agreed with it.
Ok, first off 70% of overseers were negros in 1860,
Your estimate is too high. A majority of the overseers were white, but it doesn't matter regarding my point. The fact remains that the legal system didn't allow blacks to testify in court, so unless a white person was willing to testify that the black was severely mistreated enough to "violate" the so-called "law," no violation was considered to have existed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
now lets look at northern states laws then.
Completely irrelevant to the situation of slaves being mistreated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
now lets look at Southern states laws for slaves.
John Creswell will provided for the emancipation of several slaves should they select freedom over servitude.
The law, of course, was changed to prohibit such manumissions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Not acurate and certainly not a fact.
You're wrong on both counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
William Tillman hired a slave to Dickinson Chadwick.
Tillman was the owner, not Chadwick. This has nothing to do with my point,.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
An overseer named Flanigin whipped Jacob and beat him with the whip handle.
An overseer, not an owner. This has nothing to do with my point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
While intoxicated, Eskridge chastised the slave Maria, who picked up an ax and told him to come no closer. He went inside and returned with a shotgun. When she moved away to the side, apparently in retreat, he shot her in the leg. The leg had to be amputated. He confessed the crime to the doctors who came to perform the surgery.
So they had the testimony of the white doctor and his own words. All he had to do was say she raised her hand against him and he would be just fine.
The problem here is that economist life Foegel/Engerman/meyer quantified these issues/points, and there is nothing in the above that does as you suggest in regard to Fogel. Hortons anthology is the out of flavour histograhy set currently, this is part of there attempts to grap the public attention to the out of favour textual/chronological approach over anylitcal intreptation thats repaced it in the mainstream academia.
I can sum up this books intent for you with a quote from it.
"If you don't tell it like was ... it can never be as it ought to be" (p. 33).
Once again, as usual you're wrong. Fogel's and Engermann's methodology was bad. BERLIN's statement was written last year, and incorporates all the latest scholarship, including Fogel and Engermann.
same provision in law, NWO is based on NWT which is based in UK fundametal law in the Mansfield case.
Same disregard of the facts as the rest of your posts. NWT is Northwest Territory. It's land, not law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Well yes other wise it would be importing from a forgien state into the Union and the slave would be made free undere federal law.
Wrong as usual. There was no such federal law. The slave's status would be determined by the laws of the state into which he was brought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Yes i said that he was comenting on the existing law, mentioned he was outvoted 2:1, and that no law was changed by the rulling in this case.
Poor writing on your part, then, and poor methodology on your part, since his dissent has no legal standing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
You have a bad habit of saying others wrong when they are not, only that there opinion is contary to yours,
No, you're wrong about the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
If the MO SC is not annulled it carries force of law and enters case law.
If the SCOTUS has no jursidiction why was it hearing the case and not decling as the judicary act requires it to do before any trial begins?.
You have no conception of the operation of US courts, then. The Missouri Supreme Court wound up having the force of law because Taney ruled the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
No i was i hoped been clear, the next census after whenever any state Emancipation of its slaves.
Very little of what you write is clear. I suspect it is deliberate on your part.
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? 1827 1848 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% [/quote]
Incredibly poor methodology. That's why you shouldn't trust pro-confederate websites.
Using percentage of the population is misleading because the population as a whole is growing through immigration as well as through natural increase, whereas the population of blacks is only growing through natural increase.
You're wrong because you misrepresented the gradual emancipation law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
newsflash, the numbers are a couple different but the ones im using are the ones used since 1975 for all reaearchers.
That's a lie.
Use the US Census. That's what all researchers use.
And the rest of your point is garbage because you're looking at percentage of the population, which ignores immigration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
i dont see what your doing, i understood and stated the problem to be where did all the prime easy to sell assets go, youve done nothing to answer that, or refute that they were sold south. All you did is confirm the loss of population.
Read the post again, especially concerning the LAWS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Again with the wrong,
You're the one who's wrong all the time. If it weren't for your inaccuracies I wouldn't have to point out that you're wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Cite one who has taken issue then, as its nearly every histiorian on slavery you claim ( odd fogel got a Noble prize and they diod not dontch athink though) then, should be easy, so what i want from you is something in TOTC thats is refuted/contradicted by anyone at all.
I wait with anticipation for you example from TOTC and evidence that it is inacurate.
I cited Berlin already with a direct quotation. As I said before, I'm on the road now and limited to the books I brought with me, which didn't include TOTC. You'll just have to wait until I get back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
like dying you mean?.
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Cenus data on slave ownership also shows the age of the owners,
No, it doesn't. As usual, you're wrong again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Non free ones were returned to slavery and free ones were barred from staying, and those in slavery were bought and sold.
As usual, you're wrong. One of the complaints the slave states made was that the Northern states didn't return their fugitives to them. If blacks weren't allowed in those states, the Census would show no blacks in them.
a month after the fall of Sumpter?, in Tenn?, thats may of 61 then right?,
On or about 14 May.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Tenn seccedes on 8 may,
No. 8 June.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
so it has its entire mil age bearing population to call on and do with what it wills, this is before any mil conflict,
Wrong. The conflict started with Fort Sumter. Tennessee knew she was going to join the conflict and knew she was going to join on the side of the slaveholders' rebellion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
Vol to raise an Army, CSA conscription, do you have no honest grasp of context?.
Far more than you do, apparently. Have you ever hear of preparation for war?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
This is from the Hortons book, chapter claiming there are no cases at all of any negro soldiers serving with the South is its theme and conclusion,
The essay makes no such claim. You do constantly misrepresent things, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanny
ive skipped the nonsense, but will point out your posts are becomming a tad offensive,
Your misrepresentations have been offensive from the beginning.
With the observation some have made that slavery perhaps 'was not that bad,' I offer the following from the book, Richmond Burning, The Last Days Of The Confederate Capital, by Nelson Lankford.
From Chapter 19, The Sorry Silence of a Conquered People, page 237, comes the following:
White ministers of black churches did not last many Sundays after the occupation [of Richmond]. On Palm Sunday, before the news of Appomattox reached they city, Robert Ryland dared to warn his flock at the African Baptist Church against the USCT recruiting officers. On hearing his inflammatory remarks, black [Union] soldiers in the congregation tried to arrest Ryland when the service ended. Some parishioners pleaded with them to spare the old man that indignity. Like so many whites who thought they understood black Richmonders, [Rev. Robert] Ryland could not fathom the loathing of people for their enslavement and their exaltation at its demise.
As much was clear from a conversation he had with the Rev. Peter Randolph some weeks later. Born a slave in Prince George County, Virginia, but freed by his owner before the war, Randolph moved to the North. He returned to be the postwar pastor of Ebenezer Bapist Church in Richmond. Nor realizing Randolph was a Virginian, Ryland tried to tell him that slavery in the Old Dominion had been an exceedingly mild institution. Randolph later remembered that he replied, with a long sigh, "If Hell was any worse than slavery in Virginia, I did not want to go there."
Now, who should know better on how well slaves were treated while slaves than slaves themselves?
Of course, my suggestion should be quite obvious. Unless one has been a slave, no amount of what is thought to be 'kindness' shown by a white slaveholder to an enslaved black man, can be understood how much that enslavement was loathed, hated, and resented by him.
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
If the SCOTUS has no jursidiction why was it hearing the case and not decling as the judicary act requires it to do before any trial begins?.
The first part of the Federal case was determining if the Federal Courts had jurisdiction in the matter or not. The Taney Court ruled that they did not.
That truly should have been the end of the matter in the Federal courts. With no jurisdiction, they should have simply said nothing more.
BUT the Taney Court was dominated by Southerners, including several who were strongly committed to protecting slavery (particularly Taney himself). They decided to go further, making a foray into matters they properly should not have addressed at all, such as the 1787 Northwest Ordinance and the 1820 Missouri Compromise. It seems they hoped to use this opportunity to settle the issue of slavery in the South's favor. While the nation should have been intent on resolving the issue, the method the Court chose was highly partisan and offensive to a great many in the North, convincing them that the "Southern Aristocrats" in the topic of this thread were arrogantly trying to dictate to the rest of the country.
This 1857 decision greatly strengthened the new Republican Party as men thronged to its ranks in reaction. To them, the Dred Scott decision meant they must unite in opposition to Southern aggression. In the 1858 elections, the Republicans scored great gains, and a man named Lincoln began to be noticed by the rest of the country as he spoke in the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. By 1860, the Republicans were strong enough to elect a President, with the aid of Southern Fire-Eaters who fractured the Democratic Party to weaken it.
Then the letters you read must have been very carefully selected.
Nope. They were read at random.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
You can return your guess to the place you pulled it out of, because Prof. Manning details her methodology in the book. She included letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers. It's clear the average confederate soldier knew slavery was the cause of the war and agreed with it.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
