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.
Slavery in MD and DE had long been in decline. There were well under 1000 slaveowners in DE in 1860.
And yet they still turned down compensated emancipation when Lincoln offered it and they refused to ratify the 13th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Odds are that both those states will eventually vote slavery out. Missouri seems likely as well. Kentucky seems likely to change eventually.
Maryland and Missouri both passed emancipation during the war. There's no evidence they were leaning that way without the war. Delaware and Kentucky both refused to ratify the 13th Amendment after the war had destroyed slavery almost altogether. The evidence indicates it wouldn't be anytime soon that absent the war any of those states would vote for emancipation.
Not a blow-away, sure-fire price, then. Better than the people in Washington were offered. Also worth noting that since most slaves in DE seem to have been actually on working farms in the southern 2 counties, they may have had an expectation of higher value.
The refusal (my guess) had more to do with politics than a realistic appraisal of the future. It is hard to see how -- even if the Confederacy won -- slavery in DE was anything but doomed at this point. Throw together intransigent slave-owners who would generally have money and more influence than the average, the desire not to make more waves than needed and the difficult problems of maintaining a wartime coalition and we can account for why it wasn't accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
$300 per slave might seem quite low if all we were talking about were prime field hands. But "per slave" also means children and slaves who couldn't do much work, and not all adult slaves were prime field hands.
Or consider that while few indeed of these would have been "prime field hands" in Washington, DC that it is probable many were quite skilled at handling things for rich people -- and might have had a different worth because of it. In any case, the Washington area people thought they were being robbed on the price and protested loudly over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Consider Lincoln made this offer after Butler's contraband interpretation, and after the Confiscation Act. Consider also that compensated emancipation by Northern states had been paid for by the states themselves, not by the Federal government. How likely would it be that there would be a better offer?
Not likely at all, because the District was ruled over by the Federal government -- which was, in this case, willing to pay for it itself, if poorly. In fact, the people who had their "property" taken had little if any legal recourse in the matter, and no legislative voice. But these conditions do not apply to MD and DE. They could not be run over rough-shod the way the people of DC could be. I think that was part of why the offer was rejected in those two states: because they could say no, and so had an opportunity to hold out.
And yet they still turned down compensated emancipation when Lincoln offered it and they refused to ratify the 13th Amendment.
I think seeing this as a single-item vote is probably not correct. Delaware had very few slave-owners, very few slaves, and more free blacks than slaves. Slavery there had been on the decine a long time, as it had in MD. If your time-window is only this short, than obviously there was opposition, but that does not fit with a denial of any opportunity for the state to go free over ten or twenty or thirty years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cash
Maryland and Missouri both passed emancipation during the war. There's no evidence they were leaning that way without the war. Delaware and Kentucky both refused to ratify the 13th Amendment after the war had destroyed slavery almost altogether. The evidence indicates it wouldn't be anytime soon that absent the war any of those states would vote for emancipation.
Again, if the timeframe is these few years, I see your point. If it is a decade or two or three of peaceful progress, I think your objection is two strong.
Slavery in MD had been flat or in decline in every single census the US took before the Civil War. DE had a similar record, and by 1860 had so few slaves and masters it looks like another generation will see it disappear naturally. KY had a larger slave presence, but it is concentrated in a minority of counties, largely the Bluegrass. Support for the Confederacy is strong where slavery is strong; support for the Union weak where slavery is weak; and the state eventually supported the Union by a slight but important edge.
IMHO, with no secession and no Civil War, slavery in DE is a dead issue in 20 years, with MD following close behind it. Slavery in MO is probably doomed by European immigration over that time, but would have seen much more controversial (and possibly violent) events before it went. It was better established in KY, and the immigration pattern in the Ohio valley taking longer to change the state, but I think you would have seen a movement to end slavery there somewhere in 1880-1900.
KY had actually had emancipation conventions before this (in 1831 and 1849). The people there do not seem to have been opposed to freeing the slaves -- their great difficulty was that they did not want the Negroes among them after they freed them, and proposed colonization as a solution. Colonization of so many was probably impractical, and so this effort fizzled.
In VA, there was an emancipation convention held in the 1830s. There were 132 delegates: 58 arrived at the convention committed to emancipation, 60 to continuing slavery, leaving 14 as swing votes. All 14 eventually came down on the NO side of the question (all this was a great disappointment to Robert E. Lee and family).
"The South" was not a monolith, and none of these efforts or a few others through the years succeeded. But it seems to me we should allow for the possibility that the attitudes of the 1830s might resurface over time. Still a t***** problem with no clear resolution -- but sooner or later it would be resolved, in peace or blood.
Funny statement coming from you. And it's neither out of context nor a misrepresentation.
Regards,
Cash
It's a deliberate misrepresentation and a lie.
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
Would you care to show us, with actual documentation and references as well as a description in your own words of your logic, why you make this charge about Cash? Since every single post you, yourself, are making shows a deliberate misrepresentation of William T. Sherman's words at the moment, one that you have known about for certain for quite a time, your credibility when you make a charge is pretty low unless you show evidence.
Would you care to show us, with actual documentation and references as well as a description in your own words of your logic, why you make this charge about Cash?
Tim
Let's have cash defend himself.
Let him post the document that supports his original statement-
"By 1865, Lee was saying that the master-slave relationship was the best that could exist between the white and black races."
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
"As the document is written, however, Lee kneels some distance from the black man, underscoring the established custom of the Lord's table--'even there--black, white, and brown, separate according to caste.' Likewise Lee simply ignores the man's presence, signaling more that the new order could not sway him from the rituals of his life than that there has been a shift in social expectations." [Elizabeth Brown Pryor, _Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters,_ p. 454]
Would you care to show us, with actual documentation and references as well as a description in your own words of your logic, why you make this charge about Cash? Since every single post you, yourself, are making shows a deliberate misrepresentation of William T. Sherman's words at the moment, one that you have known about for certain for quite a time, your credibility when you make a charge is pretty low unless you show evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Battalion
Let's have cash defend himself.
Let him post the document that supports his original statement-
"By 1865, Lee was saying that the master-slave relationship was the best that could exist between the white and black races."
He sounds like a big boy who can handle himself, and I have made no attempt to defend him. I do note that you have been shown to misrepresent things, so I'd like to see some evidence from you to back your charge before taking Cash to task. What do you have? Anything at all?
Not a blow-away, sure-fire price, then. Better than the people in Washington were offered. Also worth noting that since most slaves in DE seem to have been actually on working farms in the southern 2 counties, they may have had an expectation of higher value.
I'll have to check my copy of the census to see where they were, but the responses from Delaware don't indicate they were looking for more money. I think they realized $500 per slave was the highest they were going to get from the Federal government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
The refusal (my guess) had more to do with politics than a realistic appraisal of the future. It is hard to see how -- even if the Confederacy won -- slavery in DE was anything but doomed at this point. Throw together intransigent slave-owners who would generally have money and more influence than the average, the desire not to make more waves than needed and the difficult problems of maintaining a wartime coalition and we can account for why it wasn't accepted.
And they refused to ratify the 13th Amendment after slavery in the cotton south had been destroyed. If they were going to get rid of slavery anytime soon, there's no evidence of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Or consider that while few indeed of these would have been "prime field hands" in Washington, DC that it is probable many were quite skilled at handling things for rich people -- and might have had a different worth because of it. In any case, the Washington area people thought they were being robbed on the price and protested loudly over it.
There were a number of slaveowners who moved their slaves out of DC in order to keep those slaves in bondage, but those who didn't had ample warning of what was about to happen and knew what not moving slaves out of DC meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Not likely at all, because the District was ruled over by the Federal government -- which was, in this case, willing to pay for it itself, if poorly. In fact, the people who had their "property" taken had little if any legal recourse in the matter, and no legislative voice. But these conditions do not apply to MD and DE.
I was talking about Delaware. That's where Lincoln's offer was made. Congress set the $300/slave price in DC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
They could not be run over rough-shod the way the people of DC could be. I think that was part of why the offer was rejected in those two states: because they could say no, and so had an opportunity to hold out.
Again, I don't see any responses that indicate they were looking for more money.
I think seeing this as a single-item vote is probably not correct. Delaware had very few slave-owners, very few slaves, and more free blacks than slaves. Slavery there had been on the decine a long time, as it had in MD. If your time-window is only this short, than obviously there was opposition, but that does not fit with a denial of any opportunity for the state to go free over ten or twenty or thirty years.
So it looks like you're coming over to Freehling's viewpoint that slavery lasts in the border states for another 50 years. If Delaware keeps it for 20-30 years, that leaves another 20-30 years for other border states, where slavery was far more widespread than in Delaware, to hold onto slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Again, if the timeframe is these few years, I see your point. If it is a decade or two or three of peaceful progress, I think your objection is two strong.
Where's the evidence they were willing to give up their slaves in a decade or even two decades?
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
Slavery in MD had been flat or in decline in every single census the US took before the Civil War. DE had a similar record, and by 1860 had so few slaves and masters it looks like another generation will see it disappear naturally.
I don't think you can show that through a mathematical progression, but a generation is on the order of 25 years. If Delaware gets rid of slavery in 25 years, it will take even longer for Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland. So Freehling's estimate of 50 years for the border states looks more like what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
KY had a larger slave presence, but it is concentrated in a minority of counties, largely the Bluegrass. Support for the Confederacy is strong where slavery is strong; support for the Union weak where slavery is weak;
Uh, I think you mean "Confederacy," not "Union" here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
and the state eventually supported the Union by a slight but important edge.
IMHO, with no secession and no Civil War, slavery in DE is a dead issue in 20 years, with MD following close behind it. Slavery in MO is probably doomed by European immigration over that time, but would have seen much more controversial (and possibly violent) events before it went. It was better established in KY, and the immigration pattern in the Ohio valley taking longer to change the state, but I think you would have seen a movement to end slavery there somewhere in 1880-1900.
Which culminates in 1910, putting you firmly in Freehling's camp of 50 years to eradicate slavery in the border states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
KY had actually had emancipation conventions before this (in 1831 and 1849). The people there do not seem to have been opposed to freeing the slaves -- their great difficulty was that they did not want the Negroes among them after they freed them, and proposed colonization as a solution. Colonization of so many was probably impractical, and so this effort fizzled.
And Kentucky refused to ratify the 13th Amendment, which to me indicates that by 1865 they were opposed to freeing their slaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
In VA, there was an emancipation convention held in the 1830s. There were 132 delegates: 58 arrived at the convention committed to emancipation, 60 to continuing slavery, leaving 14 as swing votes. All 14 eventually came down on the NO side of the question (all this was a great disappointment to Robert E. Lee and family).
Not so much a disappointment that Lee divested himself of his slaves, though. Up to the 1830s, there were more antislavery societies in the south than in the North. By 1840 they had disappeared from the south. The attitudes that existed in the 1830s were gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trice
"The South" was not a monolith, and none of these efforts or a few others through the years succeeded. But it seems to me we should allow for the possibility that the attitudes of the 1830s might resurface over time. Still a t***** problem with no clear resolution -- but sooner or later it would be resolved, in peace or blood.
Regards,
Tim
My contention is that if it would not be in blood we'd still have slavery today, though in reduced numbers. That is based on Freehling's projections of 50 years for the border states, 50 years for the upper south, and 50 years for the deep south.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
