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.
Really don't hear about them. We hear a lot about the Southern aristocrats, but not their northern counterparts. I presume this would include large corporate shareholders, railroad magnates, large factory owners, ship owners, bigger merchants. Is there a lack of scholarly examination about these well to do who probably had a lot to profit or lose from the war's outcome?
Really don't hear about them. We hear a lot about the Southern aristocrats, but not their northern counterparts. I presume this would include large corporate shareholders, railroad magnates, large factory owners, ship owners, bigger merchants. Is there a lack of scholarly examination about these well to do who probably had a lot to profit or lose from the war's outcome?
I think you don't hear much about them because they were not the homogenous group the Southern-planter-elite was.
There certainly was a social elite in Boston, New York and Philadelphia. But the North had a more diverse group, constantly changing as a result of immigration. Money and commercial success brought newcomers in all the time. While they had their share of crusty curmudgeons and fanatics, they don't seem to have had the unity Southern society had.
There is plenty written about those people, but much of it is dry and dull and sells little, so you just won't see a lot of it about.
Really don't hear about them. We hear a lot about the Southern aristocrats, but not their northern counterparts. I presume this would include large corporate shareholders, railroad magnates, large factory owners, ship owners, bigger merchants. Is there a lack of scholarly examination about these well to do who probably had a lot to profit or lose from the war's outcome?
Biographies of wealthy Northerners abound. Additionally, George Templeton Strong was one of those Northern elites, and his diary is a major primary source historians use. Ditto for Gideon Welles.
I do, its abyssmal no matter where the institution is and slave/less than free conditions STILL exist in this world. I decry the fact that ANY state had slavery and frankly I'm not particularly crazy about the fact that slavery was permitted to exist after the Revolution where such lofty ideals as 'all men are created equal' so obviously contradicted the status of so many slaves both North and South. And yes, I acknowledge that many northern slaves were most likely sold south prior to abolition so yes, the North enjoys the benefits of a 'compensated' emancipation scheme whereas the South faces the Emancipation Proclamation....
I wonder why yanks don't ever discuss the northern slave trade?
Larry,
Actually, I know that I have, several times, on this forum. I have never seen any "yank" deny that it went on, or refuse to discuss it. It is mentioned in every substantial history of the slave trade I have ever read, and you can easily find accounts published that detail the extent of it over the years.
The slave trade existed. Ships carried slaves from Africa to the New World, and many of them flew US flags even after the US banned the slave trade and made it equivalent to Piracy in 1820. Enforcement was missing, to say the least. In particular, the Buchanan administration bent over backwards to avoid enforcing the laws for the first three years (1857-59) -- but the Buchanan administration was dominated by Southern Democrats.
One recent book worth noting: The Wanderer: The Last American Slave Ship and the Conspiracy That Set Its Sails by Eric Calonius, St. Martin's Press, 2006. The Wanderer was part of the New York Yacht Club, but it should be noted that her captain was a Southerner, her owners were Southerners, and the entire scheme to use her appears to have been yet another attempt by Fire-Eaters out of South Carolina to create a divisive issue for the upcoming 1860 election, with some cooperation from Northern interests. In the process, they also intended to make a tidy profit. The Federal government seized the ship and indicted the captain and owner -- but the Charleston, SC and Savannah, GA juries refused to convict (think of them as earlier versions of "jury nullification, like the OJ jury). To complete the story with irony, the Wanderer was later converted to a gunboat for the blockade when the Civil War came.
I am not sure why Southerners seem to find any of this surprising, or to think that bringing it up somehow advances their arguments. There have always been people willing to break the law in order to make a buck, and government officials willing to look the other way for one reason (usually money) or another. Today they smuggle illegal drugs or take huge sums to bring illegals across the borders. We call these people criminals.
It is also worth noting that anytime you find a "Northerner"/"Yankee" involved in the illegal slave trade to bring slaves into this country, he is bringing in a "product" that can only be worthwhile in a slave state. For decades before the Civil War, that meant he was in cahoots with "Southerners" who were also breaking the law -- for who else would his customers be?
Tim, that's one of the better responses to this question I've ever seen. Your attitude in general is a pleasure to encounter.
You wrote: "It is also worth noting that anytime you find a "Northerner"/"Yankee" involved in the illegal slave trade to bring slaves into this country, he is bringing in a "product" that can only be worthwhile in a slave state. For decades before the Civil War, that meant he was in cahoots with "Southerners" who were also breaking the law -- for who else would his customers be?"
That's an interesting concept. Last time I was in western New York, I didn't see any cotton or rice plantations. I'm curious as to how many slaves would have been taken to northern states as domestic servants or 'employees' of small businesses. Yes, it was illegal in many states and enforced in some regions, but not all. The undeveloped territories with climates conducive to agriculture would have also been an obvious sales market for working slaves. Northern banks had money, as you point out. I suspect the dollar was woven in many pockets, both north and south, in the horrendous, though profitable, industry encompassing slavery in the 19th century.
Sadly, in many areas of the country, they weren't breaking the law. One can take some consolation in the fact that the civil war helped accelerate the demise of this venture. That's about the only positive aspect I can comprehend from an otherwise mis-managed venture.
There were many necessary political arguments that should have been aired in Congress between regions of the nation. Starting this silly war didn't resolve much if any of those issues. Even and especially, today, thousand of Americans are profiting from our conflicts in the Middle East. It's always been that way. Too many humans and entrepreneurs in our country!
__________________
Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Last edited by larry_cockerham : 06-14-2007 at 07:16 AM.
There is an excellent quote by Lincoln when he was talking to the Confederate commissioners at the Hampton Roads conference.
Lincoln brought up the idea of supporting a tax on the Union to raise $400,000,000 to compensate slaveowners in the South for the loss of their slaves. Secretary of State Seward said that he doubted that the US Congress would approve such after so much money had been spent on the war, or something to that effect.
Lincoln was reported (by Confederate commissioners Stephens and Hunter) to have replied to Seward, "If it was wrong in the South to hold slaves, it was wrong in the North to carry on the slave trade and sell them to the South."
Says it all for me.
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
Tim, that's one of the better responses to this question I've ever seen. Your attitude in general is a pleasure to encounter.
You wrote: "It is also worth noting that anytime you find a "Northerner"/"Yankee" involved in the illegal slave trade to bring slaves into this country, he is bringing in a "product" that can only be worthwhile in a slave state. For decades before the Civil War, that meant he was in cahoots with "Southerners" who were also breaking the law -- for who else would his customers be?"
That's an interesting concept. Last time I was in western New York, I didn't see any cotton or rice plantations. I'm curious as to how many slaves would have been taken to northern states as domestic servants or 'employees' of small businesses. Yes, it was illegal in many states and enforced in some regions, but not all. The undeveloped territories with climates conducive to agriculture would have also been an obvious sales market for working slaves. Northern banks had money, as you point out. I suspect the dollar was woven in many pockets, both north and south, in the horrendous, though profitable, industry encompassing slavery in the 19th century.
Even within slave states, you can find a divide based on economics. DE is a model of the country. There are only 3 counties; the northern one (includes Wilmington) was anti-slavery, the southern one (where most of the slaves were) pro-slavery. The emancipation movement had been pushing forward here for 75 years before the Civil War, and the state was opposed to expanding slavery into the territories.
But slavery was only marginally profitable in DE, and it was illegal there to sell a slave out of the state (the slave was legally freed if you did so). The far south of DE was heavily agricultural; industrial Wilmington was a major Underground RR center, and the leading Abolitionist in Wilmington was reputedly used as a model for the Quaker gentleman in Uncle Tom's Cabin. For that matter, the biggest slaveholder in the state was a Republican, who pushed to get Lincoln's compensated emancipation accepted, and failed.
Real life is rarely as clear-cut as we'd like. People are rarely all demon or all saint.
In the North, a state New York probably had about 15-20% slaves in the population at the time of the American Revolution. But the economic argument for slavery there was weaker than further south, making the moral argument against slavery a little easier to take. So all the states above the Mason-Dixon Line eventually passed laws or otherwise eliminated slavery.
The Border States in 1860 are another category (3 of them below that AmRev NY slave percentage figure, and 1 slightly above it). Many speculate they would have abolished slavery as a result, although there is plenty of argument about when they would do so.
It is primarily below that where you find the conditions that made slavery so entrenched: cotton-rice-tobacco-sugar agriculture. Sugar cane can only be profitabbly grown in Louisiana in the Continental US (then as now). Rice and cotton would not do well in Northern growing seasons. Tobacco will in some places, but it simply isn't viable on the widespread basis it was in VA and NC, for instance.
Slaves can be used for other purposes (Tredegar used some, and John B. Gordon ran a mine down on the AL-GA line that used them before the war), but it was not really competitive on a broad basis with free labor in the North. Also, slave-based society made it hard for a middle-class of free whites to arise in the South, deepening the rish/poor divide.
There was also a movement to end slavery in the South. It was never as strong in the North, and it faded after the invention of the Cotton Gin, and particularly after the 1830s.
The difference between the two sections and the times comes down to this in my view:
1) the Northern states did end slavery within their borders while the Southern states did not and
2) the cotton boom of the 19th century made slavery too profitable for Southerners to give up easily
3) instead of reducing slavery gradually, the South expanded it from 1800-1860. This made the worry about freeing the large population of slaves much worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by larry_cockerham
Sadly, in many areas of the country, they weren't breaking the law. One can take some consolation in the fact that the civil war helped accelerate the demise of this venture. That's about the only positive aspect I can comprehend from an otherwise mis-managed venture.
There were many necessary political arguments that should have been aired in Congress between regions of the nation. Starting this silly war didn't resolve much if any of those issues. Even and especially, today, thousand of Americans are profiting from our conflicts in the Middle East. It's always been that way. Too many humans and entrepreneurs in our country!
You wrote: "It is also worth noting that anytime you find a "Northerner"/"Yankee" involved in the illegal slave trade to bring slaves into this country, he is bringing in a "product" that can only be worthwhile in a slave state. For decades before the Civil War, that meant he was in cahoots with "Southerners" who were also breaking the law -- for who else would his customers be?"
Also worth noting is that many "American flag" ships were "flags of convenience". The Portuguese were particularly recalcitrant in keeping up the slave trade, but the British would stop Portuguese flag-ships. They would not stop US flag ships. So many Portuguese found a way to get a ship under the US flag -- just as today many ships are registered in Panama, Liberia, etc. for other reasons. The Royal Navy estimated about 50% of the Atlantic Slave Trade was carried on in US flag vessels in the late 1850s; this doesn't necessarily mean the men involved were all Yankees.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Northern equivalent of Southern Aristocracy 
Linear Mode
