Secession

[bill_torrens]

Neil,

I forgot to mention that, in the form in which it appeared on my PC, the article had no page numbers. So I could not be certain which paragraphs you wanted me to consider. If I have dwelt on aspects which were outside of the remit you set me, I can only apologise.

Bill

[unionblue]

Friend Bill,

I find your detailed reply nowhere near outside the remit or aspects I intended for you to view. Bravo!

I will now try to answer as best I can the points you have raised about Mr. Starr's article.

1. Bill, are you sure you cannot come to any conclusions on your 'own hook' to explain why abolitionist societies in the South disappeared in the space of one decade from the dates Mr. Starr indicates (1827 - 1837)? Are you aware by your reading and research when the South stopped saying that slavery was an evil, even a necessary one, and when it started being a 'positive good?' Are you saying Mr. Starr's comments proceeding this sentence where he tells of the price of a slave increasing in value, tripling in value between 1800 and 1830 and then tripling again between 1830 and 1860 would have NO impact on anti-slavery agitation in the South?

2. I'm sorry Bill, but do you know of any comparisons between Northern courts and Southern ones in which a citizen of the North complaining of slavery had a bounty placed on his head? I have one example of a Southern Senator telling a Northern one that if he gave the same speech against slavery in his State, he would be hanged from the highest tree. The Northern Senator responded if the gentleman from the South came to his state he could give his speech in perfect safety. There was a difference in degrees here. The South WAS a closed society that would book no complaints against the institution of slavery, period.

3. Bill, the only thing I can say here is that it is my belief that Northern abolitionists were considered a lunatic fringe, even by Lincoln and most of the citizens in the North. Those who espoused slavery were far better recieved in the South with a much more sympathetic base in their region. As for the supporting arguments, check out the book, The Secession Conventions and see who voted and if they were a slave holder or not.

4. I do not consider this a mere assertion, but mainly historical fact. It wasn't until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclomation that abolitionists began to get real notice and power. Garrison, Sumner, Wade and others despaired of Lincoln not doing anything to directly effect slavery nor did Lincoln feel compelled to help them in their efforts.

5. Well, let's see, Alexander Stephens comes to mind as one Southern politician who tried to prevent secession. Robert E. Lee called it nothing but revolution. I'm willing to hear if there were anymore who came out flat against the idea.

6. Fatal in what way, Bill? Fatal in terms of an idea, a strong nation that promotes democracy in a world that typically derides the idea (at the time)? The idea that a minority should dictate to a majority whenever it feels slighted or threatened? Or are we talking just territory and material resources?

7. Again Bill, you have NEVER read or come across Southerners making insults about the North? Far worse things said by Northern abolitionists? How could these things said by the North have any impact in the South where the newspapers were cowed or preaching the party line, the mails censored and all such 'things' kept at bay? And again, how seriously were a threat were these abolitionists? When in the North their meetings are attacked and broken up, their presses attacked and destroyed and when most of the North considers them the same type of threat to the peace those in the South do?

I must confess Bill, that I found Mr. Starr's article a tad refreshing in that it did NOT consider the South an unsuspecting victim waylaid by the North in an alley of tarriffs and states rights.

I think we have a bit more for the grinder now and I await your reply.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

(Message edited by unionblue on July 14, 2004)

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,


Your thoughts are interesting, as ever. Here is my response:

1. The argument that Southern misgivings about slavery evaporated as the profitability of the institution increased is a superficially plausible example of “cause & effect”. But the chronology of events doesn’t match the theory. If the decline in Southern abolitionist societies was concentrated in the years 1827 to 1837, as you suggest, the opening date falls virtually at the end of the period in which you described the first trebling in the value of slaves. Unless Southerners were incapable of understanding simple arithmetic the decline starts too late to be caused in way you suggest. It coincides rather more precisely with what I believe to be the real reason, namely Garrison’s taking over of the leadership of the abolitionist movement in 1830, and that organization’s descent into zealotry, hatred and vituperation.

2. You paint a beguiling picture of the liberty enjoyed in the North. You almost win me over. But then I have to remind myself that “the legislatures of Iowa in 1851, Indiana in 1852, and Illinois in 1853 adopted laws making it a crime for Negroes to settle in their states…every state [in the Middle West] imposed legal disabilities upon its black residents. All seven states barred Negroes from suffrage and from the militia. In Illinois and Indiana there were no provisions for the education of colored children; negroes were not permitted to testify against white persons in court. Iowa, Ohio, and Illinois excluded men of color from jury service. Interracial marriages were forbidden in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. Ohio denied Negroes the benefits of poor relief and provided for racially segregated public schools…in 1854 a Indiana newspaper editor wrote that Negroes ‘suffered severely’ from the ‘terrible and irresistible’ law of public sentiment. ‘Under its rule, they are constantly subject to insults and annoyance in traveling and the other daily avocations of life; are practically excluded from all social privileges, and even from the Christian communion.’ ” It’s all very well for that Northern Senator to promise his Southern adversary safety from violence should he visit the North, but a few years later he couldn’t have guaranteed that safety to some of the residents of his own region: “after a group of Negroes underbid white workers for a job on the Chicago docks, a general riot ensued. At Toledo, race strife over wages left one man dead, several wounded, and a number of Negro shanties torn down. The worst outbreak erupted on July 10, 1862, at a Cincinnati river landing where about a hundred whites and a number of Negroes battled over wages and employment. Five days later, one thousand whites attacked “Bucktown”, a Negro ghetto in Cincinnati, and caused considerable property damage. One month later, another attack was launched on negro dock laborers in the same city. A friend of the colored people of Cincinnati remarked that anti-Negro sentiment was so fierce in the summer of 1862 that ‘it was at the hazard of his life that a colored man could walk the streets’, and ‘the courts gave them no redress’. But racial violence was not caused by labor competition alone. With the dread of racial equality haunting the Midwest, the need to remind the Negro of his place in society frequently supplied the spark to set off a bloody riot. After two white men in New Albany, Indiana, were reportedly shot by Negroes, a white mob meted out its punishment; one Negro was killed and another wounded in a thirty-hour riot marked by beatings, shootings, and vandalism in the Negro sector of the town. Afterward, when a number of blacks fled to Louisville, the New Albany Ledger wrote with grim irony: ‘They fly to a slave State to enjoy that liberty and security which is denied them in a free State…’ ”

[Voegeli, Free But Not Equal: The Midwest And The Negro During The Civil War, pp.2 & 34-35.]

“They fly to a slave State to enjoy that liberty and security which is denied them in a free State.” Don’t you just love life’s little ironies? Some Northerners do seem to have a slight tendency to preen and congratulate themselves on the issues of racial tolerance and abstention from violence, and all the while the historical record makes a mockery of their complacency.

3. Neil, you express your genuine belief on this point, and good luck to you. You’re entitled to that belief and – who knows? – you may even be right. But what neither you nor Mr. Starr have done is to produce any hard evidence to justify what you assert. So, for the time being, I reserve the right not to take it particularly seriously.

4. Forget abolitionist control of power. That doesn’t interest me. I’m interested in abolitionist influence on public opinion, which is much, much harder to measure. I don’t pretend that I can produce evidence to prove how influential abolitionism was, but equally I don’t believe that either you or Mr. S. can prove the reverse.

5. I disputed the suggestion that all or even most leading Southern politicians were fanatics. You counter by querying how many of them opposed secession. You crafty Yankee…you’ll be trying to sell me wooden nutmegs if I’m not careful. Don’t think I didn’t spot the sleight of hand. Supporting secession is not the same thing as fanaticism, at least not in my book.

6. Now this is really very interesting. I think I understand you to say that the United States would have suffered more than the mere loss of territory and resources if the eleven states had departed. Are you saying that there would have been – how can we put it? – a spiritual wound? It is an idea which deserves to be taken seriously, and I have given it serious thought. But I cannot agree. I cannot persuade myself that any great principle is fatally damaged by a simple reduction in the number of people espousing it at any given time. But, in any case, what could be a worse mockery of a great principle than to force people, at the point of the bayonet, to pretend that they adhere to it? It’s like marching people into church at gunpoint. Certain activities and relationships have to be based on consent. Using violence to coerce millions of people into being citizens of a country against their will is the absolute antithesis of democracy. It is as self-evidently wrong as murder or rape, and it is a source of genuine wonder to me that anyone can see it in a different light.

7. Of course I have read Southern insults about Northerners. Never pretended otherwise. My point was the very mild one that insults flew in both directions and Mr. Starr’s selective approach to the subject rendered his argument meaningless.


Cheers,

Bill

[unionblue]

Bill,

I must say I am truly impressed by your response and with how much of it I agree with, up to a point, which I am sure is no surprise.

I must say that I am impressed with how much influence and power over Northern public opinion you give Garrison and 'his taking over of the leadership of the abolitionist movement (by the way, I had to look up the word, vituperation.) Again, from what I have read, Southern politicians were more influenced by him than most of the residents of the North. I just can't credit him with the influence you give him. Now as to the fact that ANY anti-slavery commentary or views were quickly suppressed in the South as the institution was being touted as a 'positive good' that I can fly with. And the South's attempts to stifle any debate on slavery did not stop at the Mason-Dixion Line, but into the halls of national government itself. Are you aware of the gag rule in Congress and the violations of the right to petition done by Southern politicians and those in league with them? I'm sorry Bill, but I cannot see the abolitionist movement having the same impact as those in power in the South had to have their own way in their respective regions.

2. In order to clear up a misunderstanding, let me make clear I was talking about white citizens of the North, not negroes in either section. I agree with you 100% on blacks being treated badly in the North by angry race-hating whites. All that you listed in this section concerning their plight in the North, I totally agree with. I also am well aware of the Black Codes and laws put in place by several Northern States that prevented blacks from settling in those States, to include my own native state of Ohio. Thea, Tommy and others have also shown the hellish race riots that took place in New York City during the war in which many blacks were killed or beaten, mainly over the idea that poor Irish men would be fighting for their freedom and not having enough money to buy a substitute.

But how many States in the South permitted free blacks to vote? How many States in the North permitted free blacks to vote? More than in the South. And I must also say I can understand the irony of 'blacks fleeing to a Slave State to enjoy that liberty and security which is denied them in a free State' since the social order would be much more well defined and laid out for those poor souls. I agree Bill, some Northerners do seem to have that tendency to preen and congratulate themselves on issues of racial tolerance when the historical record says otherwise. Slavery and race hatred is an American sin, not just a Southern one.

But what I meant was that those who held power in the North, the white, Anglo-Saxon citizens, those who voted and held power, the ordinary white citizen, did not have to greatly fear being lynched, run out of town, killed or thrown into jail if he expressed anti-slavery sentiments. Newspapers in the North could publish articles and editors could write stories about slavery and not have their presses destroyed or their lives in danger if they did so. Was not this the very reason mails from the North were searched and articles and books on the subject seized and withheld? It was in this context I made reference to the Southern and Northern Senators and the difference in climates in each section.

3. I am sorry Bill, but I think the evidence you seek is there if you do view the book The Secession Conventions and who voted for secession and why. And I am also of the conclusion that the South had become so isolated from the rest of the country and became so convinced of her cause, she would and could not listen to any other explanation. I present the present-day North Korea as an example of such a closed society.

4. Bill, I bet we can produce evidence to show you that abolitionist influence on public opinion, mattered very little in the North compared to those who wished the South to seceed who had greater influence. Read McPhearson's Battle Cry of Freedom and you will see some historical background on when abolitionists began to have some say over the political process, well after the war had begun. Also I would suggest the book American Slavery, 1619 - 1877, by Peter Kolchin. In this books very first chapter it states, "When, begining about 1830, a small band of abolitionists boldly proclaimed that slavery was a dreadful sin, the majority of Americans, North as well as South, regarded them as fanatics whose provactive rantings threatened the well-being of the Republic." I'll try and dig up some more examples for you.

5. Here we differ completely. I am of the opinion anyone supporting secession is a fanatic, and no wooden nutmegs needed, thank you very much. Seriously, I wonder how many Southern leaders did oppose secession compared to those who did? Oh, Sam Houston comes to mind along with the other two I mentioned above.

6. Here is where we really part company. I do believe the nation, the United States would have suffered a blow, in spirit and of a physical nature, an impact socially and politically that would have driven participative democracy from the face of the earth or given it a blow it would have been long recovering from. I further believe that war would not have long been absent from the region if the South had managed to leave 'peaceably.' Once a precedent of secession being established, I believe there would have been other separations, to include Utah, the Western States, maybe even California. Then I feel France in Mexico, disputes over navigation rights on the Mississippi, border clashes and war over slaves still escaping over the Ohio, etc., leading to almost eternal war. But regional conflicts would have been small pains compared to the loss of the idea that a nation founded on the principles of democracy could not survive, giving ammunition to those in power who knew the common man could not govern himself nor could such 'children' be expected to rule themselves.

I flip the argument that a nation using violence to coerce millions of people into being citizens with the argument that a minority should not be able to coerece a majority against its will. In that light, I agree it is the absolute antithesis of democracy to either let a King by divine right or a disgruntled minority defying history and progress to decide for the majority.

7. Just checking on the insult theory, glad to know that you knew they flew both ways.

Until that time,
Unionblue

(Message edited by Unionblue on July 15, 2004)

"The Unconditional Abolition of Slavery,"
"Peaceably, if we can; Violently, if we must."
...........
We, the undersigned, members of the House of Representatives of the National Congress, do cordially endorse the opinion and approve the enterprise set forth in the foregoing circular:--


Schuyler Colfax,
Owen Lovejoy,
Edwin B. Morgan,
Joshua R. Giddings,
Calvin C. Chaffee,
Wm. A. Howard,
John Sherman,
Daniel W. Gooch,
Justin S. Morril,
J. A. Bingham,
E. B. Washburne,
Edward Dodd,
John Covode,
Sam'l G. Andrews,
Sidney Dean,
Emory B. Pottle,
John F. Potter,
J. F. Farnsworth,
R. E. Fenton,
Mason W. Tappan,
T. Davis, (Iowa)
Homer E. Royce,
A. S. Murray,
Valentine B. Horton,
David Kilgore,
Samuel R. Curtis,
John M. Parker,
Charles J. Gilman,
John Thompson,
Wm. D. Brayton,
O. B. Matteson,
Geo. R. Cobbins,
James Wilson,
Francis E. Spinner,
Anson Burlingame,
Amos P. Granger,
Galusha A. Grow,
Edward Wade,
William H. Kelsey,
Henry Waldon,
Geo. W. Palmer,
Henry L. Dawes,
I. Washburn, Jr.
Wm. Kellogg,
Benjamin Stanton,
Cydnor B. Tompkins,
Cad. C. Washburne,
Abraham B. Olin,
Nath'l B. Durfee,
De Witt C. Leach,
T. Davis, (Mass.)
C. L. Knapp,
Philemon Bliss,
Charles Case,
James Pike,
Isaac D. Clawson,
Robert B. Hall,
Freeman H. Morse,
William Stewart,
John M. Wood,
Stephen C. Foster,
Charles B. Hoard,
J. W. Sherman,
James Buffinton,
Richard Mott,
Ezekiel P. Walton,
S. A. Purviance,
Silas M. Burroughs,
W. Curtis Noyes.


It is believed that this testimony of a southern man, born and reared under the influence of slavery will be more generally listened to and profoundly heeded, whether in the slave or free states, than an equally able and conclusive work written by a northern man. And it is very desirable therefore, that a cheap compend of its contents fitted for gratuitous circulation be now made and generally diffused in those States--Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana and Illinois--which are to decide the next Presidential contest.
Horace Greeley,
B. S. Hedrick,
John A. Kennedy,
Thurlow Weed,
J. C. Underwood,
Wm. Henry Anthon,
E. Delafield Smith,
James Kelley, Chairman State Cen. Com.
John Jay,
Marcus Spring,
Abram Wakeman,
Wm. C. Bryant,
R. H. McCurdy.

In aid of the general fund for circulating one hundred thousand copies of the work in hand, subscriptions up to the 15th of June 1859, amount to about $3,700 of which the following, as will respectively appear, have been received in sums of from $10 to $250.
Beers, Abner, New York city,..........$ 10
Bonney, B. W. " "..........100
Brown, Nicholas, Warwick, R.I...........100
Burdick, Asher B. Brooklyn, N. Y...........100
Clark, James Freeman, Jamaica Plains, Mas...........10
Clay, Cassius M. Whitehall, Ky...........25
Clay, Cassius M. for a Kentucky clergyman,..........250
Clay, Cassius M. for several persons,..........10
Darrah, Robert L. New York city,..........10
Dudley, E. G. Boston, Ms...........50
Endicott, William Jr. Boston, Mass...........100
Farnham, Jonathan, Milville, Mass...........10
Fiske, Edward F. Brooklyn, N. Y...........100
Fosdick, Samuel, Cincinnati, Ohio,..........10
French, Stiles, New Haven, Con...........10
Frisbie, M. J. New York city,..........100
Frothingham, O. B. Jersey City,..........100
Goodloe, D. R. and friend, Washington, D.C...........16
Greeley, Horace, New York city,..........100
Greenleaf, R. C. Boston, Mass...........50
Harris, Edward, Woonsocket, R. I...........100
Henrick, Benjamin S. New York city,..........50
Helper, H. R. New York city,..........100
Hurlbut, F. Brooklyn, N. Y...........25
Jay, John, New York city,..........100
Ketcham, Edgar, New York city,..........25
McCauley, Wm. Wilmington, Del...........10
Marble, Nathan, Port Byron, N. Y...........10
May, Samuel, Boston, Ms...........100
Morgan, Edwin D. Albany, N. Y...........100
Nesmite, John, Lowell, Ms...........100
Norton, John T. Farmington, Ct...........100
Parsons, J. C. New York,..........10
Pinner, M., Kansas City, Mo...........10
Plumly, Benjamin Rush, Philadelphia, Pa...........100
Randolph, Evan, Philadelphia, Pa...........20
Republicans of Pottsville and N. Coventry, Pa. $40. Crown Point, N. Y, $11,..........51
Republicans of Shawnee Mound, $20. South Bend, Ind. $10,..........30
Roberts, W. S. New York city,..........10
Robinson, Hanson, New Castle Co. Del...........20
Ryerson, David, Newton, N.J...........64
Sherman, S. N. Ogdensburgh, N. Y...........32
Smith, Gerrit, Peterboro, N. Y...........20
Spring, Marcus, Eagleswood, N. J...........100
Stober, John A., Smyrna, N. Y.,..........10
Stranahan, J. S. T., Brooklyn, N. Y.,..........100
Tappan, Lewis, Brooklyn, N. Y.,..........100
Thompson, Wm. B., Philadelphia, Pa.,..........100
Tweedy, Edmund, Newport, R. I.,..........10
Wadsworth, James S., New York City,..........100
Wakeman, Abram, New York City,..........100
Weed, Thurlow, Albany N. Y.,..........100
White, Aaron, Thompson, Conn.,..........10
Wright, E. N. and James A., Philadelphia, Pa...........30
Wood, Bradford R., Albany, N. Y.,..........100
A. A., $50; B. B., $50; C. C., $10; D. D., $10; E. $20; F. F., $25, North Carolina,..........165
S. F. M., Wilmington, Del.,..........10
A friend, by S. E. Sewell, Boston, Mass., $10; E. B., Brooklyn, N. Y., $25..........35




Neil,
I find it very interesting your claim of the lack of influence of the abolitionists. The Public voted these men in office. They worked for these men's companies. They read their newspapers. I'd call that public opinion. These men were not Joe Smoe. These men were the ones in charge even regardless of "public opinion." In light of a Senator advocating war like Lane did and the Party support he got.....Etc
I'd be really surprised to I'm able to dismiss this now. I can only imagine the effect to the Southern Man at the time.

"By what vote can I do most to prevent the madness of the times from working it's maddest act-the very ecstasy of its madness-the permanent formation and the actual triumph of a party which knows one half of America, only to hate and dread it?"

"If the Republican Party gives the government to the north, I turn my eyes from the consequences. To the fifteen States of the south that government will appear an alien government. It will appear worse. It will appear a hostile government."'

Rufus Choate of Maine, who had succeeded to Daniel Webster's seat in the US Senate, in a letter to the Maine State Central Committee, about the way the new anti-slavery party was conducting it's campaign

[unionblue]

Tommy,

I will assume the above post you have given refers to the 'Hinton Helper' and the anger it brought forth from the South. I remember discussing this with you earlier. There were a 100,000 copies made, were there not or something like that? How many copies of this publication fell into the hands of Southern slaves? How many made it into the hands of the millions of residents in the North? How big of an effect did it have to raise hue and cry for those millions to call for the immediate implementation of the book's called for actions? I am aware that this was even reprinted in some Northern newspapers. How many Southern newspapers reprinted this publication in their pages?

Again, it has been stated by some on this board that Lincoln and the North did NOT go to war over the issue of slavery, but of preserving the Union. Has something changed on a thread that I do not know about? Are we saying now that the abolitionist movement DID have such influence and power that the North REALLY went to war with the South over the issue of slavery as a direct result of that influence?

This is not to say that they did not publish, that they did not speak, that they did not try and push their agenda onto the national stage, but overall, did not these very same leaders of abolition and its movement talk about the despair they had with Lincoln over the issue of slavery? Was not Lincoln chosen as a compromise candidate for the Republican Party because he was NOT identified with abolitionist goals so he would appeal to a broader spectrum of voters?

BY my reading this faction representing abolition simply did not have the power to get its agenda up and running with any power faction in Northern politics to include right up to the start of the war and for a period of that war.

Or as I said, did something change and slavery, pushed by Northern abolitionists, was the REAL cause of the war?

YMOS,
Unionblue

Neil,
I think you are missing the whole point of the Helper work. It had nothing to do with the slaves reading it. It was for white NORTHERN consumption. Also, the work itself is secondary to the support of it by the Party. The Republican Party had no legitimate interest in slavery other than as an "issue." Just the WMD of the times. Kinda hard to run on a "Let's take complete control of the government and the Treasury and raise taxes to line pockets of the already rich" ticket.

[unionblue]

Tommy,

No, I think I got you right with the rest of my post above. Did Northern public opinion radically change as a result of the Hinton Helper book? I do not get that vibe, especially when others keep claiming slavery had nothing to do with Lincoln waging war on the South. I am correct in assuming that the Hinton Helper book was about the evils of slavery and the terrible effects it had on the South and that it should be destroyed, am I not? So again, how does one measure the effect this book had on the NORTH as opposed to the fury it whipped up in the South over its publication and endorsement by certain members of Congress and the Republican Party?

By-the-way, you finally got that computer of yours under control? Seems like you are pretty active with it tonight at least so it seems like you are able to post with less problems and such, much to my own debating despair!(Grin)

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Bill,

Here is some more background information on why I feel the abolitionists had no real power with the North and then only after the war had begun.

From the book Battle Cry Of Freedom by James McPherson, Chapter 16, We Must Free The Slaves Or Be Ourselves Subdued, section II, page 494, paragraph II:

One sign of this development was the growing influence of abolitionists. "Never has there been a time when Abolitionists were as much respected, as at present," rejoiced one of them in December 1861. "It is hard to realize the wonderous change which has befallen us," mused another. The most radical of them all, Wendell Phillips, lectured to packed houses all over the North in the winter and spring of 1862. In March he came to Washington--which he could scarcely have entered without danger to his life a year earlier--and spoke on three occasions to large audiences that included the president and many members of Congress. Phillips also had the rare privilege of a formal introduction on the floor of the Senate. "The Vice-President left his seat and greeted him with marked respect," wrote a reporter for the New York Tribune. "The attentions of Senators to the apostle of Abolition were of the most flattering character." Noting the change from the previous winter when mobs had attacked abolitionists as troublemakers who had provoked the South to secession, the Tribune observed: "it is not often that history presents such violent contrasts in such rapid succession...The deference and respect now paid to him by men in the highest places of the nation, are tributes to the idea of which he, more than any other one man, is a popular exponent." Even the New York Times gave abolitionists its imprimatur in January 1862 by sending a reporter to the convention of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. "In years heretofore a great deal has been said and much fun has been made...of these gatherings," said the Times. "The facts that black and white met socially here, and that with equal freedom men and women addressed the conglomerate audience, have furnished themes for humorous reporters and facetious editors; but no such motives have drawn here the representatives of fifteen of the most widely circulated journals of the North. Peculiar circumstances have given to [abolitionist meetings] an importance that has hitherto not been theirs."

I submit this as one source that clearly indicates that abolitionists had no real power in the North, not any that could sway public opinion nor those in political power, at least not until the war was underway.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Bill,

I also suggest you check out the following web site:

http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/debow.html

Here you will find DeBow's Review On The Views of Non-Slaveholders.

Read sections 5, 6 and 7 and I think it will further reinforce the idea that whites, even non-slaveholding ones, had a stake or a future stake in the institution of slavery.

Sincerely,
Unionblue