Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Since no slaveowner ever volunteered for a life of unpaid servitude(and all their descendents as well), its safe to say that they never actually applied the Golden Rule very rigorously. But, I'm sure many read their Bibles daily and prayed fervently.
Thats the same argument Spooner made in regard of the Constition, why woud future generations be bound to the contract/compact of the Constition when they had no part of forming it.
I am still waiting for a reliofous reference to slavery being imoral or against the word of God btw, i should add that the concept of it being so, is very modern in human history, and that the bulk of human history and morality acepted slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKeon
My point was this: many people in America, and elsewhere found slavery immoral. Lincoln(and others), besides thinking slavery bad for black people, thought it was bad for the United States.
200k or so were Abolishonists, most had no idea of the conditions of slavery and based it on their intpretation of the Bible, few northern states when they freed the negros allowed them to become citizens, and many passed anti resident laws for them, this resulted in 0s of ooos of them moving South and selling thmselves back into slavery, (mostly to Southern abolistionsts, who took them on for a year often without seing them and used the income to fund further emncipation and education, and at a years end, the slave filled for freedom under state law and returned to free status and become a citizen of the state he now found himself in, providing one of the mass migrations of negros pre war ) because they were skilled and had been prepared for self sufficeniency at freedom by 21-28 years of being taught trades so as to make so.
The people argueing slavery was bad was those who wanted to reserve the new states for the free poor whites, D Wilmot said so, A Lincoln, Seward, and nearly Republicans, they did not want the competion of negros, nor their participation in society either.
Slavery made the USA a economic viability in the first place and fuelled the national growth in the second palce, and the only thing wrong with it was who controlled it, ie not the Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathew McKeon
I'm not arguing that they were correct in thinking holding millions of people in slavery was hypocritical, in a republic where it was self-evident that "all men were created equal." Or that oppressing a racial group might lead to oppressing others. But that's how they felt at the time, and it was a factor in issuing the Emancipation Proclaimation, which is where we started on this thread.
No, not all men are created equal, only one man was, and he was Adam, all the rest have no claim to equality.
It has always been admitted, that our political institutions embrace the white population only. Persons of color were not recognized as having any political existence. They had no agency in our political organizations, and possessed no political rights under it. Two or three of the States form exceptions. The constitutions of fourteen expressly exclude persons of color by a provision similar to our own; and, in the balance of the States, they are excluded on the ground that they were never recognized as a part of the body politic.... Indeed, it is a matter of history, that the very object of introducing the word white into our constitution, by the convention framing that instrument, was to put this question beyond all cavil or doubt, by, in express terms, excluding all persons from the enjoyment of the elective franchise, except persons of pure white blood.
...Hence, we find, so early as 1804, followed up by another act in 1807, statutes discouraging the emigration of blacks into our State, and imposing upon those among us such conditions and restrictions as would induce the vast majority of them to quit the State. Thus, we have denied them all constitutional right to remain even in the State....
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind — walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony Thacher v. Hawk (1842), SC of Ohio.
In 1835, a free Black man sued for the right to vote in Pennsylvania. The State supreme court replied:
...[A] free negro or mulatto is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and of the State of Pennsylvania, and, therefore, is not entitled to the right of suffrage.... But in addition to interpretation from usage, this antecedent legislation declared that no colored race was party to our social compact. Our ancestors settled the province as a community of white men; and the blacks were introduced into it as a race of slaves; whence an unconquerable prejudice of caste, which has come down to our day.... Consistently with this prejudice, is it to be credited that parity of rank would be allowed to such a race?... I have thought fair to treat the question as it stands affected by our own municipal regulations without illustration from those of other States, where the condition of the race has been still less favored. Yet it is proper to say that the second section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution, presents an obstacle to the political freedom of the negro, which seems to be insuperable.Hobbs v. Fogg (1835)
Crandall v. The State (1833), Connecticut SC
The persons contemplated in this act are not citizens within the obvious meaning of that section of the Constitution of the United States which I have just read. Let me begin by putting this plain question: Are slaves citizens? At the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State was a slave State.... We all know that slavery is recognized in that Constitution; it is the duty of this court to take that Constitution as it is, for we have sworn to support it.... Then slaves were not considered citizens by the framers of the Constitution....
Are free blacks citizens?... To my mind it would be a perversion of terms, and the well known rules of construction, to say that slaves, free blacks, or Indians were citizens, within the meaning of that term as used in the Constitution. God forbid that I should add to the degradation of this race of men; but I am bound, by my duty, to say that they are not citizens.
Not all men have equal rights in society, the insane are locked up for theirs and other good, same are denied the right to vote, and like it or not slavery did not end, you just called it something else and carried on.
Freedom and equality will have to wait for a another 100 years post the supposed end of slavery, for the US negro.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
It only cost about $20/year to keep a slave. Wages for free workers was somewhat higher than 100/year.
And what are your sources for flogging.
Chuck in IL.
Well it all depends on exactly what year/s decades we are talking about. the Kings shilling was what a Soilder got payed for close to 80 yeras because the Crown payed for everything else, so a shilling went a long way for a long time in the pre consumer world.
Flogging is conataind in the adminstrative records of the UK Army and Navy, one individual in Gibralter recieved over 25000 for instance.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Your comment about more flogging in the Royal Navy and the Army than in American slavery is not completely relevant. You can always find groups of people: Jews under the Nazis, Cossacks under Stalin, etc. etc. etc. that were worse off than American slaves. That doesn't make slavery right.
Maybe, i was using it as a comparison for punishment of negros through law combined with incentives, is desertion/punishment in the Union army a better comparison?. Well right or wrong are matters of posative law, in which it is not right/lawfull to own another, and that pre dates the WBTS in the Somerfield case in the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKeon
The example you give is especially not relevant:
a. Enlistment(naval impressment during the Napoleonic Wars aside) was voluntary.
b. It wasn't forever, and it didn't condemn your children to military service forever.
c. Military service is paid, and there is promotion, and other opportunities.
A,B,C) i was not refering to that period by to the 1860`s, however if you look at your period the incidence of punishment was even higher, and impresment was for the duration of the event, and while enlistment was vol so was judicial sending to serve for life, rather than transportation, and enlisting for life was part of the UK mil culture till quite late, i can look it up latter for you. Slaves could earn freedom.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKoen
Your comment about drafting freedmen in the Dept. of the South, while a hardship in many cases, how insignificant to centuries of involuntary servitude under slavery. My Dad was a draftee as well, but he wasn't a slave.
I dont think you grapsed what i was driving at there.
Your dads choice was to do what then?, be punished of be drafted, the point was the Government owned the right to compell him, in 1860 the government did not have that right for State Militia, every state officer swore an oath to his State, when Maryland Gov told the State militia to disband and officers to resign they did so, rather than comply with thye order to supply them for a purpose the Gov said.
A negro was liable to be hung for servile insurection for taking up arms against his owner, but when the Government made him free and passed laws to compell him to serve in the military it was simply using him for a different purpose, Governments make slaves of people all the time, by that i mean the choice of the individual is removed.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Your comment about more flogging in the Royal Navy and the Army than in American slavery is not completely relevant. You can always find groups of people: Jews under the Nazis, Cossacks under Stalin, etc. etc. etc. that were worse off than American slaves. That doesn't make slavery right.
Well i was comparing carrot and stick,approach to slavery, but if you prefer i can use US Union army desertion etc as a comparison of incidence of a body of men who desert rather than serve, compared to the number of slaves leaving slavery, more men deserted tha did slaves flee slavery, so which was worse slavery or service?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKeon
The example you give is especially not relevant:
a. Enlistment(naval impressment during the Napoleonic Wars aside) was voluntary.
So you say, but i was talking about 1860 UK, but since you broaden the subject somewhat.
Impresment was for the duration, some lasted decades, enlistment was for life, and as part of cumutation of sentences for transportation for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKeon
b. It wasn't forever, and it didn't condemn your children to military service forever.
Nor was slavery for ever, your chances of being free was about 1 in 3 on your owners death, have you ever wondered who those drummer boys were?, oddly two at Waterloo were in there 60s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKeon
c. Military service is paid, and there is promotion, and other opportunities.
slavery was not without pecuniry gain, there was promotion in its structure, and without the specilisation of slavery the modern factory process of mass production would not have come into being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattew McKeon
Your comment about drafting freedmen in the Dept. of the South, while a hardship in many cases, how insignificant to centuries of involuntary servitude under slavery. My Dad was a draftee as well, but he wasn't a slave.
I was offering it up as an example why the negros were moving about the country, and as an axample of how the government makes slaves of us all when it wants to do so, when Lincoln called up the Militia, Marlyland Gov asked for the States Militia Officers resignation he got them all, because every Militia oath was to his State, and then he disbanded the Militia and refused to comply with the order, but by passing the draft acts, any white or negro could be forced to serve, regradless of the feelings of the individual, making him a slave to the Government. Your dads choice is part of what i was a looking at, he served or went to jail, or in the Uk went into the mines, im sure other equally unpleasent alternatives existed in then US, the negro had no choice as a slave, nor when he was made free, he simply changed owners, and freedom and equality was a century away.
[qoute=Ole] Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Will this do?.[quote=Ole]
Dammit cant get a post to stick so will add it here and hope.
I am still waiting for a reliofous reference to slavery being imoral or against the word of God btw, i should add that the concept of it being so, is very modern in human history, and that the bulk of human history and morality acepted slavery.
Hanny. Would "Inasmuch as ye have done it to the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me" do for you?
You are correct if you are considering the last 300 years as modern in human history. There is a very long list of ancient practices considered immoral today and, although religious belief had its influence, the natural rules of advancing civilization was the greater influence.
Quote:
This exclusion of persons of color, or, of any degree of colored blood, from all political rights, is not founded upon a mere naked prejudice, but upon natural differences. The two races are placed as wide apart by the hand of nature as white from black, and, to break down the barriers, fixed, as it were, by the Creator himself, in a political and social amalgamation, shocks us, as something unnatural and wrong. It strikes us as a violation of the laws of nature. It would be productive of no good. It would degrade the white, if it could be accomplished, without elevating the black. Indeed, if we gather lessons of wisdom from the history of mankind — walk by the light of our experience, or consult the principles of human nature, we shall be convinced that the two races never can live together upon terms of equality and harmony Thacher v. Hawk (1842), SC of Ohio.
Thanks for that. It was on this understanding that Lincoln, et alii, sought colonization rather than citizenship. It is on this "natural law" that ethnic troubles throughout the world are based.
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
The Slaveholders got a musket rifle's barrel stuck between their eyes and a bayonet aimed for their backside.
Nothing was done voluntarily by many slaveholders.
You are correct if you are considering the last 300 years as modern in human history. There is a very long list of ancient practices considered immoral today and, although religious belief had its influence, the natural rules of advancing civilization was the greater influence.
I would go further, slavery is part of all recorded human history, and the concept of it being imoral is of course preactised by many throughout its history, but not acted against to end it untill politics and religion combine to do so, very late in the big picture, and every power house economy was built on slavery, as the Uk PM commented, along the lines of for the sake of cheap cotton for the world, slavery must be tolerated in the USA.
Must buy some cheap chinese imported stuff on the way home....
Quote:
Originally Posted by ole
Thanks for that. It was on this understanding that Lincoln, et alii, sought colonization rather than citizenship. It is on this "natural law" that ethnic troubles throughout the world are based.
Ole
Your welcome.
__________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Your reference to the sons of Ham being condemned to be slaves is incorrect if you are infering them to be Africans. Its a prophecy refering to George HAMilton, who, as you know, has been burnt black by the sun. It's his kids who should be hewers of wood and drawers of water, and they would be right now, if not for that interfering government! And enjoying slavery too, because its so nice.
Also, your reply to my statement about the Golden Rule is difficult for me to understand, since it isn't really related to anything.
Quick note on Union desertion rates: Unless they were deserting in order to become slaves, I don't think makes much sense. Fewer Jews escaped from Auschwitz from blacks from slavery. Was Auschwitz that much more pleasant than American slavery? More immates have escaped from the Charles St. Jail(local pokey) than from Alcatraz. Is Charles St. that much worse then the Rock?
Racism was endemic throughout the US in the 19th century. But slavery needed racism. In fact, slavery created and maintained racism. Racism lingered after slavery, but weakens every decade.
You don't think that passage can be construed to be against slavery? I read your MacFarland article. It seems to support my contention that the New Testament, at least, frowns on slavery in that it equates treatment of a neighbor with the treatment of the Christ. Do you suppose his Daddy was upset at His changing the rules?
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
Well it all depends on exactly what year/s decades we are talking about. the Kings shilling was what a Soilder got payed for close to 80 yeras because the Crown payed for everything else, so a shilling went a long way for a long time in the pre consumer world.
It was based on wages of Americans in the decade before the American Civil War started. Not today, or what the King of England paid his soldiers for years and years.The numbers were pulled from American Slave Plantation records.
..Refer back to post 48 in this thread.
At least the King's soldiers got paid, and fed,(did they supply their own clothes, or were they furnished?). Some slaves managed to make money from working parttime for others, but most were only fed.
Chuck in IL.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
