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.
Has anyone ever seen the book "A Pro-slavery Crusade: The Agitation to Reopen the African Slave Trade" by Takaki, Ronald T., New York: Free Press, 1971. 276p. ?
I have seen in mentioned in various footnotes and bibliographies, but have never come across a copy. I'd be interested in knowing what anyone who has read it has to say.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
Have noticed that as well, cw, in my Barnes & Noble. And I've heard the same from many others. It seems that the CW is not a book-selling event--a waste of shelf-space.
Fortunately, there are excellent on-line sources. Otherwise, we'd all be reduced to snivelling gripers.
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
"WHEREAS, the people of Alabama are opposed, on the grounds of public policy, to the rëopening of the African Slave Trade: therefore,
Resolved, That it is the will of the people of Alabama that the Deputies elected by this Convention to the Southern Convention, to meet at the city of Montgomery on the 4th day of February next, to form a Southern Republic, be and they are hereby instructed to insist on the enactment by said Convention of such restrictions as will effectually prevent the rëopening of the African Slave Trade.
The Resolution was adopted with only three votes against it [out of 100]."
Mississippi Secession Convention
"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is not the purpose or policy of the people of the State of Mississippi to re-open the African slave trade."
Passed 67-13
__________________ 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."
What may actually be illuminating is if you can find the legislative intent behind the statute. Sometimes when states pass laws, they actually include this and it can be found. You may be pleased with what you find.
"WHEREAS, the people of Alabama are opposed, on the grounds of public policy, to the rëopening of the African Slave Trade: therefore,
Resolved, That it is the will of the people of Alabama that the Deputies elected by this Convention to the Southern Convention, to meet at the city of Montgomery on the 4th day of February next, to form a Southern Republic, be and they are hereby instructed to insist on the enactment by said Convention of such restrictions as will effectually prevent the rëopening of the African Slave Trade.
The Resolution was adopted with only three votes against it [out of 100]."
Mississippi Secession Convention
"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, it is not the purpose or policy of the people of the State of Mississippi to re-open the African slave trade."
Passed 67-13
Sounds like you are pointing to some of the crusaders. Clearly a number of members of the convention pushed hard for resolutions in support of re-opening the Atlantic slave trade in early 1861 -- or there never would have been a vote at all!
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
I go to Borders frequently and I browse the history section often, but it seems their Civil War titles are somewhat limited.
With apologies for again diverting attention from the point of the thread: Yesterday I went through the Barnes and Noble store in the largest mall in the country, if not the world. There were 3, 4-foot shelves of Civil War books.
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
What may actually be illuminating is if you can find the legislative intent behind the statute. Sometimes when states pass laws, they actually include this and it can be found. You may be pleased with what you find.
I believe many of the seceding states actually did not want to re-open the slave trade. There may have been a number of citizens in those states who did want it re-opened, but their legislators had a bit more sense than to openly advocate it when such advocation would certainly alienate France and England.
Quote:
Clearly a number of members of the convention pushed hard for resolutions in support of re-opening the Atlantic slave trade in early 1861 -- or there never would have been a vote at all!
There were certainly advocates for reopening the slave trade in most, if not all, the seceders. As opined to CW, openly advocating it was wisely avoided. I strongly suspect that, had the CSA prevailed, talks on the trade would certainly have been at the head of the agenda.
(Note to Will: There. I did it again.)
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 book's listing at Amazon suggests it's out of print.
Among many others, I believe Freehling in Road to Disunion II has a reasonably thorough discussion of the debate among southerners about reopening the slave trade. Those in favor argued that it would bring down the price of slaves and make slaves available to a wider group of southerners, giving them a greater investment in the institution (related to slaveowners' fears that nonslaveowners would become a fifth column).
Arguments against included the concern by existing slaveowners and potential slave sellers (the latter in the border south) that renewal of the slave trade would reduce the value of the slave property they already owned, and that cotton belt areas would become even blacker than they already were.
When the time came to form the confederacy, another practical argument surfaced: the need to win over middle and upper south states, where renewal of the trade was clearly unpopular. The Confederate Constitution added what amounted to a carrot and a stick to the upper south. Join us, and you'll be able to sell your slaves to the deep south; don't join us, and you'll be barred from doing so.
The book's listing at Amazon suggests it's out of print.
That makes sense. I see quite a few references to it, but little on the book itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elektratig
Among many others, I believe Freehling in Road to Disunion II has a reasonably thorough discussion of the debate among southerners about reopening the slave trade. Those in favor argued that it would bring down the price of slaves and make slaves available to a wider group of southerners, giving them a greater investment in the institution (related to slaveowners' fears that nonslaveowners would become a fifth column).
Arguments against included the concern by existing slaveowners and potential slave sellers (the latter in the border south) that renewal of the slave trade would reduce the value of the slave property they already owned, and that cotton belt areas would become even blacker than they already were.
When the time came to form the confederacy, another practical argument surfaced: the need to win over middle and upper south states, where renewal of the trade was clearly unpopular. The Confederate Constitution added what amounted to a carrot and a stick to the upper south. Join us, and you'll be able to sell your slaves to the deep south; don't join us, and you'll be barred from doing so. http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Slavery-Cr...6480671&sr=1-1
I've seen Freehling. Generally a good job on a difficult subject.
I've always felt the Fire-Eaters were a minority within the South, and the group that believed strongly in re-opening the Atlantic slave-trade seems largely contained inside them. A vehement minority perhaps; a special interst group that was very outspoken. Yancey and Rhett clearly favored such policies and they are regarded as the leaders of the Fire-Eaters. Once they'd started the bonfire of secession, the powers-that-be seem to have moved them to the sidelines.
That makes it difficult to gauge the strength of the movement to reopen the slave trade from Africa. All we really know is that there were a number of well-known public figures, many being elected to important public offices, who favored the policy. They were influential, but not dominant. The vote against the issue in 1861 might indicate principalled opposition -- or a practical political/diplomatic bow to necessity.
Regards,
Tim
__________________ "Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this Union, by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy, which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses."
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, 1740-1824, Revolutionary War soldier, one of the authors of the US Constitution in 1787, speaking at the South Carolina Ratifying Convention in 1788.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
"A Pro-slavery Crusade" 
Linear Mode
