Civil War History - The Naval WarA new forum with topics honoring all the soldiers and sailors who served and fought in and around America's waterways.
As for the effects of Republicans on this matter, Trice has already noted that just their being elected , was sufficient to galvanize the dough face Buchanan and his administration, into a reversal of the policy of his first two years in office, not to mention the previous 3 decades.
As for the effects of Republicans on this matter, Trice has already noted that just their being elected , was sufficient to galvanize the dough face Buchanan and his administration, into a reversal of the policy of his first two years in office, not to mention the previous 3 decades.
The Republicans who controlled New England had a slave trade operation in their own back yard...
...and did nothing about it.
The only slavery they were anti-slavery about was south of the Mason-Dixon and north of the Gulf of Mexico. Their "concern" of its existence elsewhere and in their own harbors was mere window dressing.
__________________ 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."
Treaty -U.S. and Great Britain -Slave Trade Suppression
Any meaningful discussion of the slave trade and the Civil War, must include information on the treaty between the U.S. and Great Britain in 1862 to suppress the slave trade.
Treaty between United States and Great Britain for the Suppression of the Slave Trade. Concluded at Washington, April 7,1862. Ratifications exchanged at London, May 25, 1862. Proclaimed by the President of the United States July 7, 1862...
The Republicans who controlled New England had a slave trade operation in their own back yard......and did nothing about it.
There is a point here that merits consideration. Could the New England states have made it a state crime for their citizens to participate? Or was it strictly a federal matter dealing with international commerce?
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
Oh, it's 'New England' now, Sorry I thought it was New York City. In any case, it is interesting that the Republicans were supporting a get tough policy against the slave trade in Congress that would put the slave interests of NE at risk. Whatever New Englanders thought, it apparently did not influence their National Party.
Any, slave ship, from whatever home port, were in for some tough sledding after 1858. All due to the effect of increased Republican representation in Congress. Even those from NE, if there were any.
It's my understanding that US-owned ships mostly outfitted in NY, and the customs had a hard time keeping up with them (at least the honest agents). But a number of ships were owned by shippers living in New England coastal cities.
My question was if the states in which those owners lived had or could have had a legal control on what the ships were used for -- especially if they were sailing out of another state.
I suspect not, but I'm not up on the legalities.
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
Wasn't it in '56 or 7 that authorization to seize empty ships outfitted for slave transport or even looking like they might be quickly adapted for slave transport?
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
There is a point here that merits consideration. Could the New England states have made it a state crime for their citizens to participate? Or was it strictly a federal matter dealing with international commerce?
ole
Regulation of international commerce has always been a Federal affair. This state does not however relinquish its police power. For instance, the state, or its municipal subdivisions, can still have health inspections of restaurants that serve food which may be imported. It can also levy uniform taxes on commerce, ie. sales tax, despite the fact that the item might be imported.
The Republicans who controlled New England had a slave trade operation in their own back yard...
...and did nothing about it.
Look, we've been throught this before. You know better that this.
The people you are speaking of were criminals by US law because of their activities elsewhere, but nothing they were doing in harbor in the North was illegal. They were not announcing their purpose or advertising their cargoes. No state or city government there could do anything to arrest them.
Now they certainly could have done more than they did to impede their work. Certain characteristics in the type of ships used, the sort of supplies and cargoes loaded, etc., would make it likely that a particular ship was participating in the slave trade -- but it would not make it certain that they were. Many of these ships sailed from harbor, stopped off elsewhere, and made the final changes to construct the "slave deck" before continuing to Africa. All of this is well-known, and has been since before the Civil War.
What this means -- and what you are clearly deliberately ignoring -- is that enforcement of the law against the slave trade would, in virtually all cases, be a matter for Federal agencies. As things worked out, this was largely the Navy. Funds for that, and orders/resources to do the work, came from Washington. That in turn means that Southern power in the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches could impede enforcement.
In short, if the people of the North, and particularly New England, wanted to interfere with the Atlantic Slave Trade effectively, they had to do it through the Federal government, which meant electing strong forces of Republicans to Congress, and probably electing a Republican President to push the matter. This is what happened in 1858 and 1860, and that is when you begin to see a crack-down by the Federal government against the trade.
It is no accident that funds are sudenly available in 1859. The Republicans, a brand-new party, had their first strong presence in Congress in that year; they were showing signs of winning the 1860 Presidential election. Suddenly, Northern Democrats were nervous for their own seats; suddenly Republican votes could come close to pushing through such legislation. Lo and behold, after 38 years of lax enforcement by a government largely dominated by Southerners, the national government makes a strong effort against the slave trade and the funds to do it are available. Cause and effect, battalion, no matter how much you wish to hide from it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by battalion
The only slavery they were anti-slavery about was south of the Mason-Dixon and north of the Gulf of Mexico. Their "concern" of its existence elsewhere and in their own harbors was mere window dressing.
You have a point here? You are saying they wanted slavery stopped where they could stop it. If slavery was stopped, there would be no slave trade, and the criminal activities you are using as a red herring would stop as well. You cannot have one without the other.
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.
It's my understanding that US-owned ships mostly outfitted in NY, and the customs had a hard time keeping up with them (at least the honest agents). But a number of ships were owned by shippers living in New England coastal cities.
My question was if the states in which those owners lived had or could have had a legal control on what the ships were used for -- especially if they were sailing out of another state.
I suspect not, but I'm not up on the legalities.
ole
Generally, there was nothing to do unless you caught them in the act. Ships outfitting in harbor might be suspected of being slavers -- but if they had no slaves on board, what exactly will they be charged with?
Much like a DEA agent today might suspect a given plane or boat will be used to smuggle drugs, but be unable to seize the vessel or plane unless he catches the perpetrators in an illegal act.
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. 
The Slave-Trade Fleet of New Yourk City 
Linear Mode
