John S. Rock, “A Deep and Cruel Prejudice”

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
"I do not deny that there is a deep and cruel prejudice lurking in the bosoms of the white people of this country. It is much more abundant in the North than in the South. Here, it is to be found chiefly among the higher and lower classes; and there is no scarcity of it among the poor whites at the South. The cause of this prejudice may be seen at a glance."

http://www.blackpast.org/1862-john-s-rock-deep-and-cruel-prejudice#sthash.hMwFc7kY.dpuf
 
From the same speech:

While uttering my solemn protest against this American vice, which has done more than any other thing to degrade the American people in the eyes of the civilized world, I am happy to state that there are many who have never known this sin, and many others who have been converted to the truth by the “foolishness of antislavery preaching,” and are deeply interested in the welfare of the race and never hesitate to use their means and their influence to help break off the yoke that has been so long crushing us. I thank them all, and hope the number may be multiplied, until we shall have a people who will know no man save by his virtues and his merits.


Now, it seems to me that a blind man can see that the present war is an effort to nationalize, perpetuate and extend slavery in this country. In short, slavery is the cause of the war: I might say, is the war itself. Had it not been for slavery, we should have had no war!...

The Abolitionists saw this day of tribulation and reign of terror long ago and warned you of it; but you would not hear! You now say that it is their agitation, which has brought about this terrible civil war! That is to say, your friend sees a slow match set near a keg of gunpowder in your house and timely warns you of the danger which he sees is inevitable; you despise his warning and, after the explosion, say if he had not told you of it it would not have happened!

It's also worth pointing out that Mr. Rock was a teacher, dentist and lawyer, with a college degree, in Massachusetts. He certainly faced shameful prejudice in the North, but he also had opportunity in the North that he never would have had in the antebellum South, thanks in large part to that "antislavery preaching" that was prohibited in the South.
 
Last edited:
CSA Today,

The 'poor fellow' knew it was, as the rest of the nation was soon to realize.

Unionblue
Most likely wishful thinking on his part. Rock seemed too smart to actually believe that Lincoln would go to war over slavery or the Confederate States would go to war over slavery and risk losing something fully protected there.
 
Most likely wishful thinking on his part. Rock seemed too smart to actually believe that Lincoln would go to war over slavery or the Confederate States would go to war over slavery and risk losing something fully protected there.

Mr. Rock was a citizen of Massachusetts, complete with voting privileges, and he was smart enough to know that that was one of the reasons that the Confederate states seceded:

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.


- South Carolina declaration of causes of secession

Source: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
 
Most likely wishful thinking on his part. Rock seemed too smart to actually believe that Lincoln would go to war over slavery or the Confederate States would go to war over slavery and risk losing something fully protected there.

The "it was fully protected" dodge seeks to avoid two realities,

First, while there was no immeadiate danger of abolishing slavery where it already existed in States, the secessionists knew full well that slavery had been and would be banned from Territories and new States. They demanded expansion for the institution saying without it the institution would perish and all sorts of horrors wouldvbe unleased in slave states where the slaves would be the majority of the population.

Second, while there was no immeadiate danger they saw no new slave states setting the stage for the absolute domination of the free states and believed that eventually they would act to alter the constitution to abolish slavery.
 
CSA Today,

You did read the entire article, didn't you?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Rock's personal opinion:
“Now, it seems to me that a blind man can see that the present war is an effort to nationalize, perpetuate and extend slavery in this country. In short, slavery is the cause of the war: I might say, is the war itself. Had it not been for slavery, we should have had no war!”

He also writes:
“Now, when some leading men who hold with the policy of the President and yet pretend to be liberal argue that while they are willing to admit that the slave has an undoubted right to his liberty, the master has an equal right to his property.”
 
Why do you call him a "poor fellow"?

His predicament.

"I do not deny that there is a deep and cruel prejudice lurking in the bosoms of the white people of this country. It is much more abundant in the North than in the South. Here, it is to be found chiefly among the higher and lower classes; and there is no scarcity of it among the poor whites at the South. The cause of this prejudice may be seen at a glance."
 
The "it was fully protected" dodge seeks to avoid two realities,

First, while there was no immeadiate danger of abolishing slavery where it already existed in States, the secessionists knew full well that slavery had been and would be banned from Territories and new States. They demanded expansion for the institution saying without it the institution would perish and all sorts of horrors wouldvbe unleased in slave states where the slaves would be the majority of the population.

Second, while there was no immeadiate danger they saw no new slave states setting the stage for the absolute domination of the free states and believed that eventually they would act to alter the constitution to abolish slavery.

Reasons for secession but not for going to war in April 1861.
 
Last edited:
Reasons for secession but not for going to war in April 1862.

The secessionists fully understood that secession would bring on war. Particularly since they planned on unilateral secession without the consent of the States.

One needs only to read their speeches and editorial to see the secessionists wete spoiling for a fight. The myth of "peaceful" secession is just that, a myth promoted by the Confederacy’s defenders.

The slaveocracy was ever the aggressor, and repeatedly threatened "disunion" and war if they did not get their way.

While the slaveholders who held the reigns of power in the slave states were not the sharpest pencils in the pack and vastly overated their ability to win in any conflict with the free states they were not so dumb as to think they could engage in insurrection and grab union property by force of arms and nothing was going to come of it.


Feeling in South Carolina--Violent Speech of Keitt--Adjournment of the Legislature.
Published: November 14, 1860

COLUMBIA, S.C., Tuesday, Nov. 13.

Mr. KEITT was serenaded by the people at 12 o'clock last night. He made an exciting speech, urging prompt and decided action. He said that Mr. BUCHANAN was pledged to secession, and would be held to it. South Carolina should shatter the accursed Union. If she could not accomplish it otherwise, she would throw her arms around the pillars of the Constitution, and involve all the States in common ruin.

The South Carolina Legislature adjourned this rooming. Nothing of interest transpired. The members are now en route to their homes.

http://www.nytimes.com/1860/11/14/n...-of-keitt-adjournment-of-the-legislature.html


Threating War Over Slavery in the Territories, Feb. 18, 1850

Disunion and civil war was commonly brought up as a possibility if the slave states did not get what they considered a satisfactory solution. The following excerpts of a speech in the U.S. Senate gives an idea of the temper of the debate in which the fighting spirit of different sections of the country in a potential civil war is freely commented upon. (Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st Session, pages 165-176, Slavery in the Territories, Speech of Mr. Downs, of Louisiana, In the Senate, February 18, 1850, excerpts from page 169-70 & 172.)

[Page 169&70] “Now, as to making any exorbitant demand by the South: We do not come here asking anything, but an equal participation in that which we bore an equal share in acquiring. We do not even ask half, although we are half of the Union. We do not even ask half, although we are half of the Union, and although we have expended half — ay, more than half — of the blood and treasure that were expended. We give up to you all the gold, all the fine harbors, all the advantages, in short; but, to save our honor; to save ourselves, if possible from any injury hereafter; to prevent ourselves from becoming inferiors or dependants, we express our willingness to accept this small boon. And, what is most astonishing, sir, is, that even this cannot be granted to us. Well, sir, while such things as these exist; while so small a request as this cannot be complied with, gentlemen must not be surprised that the voice of the South should come up here and tell them — and that voice will become louder and louder – that this is not the entertainment to which they were invited in the formation of this Confederacy; that they love the Union, and will maintain it as long as they can with honor; but the moment they discover that they are not to enjoy that equality which was contemplated at the time of the formation of the Confederacy ― I will not say what the South will do in such an event; but I will say that, so far as I am concerned, I shall adopt their action and that of my State, whatever that may be; I will follow their lead. It is not for me to point out what they should do, and I will not pretend to say what they will do; but I will say that if they, under the circumstances, consider the Union dissolved, and separate themselves from those who treat them with so much injustice – an event which I hope in God may never happen; but if it must come, let those who deny to us our rights, bear the responsibility. We ask but little; we will be satisfied with little; we desire but to save our honor; and that we will do, let the consequences be what they may.”

[Page 172] “A few Words with reference to another point advanced on this subject and I have done with it.

The Senator from Kentucky further states that if this Union were dissolved, it would not be sixty days before war would commence. I do not intended to make any boasts of southern valor compared with northern valor, on the subject of fighting. Americans from all quarters of the Union all fight with equal perseverance and energy. If there is any difference between the North and the South, it is that the North are a little more careful to know what they are fighting about, whilst we of the South go into it without much reflection. Our northern friends are more prudent, more wise; they are as brave, but they consider the cost. So they will do in case this Union is dissolved; and when they come to count the cost, they will find that there is not much inducement to fight – not much to be made by fighting. War is not a money-making business. There never was much money made by it, and never will be. Even in the case of the party that proves victorious in war, they lose ten times more than they gain. The New England people are a wise, a trading people; and, I venture to say, they will never go into such a fight; and even if they had an expectation of gaining ever so much, I am sure they would not be for engaging in such a war. I am satisfied of it.”

Reference : Confederate Truths: Documents of the Confederate & Neo-Confederate Tradition from 1787 to the Present.
http://www.confederatepastpresent.org
 
Last edited:
His predicament.

"I do not deny that there is a deep and cruel prejudice lurking in the bosoms of the white people of this country. It is much more abundant in the North than in the South. Here, it is to be found chiefly among the higher and lower classes; and there is no scarcity of it among the poor whites at the South. The cause of this prejudice may be seen at a glance."
Oh.
 
The secessionists fully understood that secession would bring on war. Particularly since they planned on unilateral secession without the consent of the States.

One needs only to read their speeches and editorial to see the secessionists wete spoiling for a fight. The myth of "peaceful" secession is just that, a myth promoted by the Confederacy’s defenders.

The slaveocracy was ever the aggressor, and repeatedly threatened "disunion" and war if they did not get their way.

While the slaveholders who held the reigns of power in the slave states were not the sharpest pencils in the pack and vastly overated their ability to win in any conflict with the free states they were not so dumb as to think they could engage in insurrection and grab union property by force of arms and nothing was going to come of it.


I take it you disagree with several of the Northern States that by 1860 allowed blacks the right to vote since they didn't have the consent of the states?
 
Mr. Rock was a citizen of Massachusetts, complete with voting privileges, and he was smart enough to know that that was one of the reasons that the Confederate states seceded:

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.


- South Carolina declaration of causes of secession

Source: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

I doubt a 1860 Massachusetts population of 9806 blacks out of a total population of 1,231,066 had anything to do with Southern secession.
 
I take it you disagree with several of the Northern States that by 1860 allowed blacks the right to vote since they didn't have the consent of the states?

It didn’t require the consent of the States except in cases where State constitutions included voting rights for blacks when the state sought entrance into the Union and it's Constitution was approved by the member states.

Nice try at a dodge though, now lets try a more relevant subject, how did new states join the Union?

A. By simply declaring themselves as being part of the Union.
B. By meeting the requirements for statehood and being accepted by the consent of the states.

It is absurd to hold that while a state had to meet the requirements for inclusion in the Union laid down by the existing states. That after acceptance they were simply free to declare themselves no longer in the Union and free of any obligations which they had freely bound themselves to in joining the Union.

Wring your hands and stamp your confederate feet, the Founding Fathers and the SCOTUS both rejected unilateral secession on the part of individual states absent the consent of the other states.

You need the quotes from the Founding Fathers and the SCOTUS rulings, or can you remember them from numerous previous postings?
 
Back
Top