Drew
Major
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
There is a source my friend. One that states he himself wipps runaways. It included a woman.
Post it, then. I'm aware of a "letter" to a Northern newspaper about this. It was signed, "A. Citizen."
What a joke.
There is a source my friend. One that states he himself wipps runaways. It included a woman.
I really have a hard time believing that about South Carolinians. I never do this with you but I’d like to see a source supporting that claim.Most Mississippians and most South Carolinians wanted slavery ended immediately.
No, they preferred progress and opportunity. Much easier to obtain in the industrialized north. The south was the Old Dominion. Wealth was largely limited to the planter class. The rest were dirt farmer or worse. Winter had nothing to do with it. It was all about opportunity.
I really have a hard time believing that about South Carolinians. I never do this with you but I’d like to see a source supporting that claim.
Post it, then. I'm aware of a "letter" to a Northern newspaper about this. It was signed, "A. Citizen."
What a joke.
I’ll see if I can find it.Post it, then. I'm aware of a "letter" to a Northern newspaper about this. It was signed, "A. Citizen."
What a joke.
Lol, that would make you correct. LMAO.More than half of South Carolina's population was enslaved.
Or you mean the limited opportunity in the south controlled in the south by the social classes. Slavery may have been one of their vehicles of controlling wealth but they controlled it and did not willingly share it.Thomas Lincoln was like many Southerners who moved into a free state for the economic opportunities available away from slavery.
Trust me Drew, Lee owned George Washington Curtis’s slaves long after he was to have freed them per Curtis’ will. His reason for retaining them in bondage was his own financial interests. A man opposed to slavery would not have put his needs before their freedom which was entirely in his control.I'm pretty sure the evidence of Ulysses Grant's ownership of slaves before the war is far more solid than that of Lee's.
Looking forward to what you guys can come up with...
Or you mean the limited opportunity in the south controlled in the south by the social classes. Slavery may have been one of their vehicles of controlling wealth but they controlled it and did not willingly share it.
Trust me Drew, Lee owned George Washington Curtis’s slaves long after he was to have freed them per Curtis’ will. His reason for retaining them in bondage was his own financial interests. A man opposed to slavery would not have put his needs before their freedom which was entirely in his control.
Cheap land and more pay because of no competition by slave labor.Thomas Lincoln went West for more, cheaper farmland, just like everyone else.
I would agree with that statement if I knew nothing about the 1850s and 1860s.Slavery is the axis of our world, but not theirs's.
I mean most Americans, not just most Northerners.
That's going way too far.There's little indication that most Americans, North and South, were anti-slavery. Wishful thinking of a modern optimist. Based on period accounts you'd have to instead say that most Americans were lukewarm either way (pro- or anti-slavery) unless or until it affected them directly.
Lukewarm "anti-slavery" was content to suppose freed slaves would be resettled somewhere else far away, and lukewarm "pro-slavery" was content in not having to compete for paying jobs.
Of those Americans actually committed to the anti-slavery cause, many more were in the North. Let's not kid about that. Put another way, clearly there were more pro-slavers in the South.
Not in South Carolina or Mississippi.
I suppose if one didn't consider black folks to be people one could agree with you.
You can also compare the population of those who chose to live in free states with those who lived in slave states, minus enslaved people.
Agree with this and additionally, the female heirs that Custis left the legacies were Lees daughters.If Lee was truly antislavery, he would have done right off the bat what he eventually had to do anyway--sell land to raise the legacies.
Edited.
You could, but what difference at all does that make to your premise that most people North and South were anti-slavery? (again, shudder).
Explain, and please how would that even relate to Lee's views on slavery?
Edited.
Someone claimed Lee's views on slavery were the same as most Americans', which is patently false.
Yes, but isn't it true a Confederate States Court forced his hand? I'd have to look it up but I'm pretty sure that's what happened.
This thread is about Lee being anti-slavery. I don't believe that but I do buy he was dubious about it. There's enough in his personal correspondence to support his doubt.