Restricted Debate Does abolition of Northern Slavery Absolve the North of having Slavery?

Does abolition of Northern Slavery Absolve the North of Slavery?

  • Yes, of course

    Votes: 5 23.8%
  • No way Jose

    Votes: 15 71.4%
  • Maybe, Maybe not

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,256
Location
New York City
#21
The fact that most northern states abolished slavery before the 13th amendment does not absolve those governments or societies of the times when slavery was permitted. The generation that made the move to abolish slavery in those states should be given credit for that move, but it does not automatically cast away the fault of prior generations that allowed slavery.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,894
#22
In graduate school many years ago, I completed a research paper on the Gradual Abolition Act of Pennsylvania. At this time, in 1780, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was the first state on the North American continent to pass and enact gradual abolition legislation. According to the original act as well as the several amendments enacted later, this act would manumit all slaves in Pennsylvania before 1860. However, in the course of completing other research I found in the census records of 1860 that a farmer in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, listed a farm hand under the category of "slave" Edited. David.
One wonders what the background was in the case of that lone slave. Was he indeed still laboring under the whip of his 'master'? Or was he infirm and being cared for by his former 'master'? Can you provide any insight?
 
Joined
May 18, 2011
Messages
9,644
Location
Carlisle, PA
#23
When could they vote and if they voted, what was the procedure for doing so in the North? They buried their leather whip for another way to control. That is a long way from being 'FREE'.
That's moving the goalposts. You said:

The North didn’t free anyone until the 13th Amendment.
Now that that was shown to be incorrect, you're switched to arguing that former slaves and freemen couldn't vote. That's a different argument entirely.

Ryan
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,894
#24
make me question threads on collective sin and absolution, concepts which haunt me as I edge towards my own mortality.
The question ought not involve sin or absolution in the religious sense. It ought to deal with guilt and forgiveness of mistakes by one's peers, not a Higher Power.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
Messages
2,734
#26
One wonders what the background was in the case of that lone slave. Was he indeed still laboring under the whip of his 'master'? Or was he infirm and being cared for by his former 'master'? Can you provide any insight?
At the time, I was getting the census information for my professor. Unfortunately, I did not follow up on the information on this particular slave. Nevertheless, you have asked some very interesting questions. David.
 

Old_Glory

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 26, 2010
Messages
2,935
Location
NC
#27
They freed them because they did not generate money. I wish people would stop being over-dramatic about how the North freed the slaves.

The North was extremely fortunate not to find a profitable way to utilize them. I wish I could say the same for the South.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,894
#28
We are not their peers.
Thanks for your response.
No, in the strictest sense, we are not: so by that reasoning, it is not for us to decide. But like most of our discussions here, the question asks for an opinion, one that at this late date has little bearing on the people of the time.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Answered the Call for Reinforcements
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
11,894
#29
They freed them because they did not generate money. I wish people would stop being over-dramatic about how the North freed the slaves.

The North was extremely fortunate not to find a profitable way to utilize them. I wish I could say the same for the South.
Which is why the number of slaves in the Northern colonies/States was less than in the Southern colonies/States. That certainly made the Northern States' decision to free them easier.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,366
#30
Poll question..........

Respectfully,
William

One Nation,
Two countries

View attachment 308660
The stain still remains with the South.Just by riding themselves of slavery does not alter the fact that because for the moral principal of whatever they may state will not change the historical fact that the North "HAD" slaves even if one says that they were domestic servants or laborers.I am not certain but did not a certain part of Illinois called Little Egypt have slaves till near the end of the war? Did not Grant himself have a "man servant".True the South left the Union to protect its system .The difference was with the South one is referring to a system while with the North it was more on a smaller and individual bases.One can be changed legally but with a system that has been established through the generations it would require more than just a legal document.A people who have accepted a belief can not be convinced that what their ancestors has taught is now wrong will raise in defence of that belief. Edited.
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
410
#31
They freed them because they did not generate money. I wish people would stop being over-dramatic about how the North freed the slaves.

The North was extremely fortunate not to find a profitable way to utilize them. I wish I could say the same for the South.
If we stop overdramatizing the north abolishing slavery then we would have to overly underestimate how the south desired whole heartedly to sustain slavery. Not going to happen.

I don't know how you did it, but you confused "fortunate" with "industrious," which the latter is why the north found a profitable way utilize whomever you are referring to as them?

All the major inventions, innovations and patents came out of the north, then subsequently some inventions and innovations came out of the west. I been an economist for over 20 years, and have not stumbled onto "one" major invention that came out of the south that contributed to America's economic superpower status. Not one. Edited.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,072
#33
If we stop overdramatizing the north abolishing slavery then we would have to overly underestimate how the south desired whole heartedly to sustain slavery. Not going to happen.

I don't know how you did it, but you confused "fortunate" with "industrious," which the latter is why the north found a profitable way utilize whomever you are referring to as them?

All the major inventions, innovations and patents came out of the north, then subsequently some inventions and innovations came out of the west. I been an economist for over 20 years, and have not stumbled onto "one" major invention that came out of the south that contributed to America's economic superpower status. Not one. Edited.
No one is over dramatizing anything. All I am interested is to see all here acknowledge both sides of the line were equally responsible for Slavery and maintaining slavery when slavery was legal. Can that be done? NO! Simply because of one upsmanship for winning the war.
It has always been the same since my years here. :smile coffee:
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
537
#34
No one is over dramatizing anything. All I am interested is to see all here acknowledge both sides of the line were equally responsible for Slavery and maintaining slavery when slavery was legal. Can that be done? NO! Simply because of one upsmanship for winning the war.
It has always been the same since my years here. :smile coffee:
Of course it can't be done, by anyone with a passing knowledge of history. It's clearly not true.

James Madison, in 1787 after the Constitutional Convention:

"It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."

90% of the slaves in the country were below the Mason Dixon starting in the first census in 1790, and continuing every decade until the 13th amendment ended that abominable institution forever in the US. It was the South's economy.

The North isn't blameless, it's a stain on both regions, but clearly the stain is far darker on the South. They went to war over it.

You want us to deny the truth for you. We won't do it.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,675
#35
I don't know if there is any point is going about absolution or staining.

In 1860, there was a conflict between the slave owning and non slave owning parts of the country. The issue was slave owning and the future of slave owning in the United States.

Since no one nowadays is thinking of reviving slave owning, or wants to own a slave, who would be uniquely fitted to be enslaved by the color of his skin, the question: morally, politically and socially is settled.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,675
#36
The point is often made, although never in my memory, backed by any evidence, that slavery was abolished in the northern states because it was unprofitable. That is not true. Slavery was as profitable in Massachusetts, for example, in 1770, ten years before it was abolished, as it would have been in 1790, ten years after. It was a small part of the economy, which is why it was it was feasible to abolish it. But the reason it was abolished was because it was wrong.
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
10,072
#37
Of course it can't be done, by anyone with a passing knowledge of history. It's clearly not true.

James Madison, in 1787 after the Constitutional Convention:

"It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."

90% of the slaves in the country were below the Mason Dixon starting in the first census in 1790, and continuing every decade until the 13th amendment ended that abominable institution forever in the US. It was the South's economy.

The North isn't blameless, it's a stain on both regions, but clearly the stain is far darker on the South. They went to war over it.

You want us to deny the truth for you. We won't do it.
Slavery was legal and Northern profits proves is the reason the responsibility lays on both sides of the line.
It cuts both ways. The dark is on both parts of the Country. Read the book if you haven't already called 'Complicity'.
 

Carronade

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 4, 2011
Messages
4,413
Location
Pennsylvania
#38
Does anyone need to be absolved of slavery?

Slavery was an accepted element of cultures around the world for most of the history of organized societies. Many which did not have formal chattel slavery had functional equivalents like serfdom or caste systems. Then over a few hundred years - 2-3% of the timespan of civilization - the consensus developed that slavery was no longer acceptable; but even then no one suggested that say the ancient Greeks or Romans should now be considered terrible people because they had had slaves.

Consider an analogy: For most of history, in most cultures, women were treated as inferior to men, a status which was often codified in law much as slavery was. Now that this is changing, do the males of the past need to be absolved?
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,675
#40
Does anyone need to be absolved of slavery?

Slavery was an accepted element of cultures around the world for most of the history of organized societies. Many which did not have formal chattel slavery had functional equivalents like serfdom or caste systems. Then over a few hundred years - 2-3% of the timespan of civilization - the consensus developed that slavery was no longer acceptable; but even then no one suggested that say the ancient Greeks or Romans should now be considered terrible people because they had had slaves.

Consider an analogy: For most of history, in most cultures, women were treated as inferior to men, a status which was often codified in law much as slavery was. Now that this is changing, do the males of the past need to be absolved?
IMO there's a little too much passive voice in there. And yeah, the Greeks and Romans contributions to Western civilization are warped by the fact they were slave owning societies. I recall when Jefferson finally got around to reading Plato, and wrote to John Adams, he thought it was lunacy. Adams wrote back in a relieved tone: he agreed, he had thought Plato was writing satire.

If you are going to create a nation dedicated to the proposition that "all men are created equal," then the existence of slavery is going to create tension. If you are going to try to square the circle by creating a ideology that people with black colored skin are uniquely suited to be slaves and people with white colored skin are uniquely suited to masters you're storing up trouble that will long outlast slavery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top