Fighting for Slavery?

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
She was right. I hope she also told you the Atlantic Slave Trade during most of Eli Whitney's adult life was being run out of New England.
Now that is interesting considering that Eli was 11 when slave imports were outlawed in New England.

Slavery in the United States - EH.net
By 1808, when the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the U.S. officially ended, only about 6 percent of African slaves landing in the New World had come to North America.

No wonder the Brits abolished slavery with New Englanders running slavery in their processions. I am surprised the Spanish did not do something about the New Englanders running things in their territory too.
 

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

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,813
Now that is interesting considering that Eli was 11 when slave imports were outlawed in New England.
Eli Whitney was born in 1765 and more than half way through his life when the Atlantic slave trade was outlawed. Stop with the BS, this thread is about, "why they fought?"

Maybe me can stick to that.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,663
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Those us of with American ancestry are stuck with it.

So did American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. The United States was a slave-owning republic from 1776 to 1865, so anyone who went to war for the United States during that time went to war to preserve slavery, no matter what other reasons they had.
Nope, that's a blanket excuse for 1861 and the Confederacy. Each event was unique and should be viewed in the context of it's time.

Yea sure, just like all the Union soldiers in the war were fighting against slavery. It sounds good but it isn't really accurate.
We've been through this before.

The slaveholding South seceded over the issue of slavery.

The North fought at first to preserve the Union.

But AFTER the Emancipation Proclamation EVERY Union soldier who fought did so to abolish slavery, whether he wanted to or not.

Just as every Confederate soldier fought to preserve slavery, whether he wanted to our not.

As @Andersonh1 has mentioned, whether he believes so or not, a soldier fights for his government's stated goals, no matter why he enlists.

Unionblue
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,813
Your narrative and others here Drew, and you are a long respected member as well. And, in my opinion the confederado avatar should return. :smile:

But, that does not negate my intended point, that I believe you were distracting.
OK, thanks. Generalissimo Lee is back!

It still stands, the Narrative holds the North is not responsible for slavery in any way and saved everyone from it, going to war. This is false and let's go back to the point of the thread.

Why did the North fight? It wasn't over slavery.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Now that is interesting considering that Eli was 11 when slave imports were outlawed in New England
.
Eli Whitney was born in 1765 and more than half way through his life when the Atlantic slave trade was outlawed. Stop with the BS, this thread is about, "why they fought?"
Maybe me can stick to that.
Eli was born in 1765, with the revolution in 1776 New England outlaws the slave trade in 1776 when he was 11.
She was right. I hope she also told you the Atlantic Slave Trade during most of Eli Whitney's adult life was being run out of New England.
I find your conspiracy theory about New Englanders running the slave trade for the Western Hemisphere interesting and perhaps you can lay out the evidence in a new thread.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,663
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
OK, thanks. Generalissimo Lee is back!

It still stands, the Narrative holds the North is not responsible for slavery in any way and saved everyone from it, going to war. This is false and let's go back to the point of the thread.

Why did the North fight? It wasn't over slavery.
Who said the North went to war over slavery?

No one here on this forum in my memory here has ever claimed such.

The problem is, there are those who cannot confront the historical fact that the South went to war over the issue of slavery.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,629
Location
Midwest
Eli Whitney was not of the same generation as Cyrus McCormack, John Deere or Samuel Colt. He came before them
Whitney was in the same period of advancing industrial technology that McCormick, Deere and Colt are known for. He was yet practicing up to his death in 1825. Perhaps Colt was only 11, but McCormick was 16 and Deere was 21. Not a very wide generational gap after all.

[Whitney] did not live to see the Patent Act of 1836, which gave inventors solid ground on which to stand, for the first time.
Well yes he did. U.S. patents had been granted since 46 years prior, since the patent statute of 1790; 14 year patents. Whitney applied for his cotton gin in 1794.

Blaming Whitney for slavery is just more silly, "they" did it rhetoric. It was a heck of a lot more complicated than that.
No one here or elsewhere has even slightly attempted to blame Whitney for slavery. Where did that come from? That would be silly.
And yet his invention, the cotton gin, directly led to the expansion of chattel slavery. It's not all that complicated to figure out why. With that machine's introduction it became viable to grow the variety of cotton capable of thriving over a much broader area of the country. That would require more slaves, and would pressure harsher treatment of slaves.

In any event despite what we suppose about it -- academics, historians and museums regularly cite the cotton gin as having that effect. There's little dispute about it in professional circles.

Who, exactly, demanded relatively inexpensive, ginned cotton?
Producers and consumers, merely to include Europeans and the developing Northern textile industry. No big collusion, subterfuge or scheming going on, it's just basic economics.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Whitney was in the same period of advanced industrial technology that McCormick, Deere and Colt are known for. He was yet practicing up to his death in 1825. At that time Colt was only 11, but McCormick was 16 and Deere was 21. Not a very wide generational gap after all



U.S. patents had been granted since 46 years prior, since the patent statute of 1790; 14 year patents.



No one has even slightly attempted to blame Whitney for slavery. That would be silly. But his invention, the cotton gin, did directly lead to the expansion of chattel slavery, and it's not all that complicated to figure out why that was so. Now it was viable to grow another breed of Cotton over a much vaster section of the country. Now that would require more slaves.

In any event academics, historians and museums are regularly citing the cotton gin as having that effect. There's no particular dispute about that in professional circles.



Producers and consumers, merely to include Europeans and the developing Northern textile industry. No big scheming going on there, it's just basic economics.
England was shipping Cotton products world wide.
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,813
Eli was born in 1765, with the revolution in 1776 New England outlaws the slave trade in 1776 when he was 11.
I find your conspiracy theory about New Englanders running the slave trade for the Western Hemisphere interesting and perhaps you can lay out the evidence in a new thread.
The Atlantic slave trade was formally outlawed in 1807, not 1776. Eli Whitney was 43 years-old and more than half way through his life.

Now, the Atlantic slave trade was not stopped until 1861, when Lincoln forced the prosecution of a ship's captain at New York.

Again, they ran it out of New England until then. Good luck pinning it on the South.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,663
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
No, it's applying a consistent standard across the board.
No, it's a consistent attempt to confuse historical context by submitting an excuse/defense against civil war history.

The view that slavery caused the South to secede and that every Confederate soldier fought for that stated cause, is not based on personal opinion, speculation, theories or cheerleading for the home team.

It is a recorded historical fact proven by primary sources and period documentation.

Like I said, all of us with Confederate ancestors are stuck with that fact.

Unionblue
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,813
Yep. You are right. :whistling: Thank goodness no one in the states below the massie-dixie was ever proven to have bought a slave---at gun-point--another case solved.
I think my point is that it was a National sin. Too many people (Northerners) are taught to believe the entire Mess lies at the feet of the South. It's just not true.

"They" this and "They" that. Give me a break.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
The Atlantic slave trade was formally outlawed in 1807, not 1776. Eli Whitney was 43 years-old and more than half way through his life.

Now, the Atlantic slave trade was not stopped until 1861, when Lincoln forced the prosecution of a ship's captain at New York.

Again, they ran it out of New England until then. Good luck pinning it on the South.
I see the issue.
This is the historical aspect of the Atlantic Slave Trade.​
Stephen D. Behrendt, David Richardson, and David Eltis, W. E. B. Du Bois Institute for African and African-American Research, Harvard University. Based on "records for 27,233 voyages that set out to obtain slaves for the Americas". Stephen Behrendt (1999). "Transatlantic Slave Trade". Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience. New York: Basic Civitas Books. ISBN 0-465-00071-1.​
1552704203201.png
This is the Conspiracy Theory.
The New Englanders did it.



I look forward to that thread where the Conspiracy Theory is fleshed out. It appears that the Native American must have started the Atlanta Slave Trade because the New England Colonies did not exist when the Atlantic Slave Trade started in 1519. How did they command and control the Portuguese

The transatlantic slave trade | Enslaved Africans

The transatlantic slave trade began in the 15th century, after the Portuguese started exploring the coast of West Africa. At first the number of enslaved Africans taken was small. In about 1650, however, with the development of plantations on the newly colonized Caribbean islands and American mainland, the trade grew.​
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I think my point is that it was a National sin. Too many people (Northerners) are taught to believe the entire Mess lies at the feet of the South. It's just not true.

"They" this and "They" that. Give me a break.
Wow. You have examples of textbooks, speeches and so on to support this? Please provide them for our shocked eyes to view.
 


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