Fighting for Slavery?


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,620
Location
District of Columbia
"Preserve the Union" is a very polite way to state the Union objective. Reality is, there was no CSA desire to conquer, or subjugate Yankee land. The Union would've still existed.
We have sometimes gotten into rhetorical pretzels over this point.

When people said "preserve the Union" they meant to preserve the Union as it was before secession. It is true that a Union would have survived without the seceded states, but that was not the Union as it existed before 1861. It is fair to say that a Union would still have existed in the face of secession, but it is important to note that Unionists were not fighting for that. I am not saying that anyone has to "like" their reasoning, I'm just pointing out what they were hoping to achieve. The reversal of secession was perfectly aligned with the goals they had in mind.

I do think the term "Preserve the Union" understates the values, emotions, beliefs, and interests that animated Unionists. I often say that Unionists believed that secessionists were traitors who tried to annul a fair election because they didn't like the results, and also, were an economic, military, and geo-political threat to the United States. While Unionists no doubt wanted to preserve the United States as a project for the preservation of American ideals (as they interpreted them), there were other forces at play which the term "Preserve the Union" doesn't capture, in my opinion. I know this notion might be controversial for some.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
We have sometimes gotten into rhetorical pretzels over this point.

When people said "preserve the Union" they meant to preserve the Union as it was before secession. It is true that a Union would have survived without the seceded states, but that was not the Union as it existed before 1861. It is fair to say that a Union would still have existed in the face of secession, but it is important to note that Unionists were not fighting for that. I am not saying that anyone has to "like" their reasoning, I'm just pointing out what they were hoping to achieve.

I do think the term "Preserve the Union" understates the values, emotions, beliefs, and interests that animated Unionists. I often say that Unionists believed that secessionists were traitors who tried to annul a fair election because they didn't like the results, and also, were an economic, military, and geo-political threat to the United States. While Unionists no doubt wanted to preserve the United States as a project for the preservation of American ideals (as they interpreted them), there were other forces at play which the term "Preserve the Union" doesn't capture, in my opinion. I know this notion might be controversial for some.

- Alan
It is unremarkable for rebels like any other outlaw to desire to be left alone.
 

Lost Cause

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Sep 19, 2014
Messages
2,961
Yes, there were people in New England involved in the slave trade ... "actual history" that
nobody denies. There were many more people in New England (and elsewhere in the North) who willingly abolished slavery within their own states, and championed the banning of the Transatlantic slave trade (the latter with the help of some true Southerners, as well). Thereby working against the interest of those "enslavers and peddlers [who] were lining their pockets with slavery." And that is "actual history" you choose to deny.


Didn't happen, though, did it?


What guilt? There is no reason for anyone today to feel guilty about what some people did 150-200 years ago.
No there shouldn’t be.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,730
Why has Eli Whitney not received the praise or credit for aiding in the expansion of slavery with his little toy the cotton gin or if I am correct the expansion of manufacturing in the North with interchangeable parts.May be we canblame him for the secession and the political turmoil .
Actually, that has been the thrust of scholarship until very recently. Probably most- if not all- here were taught that in school. More recently, historians have made the introduction of the cotton gin a factor of less importance.
 

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,730
New CWT members and anonymous readers of these Forums ought to know that New Englanders were responsible for the capture, importation and sale of African slaves for generations before the Civil War.

Perhaps it violates the Narrative, but it's true.
A search through the archives of this Forum will show a clear acceptance, with appropriate mea culpas, of Northern involvement in the slave trade. It is an integral part of the narrative, but a part many seem to intentionally ignore in order to bring it up as new information 'just one more time'....
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,099
Location
Midwest
...ought to know that New Englanders were responsible for the capture, importation and sale of African slaves for generations before the Civil War.
...to leave out that New England and the North were no longer responsible for the capture, importation and sale of African slaves going back more than half a century prior to secession. What we "ought to know" then is that the pre-war generations of proper New England and Northern state citizens had well discarded those practices decades before the war.

What that leaves us with is the Black Market Atlantic slave trade, but that was not condoned by either the U.S. or Confederate governments. So again what we "ought to know" is that the black market slave trade should not be used to typify New England any more that it be should be used to typify the Southern seaboard from Charleston to New Orleans.

Let's just keep to what was relevant leading up to secession -- and not fifty years before! Only the Southern slave states had been continuing and expanding slavery for the decades leading up to the war. Proper New England and the North were blameless.

(fyi, once again we recognize the attempt to soften Southern culpability by the technique of comparison, and once again it doesn't pass. We're quite aware of the intended set up for the follow-on: "since the North was just as culpable for slavery then the war wasn't over slavery").
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,746
There were people in the North who were involved in the slave trade.
Yes, there were people in New England involved in the slave trade ...
A search through the archives of this Forum will show a clear acceptance, with appropriate mea culpas, of Northern involvement in the slave trade.
Involved? Have you guys lost your minds?

New Englanders RAN the slave trade, when it was legal and they continued to do it after it was outlawed. The original New England Mafia was selling slaves, not raffle tickets. Good grief.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Involved? Have you guys lost your minds?

New Englanders RAN the slave trade, when it was legal and they continued to do it after it was outlawed. The original New England Mafia was selling slaves, not raffle tickets. Good grief.
Before 1776, the British ran the Slave Trade. International Slave Trading was never legal in US New England. First appearance of the word mafia in print is after the Civil War.
 
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,620
Location
District of Columbia
Why has Eli Whitney not received the praise or credit for aiding in the expansion of slavery with his little toy the cotton gin or if I am correct the expansion of manufacturing in the North with interchangeable parts.May be we canblame him for the secession and the political turmoil . This is easy when the fact that the slavery may have died out but for this little toy.The North would not have become as industrialized if not for the interchangeable part.There was no copyright at this time so anyone could copy his machines which they did.Please to correct if in error.
The question is, did the invention (some might say the counterfeiting) of the cotton gin mean that the expansion of slavery was inevitable? The answer is no. The gin was a necessary enabler, but people had the choice of using or not using slave labor to harvest cotton. We can't blame technology itself for the way people use it.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,099
Location
Midwest
New Englanders RAN the slave trade
...at one time, and more than half a decade before secession. One among many other historical civilities in the world that ran an oceanic slave trade at one time. The Assiento Corporation, an English/Spanish company had run the Atlantic slave trade to the Americas for quite a while. At one time the Phoenicians ran an oceanic slave trade, as did the Romans.

Are we to suppose the slave South somehow less guilty because because Romans, Phoenicians, the English/Spanish and New Englanders also once practiced an oceanic slave trade? This is just not the excuse you're looking for in attempting to lessen the culpability of the Secession South and the Confederacy.

It was only the Southern slaves states that continued and expanded slavery in the U.S. in those decades leading up to the Civil War, and it was only the slave South that replaced that Atlantic slave trade with a particularly vile form of domestic slave trade.
 
Last edited:

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,730
New Englanders RAN the slave trade, when it was legal and they continued to do it after it was outlawed. The original New England Mafia was selling slaves, not raffle tickets. Good grief.
Although we've had threads on Northern participation in the slave trade, I don't believe we've had one alledging "New England Mafia" involvement. If you believe that there really was such a crime syndicate in the antebellum (when slavery, as one of our members is fond of reminding us, was legal) why not start a new thread so we can examine that allegation?
Or, perhaps we should just take the claim as colorful exaggeration based on presentism.
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,407
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Before 1776, there were no United States of America.

Organized crime may be called anything you like, but it's not new. Just ask the Romans.
Unfortunately, the Romans do not blog here.
Before 1776, the Atlantic Slave Trade was run by the real Englanders in London, Merry Olde England. Colonists not having the royal charter to trade slaves. Link. The New Englanders were cut out of it.

1552781656527.png
 



(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top