Fighting for Slavery?


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

WJC

Brigadier General
Moderator
Thread Medic
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
10,670
***Posted as Moderator***
Perhaps it is time to leave the Romans, Arabs, British and various nefarious merchants and return to the Southern fighting man, the person who the thread suggests was "fighting for slavery". Was he or wasn't he?
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
d
But, as we are frequently reminded, trading slaves was not a crime before 1776.
International Slave imports were illegal. Internal Slave trading was legal in the Slave States. Shares in Southern Plantations including slaves could be bought by investors in all States. Southern soldiers could participate in slave trading via mail.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,247
Yes, after the trade was outlawed, some New Englanders illegally engaged in the slave trade.
The antebellum record against slave ships was dismal for the United States due to mainly to the actions of the Southern dominated Congresses and presidents. The first slave trade suppression law, the Act of 1819 had almost no teeth after Southern lawmakers in Congress amended the original bill and the Congressional denial of funds or insufficient funding for the Africa Squadron led to little activity up to the eve of the Civil War.
Can it be stated that stones can be thrown at each side or to quote Jesus " Ye without sin can cast the first stone".As to the Act of 1819 let us say that when something is done which shows that it intends to accomplish that which will cause people to think we have accomplish that when we only make that appearance of doing so that we may continue to profit by this "shell game",but we must make it seen as thought the reason we failed in achieving the full adjective was due to the opposition.One way we loss but we win,not getting the total but win by maintaining what we want to continue.We win by fooling the people by blaming the other side even if in doing so,we loss temporarily in profit or growth ,but we still continue.To the opposition they win in maintaining the trade less but still continues they win by lossing.Make up on the loss by domestic trade
 

jgoodguy

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,321
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Can it be stated that stones can be thrown at each side or to quote Jesus " Ye without sin can cast the first stone".As to the Act of 1819 let us say that when something is done which shows that it intends to accomplish that which will cause people to think we have accomplish that when we only make that appearance of doing so that we may continue to profit by this "shell game",but we must make it seen as thought the reason we failed in achieving the full adjective was due to the opposition.One way we loss but we win,not getting the total but win by maintaining what we want to continue.We win by fooling the people by blaming the other side even if in doing so,we loss temporarily in profit or growth ,but we still continue.To the opposition they win in maintaining the trade less but still continues they win by lossing.Make up on the loss by domestic trade
As Host.
Lets stick to the topic, please.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,702
Can it be stated that stones can be thrown at each side or to quote Jesus " Ye without sin can cast the first stone".As to the Act of 1819 let us say that when something is done which shows that it intends to accomplish that which will cause people to think we have accomplish that when we only make that appearance of doing so that we may continue to profit by this "shell game",but we must make it seen as thought the reason we failed in achieving the full adjective was due to the opposition.One way we loss but we win,not getting the total but win by maintaining what we want to continue.We win by fooling the people by blaming the other side even if in doing so,we loss temporarily in profit or growth ,but we still continue.To the opposition they win in maintaining the trade less but still continues they win by lossing.Make up on the loss by domestic trade
?
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,247
Simply stated the North gave something but they received something, may be not then but somewhere ,the South gave something but also would gain something later.But though negotiation both sides would appear winners to the people back home If they did not then they went back home and could blame the opponent for not being willing be reasonable,which could and did at times cause more hostile feeling between the two sections of the country .In the slave trade negotiations both sides received some token of a victory but did not settle the slave issue which was the main platform which neither side would be willing to solve as with the Fugitive slave.For at least from after the Polk administration the game that would be played was HOT POTATO ,just keep passing the issue to the next Congress or administration then the next till there was no one to pass it to and the last man had to do something with it 1861
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
9,702
Simply stated the North gave something but they received something, may be not then but somewhere ,the South gave something but also would gain something later.But though negotiation both sides would appear winners to the people back home If they did not then they went back home and could blame the opponent for not being willing be reasonable,which could and did at times cause more hostile feeling between the two sections of the country .In the slave trade negotiations both sides received some token of a victory but did not settle the slave issue which was the main platform which neither side would be willing to solve as with the Fugitive slave.For at least from after the Polk administration the game that would be played was HOT POTATO ,just keep passing the issue to the next Congress or administration then the next till there was no one to pass it to and the last man had to do something with it 1861
OK. Thanks.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
28,493
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
What guilt?

History is history. I can not change the fact that my direct ancestors owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy to preserve slavery. It's simply a fact.

What I learn from that fact is to learn from my ancestors and not repeat their mistakes, or what's the sense of studying history if not to learn from it?
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,632
Location
Central Massachusetts
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.
That's not to deny that some New England-owned ships participated in the slave trade, chartered by English merchants, but New England was surely not "in charge," and did not reap the greatest profit from it.

New England as a whole was a strongly agricultural community in the 18th century, and the slave trade had practically no impact on the region, outside of those early shipowners who directly participated in the trade (some of whom got personally very wealthy, indeed).
 
Last edited:

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,247
What guilt?

History is history. I can not change the fact that my direct ancestors owned slaves and fought for the Confederacy to preserve slavery. It's simply a fact.

What I learn from that fact is to learn from my ancestors and not repeat their mistakes, or what's the sense of studying history if not to learn from it?
Rightly stated. The fact that I have learned from reading the history of the conflict from 1830 -1860 is that neither side would seek for alternative solutions to the situation of the spread of slavery into the territories which the country gained first the Louisiana purchase then the Mexican war.What it became was a political issue and not a moral issue till the abolitionist found the issues which resonated with the white Northern and West population.The Southern right was to the slave owner the right to carry his property {slave}into where ever he desired and no federal interference with his dealings with same.The North was to maintain a white population in these states and the fear of possible replacement in the labor force by the black from the South if freed.This was the issue of expansion that grew into the Decade of Hostility.It was as if both sides wanted a solution to a problem ,one side would not resign to what the other side required and the other could not accept the other's refusal to change . May I suggest three books= The Field of BLOOD =violence in Congress and the Road to CIVIL WAR=Joanne B. Freeman and SLAVEMASTER PRESIDENT =the double career of James Polk =William Dusinberre and Heirs of the Founders-the epic rivalry of Henry Clay,John Calhoun,and Daniel Webster=the second generation of American Giants=]H.W.Brands .I am not this person's opinion ,just stating what I have learned in my readings,note the references I give.
 
Last edited:



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