Savez,
Lunt was a Massachusetts Whig who became a Democrat in the 1850s, and editor of one of the Boston papers, the Boston Courier, around the Civil War. Born in 1803; died in 1885. A powerful and popular speaker, and this quote is from a book he wrote called The Origin of the Late War: TRACED FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE REVOLT OF THE SOUTHERN STATES published in 1866.
The actual quote is a little different than the one in your signature. It looks like this in the book:
"So little, however, had slavery become a political question, and so certain is it that the Southern States had not at an early period become banded together in support of the system, that after the years 1820-'21, during which that great struggle which resulted in what is called the Missouri Compromise was most active and came to its conclusion, the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee were earnestly engaged in practical movements for the gradual emancipation of their slaves. This movement continued until it was arrested by the aggressions of the abolitionists upon their voluntary action. This action was prompted by economical, rather than moral reasons. The abolitionists, however, refused to accept an impending fact, and insisted upon convicting as criminals those who were so well disposed to bring about the very result at which they themselves professed to aim. The consequences were such as might have been reasonably expected. Promised emancipation refused to submit itself to hateful abolition. Those three border States placed themselves at once upon the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, and, resenting as an insult the interference of the Northern intruders, abandoned the scheme which a calm view of considerations, tending to their own future welfare, had induced them to form."
I am sure Lunt was heart-felt about his opinion, but that conclusion is pretty dubious, and certainly overstated. I don't know a lot about the KY emancipation movement, but it clearly didn't win-out. The TN movement was pretty dead by the late 1840s. The VA movement peaked in the year of the Nat Turner Rebellion (1831). MD and DE, to the North of those, were making no real movement to emancipate their slaves. NY, PA, and NJ are the last three to emancipate their slaves, and all passed laws for it by 1804. It is pretty hard to see what he is referring to in the South.
It appears to me that he is saying the South chose to follow a self-interest "economical" reason based on slavery instead of acting on "moral" reasons. Not much of a compliment to the South. His point seems to be that the radical abolitionists, by insisting on freeeing the slaves, scared the Southerners off -- also not much of a compliment to the South. Or maybe just got their backs up, so they decided not to free the slaves to spite the North for interference instead of acting morally -- again not much of a compliment to the South.
Tim
"The States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee were engaged in practical movements for the gradual emancipation of their slaves. This movement continued until it was arrested by the aggressions of the Abolitionists."
--George Lunt
I saw this quote in your signature on another thread. Since I knew nothing about Lunt, I went to see what I could find out about him.--George Lunt
Lunt was a Massachusetts Whig who became a Democrat in the 1850s, and editor of one of the Boston papers, the Boston Courier, around the Civil War. Born in 1803; died in 1885. A powerful and popular speaker, and this quote is from a book he wrote called The Origin of the Late War: TRACED FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CONSTITUTION TO THE REVOLT OF THE SOUTHERN STATES published in 1866.
The actual quote is a little different than the one in your signature. It looks like this in the book:
"So little, however, had slavery become a political question, and so certain is it that the Southern States had not at an early period become banded together in support of the system, that after the years 1820-'21, during which that great struggle which resulted in what is called the Missouri Compromise was most active and came to its conclusion, the States of Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee were earnestly engaged in practical movements for the gradual emancipation of their slaves. This movement continued until it was arrested by the aggressions of the abolitionists upon their voluntary action. This action was prompted by economical, rather than moral reasons. The abolitionists, however, refused to accept an impending fact, and insisted upon convicting as criminals those who were so well disposed to bring about the very result at which they themselves professed to aim. The consequences were such as might have been reasonably expected. Promised emancipation refused to submit itself to hateful abolition. Those three border States placed themselves at once upon the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798, and, resenting as an insult the interference of the Northern intruders, abandoned the scheme which a calm view of considerations, tending to their own future welfare, had induced them to form."
I am sure Lunt was heart-felt about his opinion, but that conclusion is pretty dubious, and certainly overstated. I don't know a lot about the KY emancipation movement, but it clearly didn't win-out. The TN movement was pretty dead by the late 1840s. The VA movement peaked in the year of the Nat Turner Rebellion (1831). MD and DE, to the North of those, were making no real movement to emancipate their slaves. NY, PA, and NJ are the last three to emancipate their slaves, and all passed laws for it by 1804. It is pretty hard to see what he is referring to in the South.
It appears to me that he is saying the South chose to follow a self-interest "economical" reason based on slavery instead of acting on "moral" reasons. Not much of a compliment to the South. His point seems to be that the radical abolitionists, by insisting on freeeing the slaves, scared the Southerners off -- also not much of a compliment to the South. Or maybe just got their backs up, so they decided not to free the slaves to spite the North for interference instead of acting morally -- again not much of a compliment to the South.
Tim
Bringing the