Hanging Captain Gordon

[william42]

The American Civil War had more than its share of scenes fraught with symbolism, from the capitulation of Fort Sumter to Robert E. Lee's surrender at Appomattox. An episode that should be similarly well remembered is the trial and execution of Nathaniel Gordon, who in 1862 had the dubious distinction of being the only American ship captain to be executed for the crime of slave trading. For the first time, laws that equated slave trading with piracy were implemented to the fullest.

http://www.washtimes.com/civilwar/20060317-092214-1444r.htm

Terry

 

[unionblue]

William42,

Found a couple of related sites on Captain Gordon.

Hanging Captain Gordon (more details listed from chapter one. Scoll down the article and click on excerpt for Chapter 1):

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?sid=33&pid=514227

Sabine Lake: Slave Trade.

http://www.wtblock.com/wtblockjr/slave.htm

Amazing even after the slave trade was outlawed there was still a huge demand for it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ewc]

Terry & Neil- There was significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade among Southern delegates at Montgomery putting together the Confederacy. The feeling being that if we pulled out of the Union to protect our investment in slavery, and that it is the right thing for our society and for the black race, then to continue to outlaw the overseas slave trade is inconsistent with our beliefs, hence we should open the African slave trade. This impetus was blocked by moderates who still wanted to control slavery, out of necessity and not have it run amok, and as an inducement to the upper and border South to consider joining their sister Southern states. Also it served as a palliative to the Union and abroad- opening the slave trade would send shudders up the spines of friend and foe alike, as well as tend to scare off any potential friend or ally. There were many men at Montgomery who understood statecraft, unlike what appearances would suggest, and these men effectively ended any such thoughts about the African slave trade. To their unutterable relief, no doubt.

 

[Fifth Iowa]

Slave Traders

Fascinating. The captain was hung, but how was the crew punished? Did they serve time in prison?

 

[Battalion]

Terry & Neil- There was significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade among Southern delegates at Montgomery putting together the Confederacy. The feeling being that if we pulled out of the Union to protect our investment in slavery, and that it is the right thing for our society and for the black race, then to continue to outlaw the overseas slave trade is inconsistent with our beliefs, hence we should open the African slave trade. This impetus was blocked by moderates who still wanted to control slavery, out of necessity and not have it run amok, and as an inducement to the upper and border South to consider joining their sister Southern states. Also it served as a palliative to the Union and abroad- opening the slave trade would send shudders up the spines of friend and foe alike, as well as tend to scare off any potential friend or ally. There were many men at Montgomery who understood statecraft, unlike what appearances would suggest, and these men effectively ended any such thoughts about the African slave trade. To their unutterable relief, no doubt.

This is tired ole BS propaganda from abolitionist pamphlets.

*

"...significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade..."

How many delegates at the Montgomery Convention even proposed re-opening the African slave trade?-

Answer: Zero.

What was the vote to outlaw?

Six states to one. The one vote against was from South Carolina who objected to the punishment...not to the law.

*

How many Southern Congressmen proposed re-opening the African slave trade in either Senate or House from the year it was outlawed (1808) to the time of the secession of Southern states?-

Answer: Zero.

 

[Battalion]

William42,

Found a couple of related sites on Captain Gordon.

Hanging Captain Gordon (more details listed from chapter one. Scoll down the article and click on excerpt for Chapter 1):

http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?sid=33&pid=514227

Sabine Lake: Slave Trade.

http://www.wtblock.com/wtblockjr/slave.htm

Amazing even after the slave trade was outlawed there was still a huge demand for it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Other New England Slave Traders
(the destination for shipment was Cuba or Brazil)-

Margaret Scott (of New Bedford, Massachusetts) ...Captured 1861.
Brutus (of New Bedford, Massachusetts) ...Destination Cuba. Captured 1861.

"...in the New Bedford Shipping List of December 3, 1861, the following item appears:

SENTENCE OF SAMUEL P. SKINNER
In the U. S. Court in Boston on Friday, Judge Clifford sentenced Samuel P. Skinner, convicted of fitting out the Barque Margaret Scott of New Bedford for the slave trade, to pay a fine of $1,000 and to be confined at hard labor for the term of five years in the jail at Taunton.

In the same year the bark Brutus of New Bedford fitted out for a slave voyage and succeeded in landing a cargo of 650 blacks in Cuba, but one of her owners was convicted and served several years in the penitentiary while others were heavily fined...."
http://www.du.edu/~ttyler/ploughboy/verrill.htm
(Chapter IX)

also-
"...BRUTUS - Owned by A. S. Bigelow and A. H. Potter of New Bedford, MA - 1861 ...."
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/1390/oldnews.htm
(near bottom of page)

*

Nightingale (of Boston) ..captured by USS Saratoga 21 April 1861
from the official report- "...Nightingale, of Boston, under American colors...."
http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/cgi-...otisid=ANU4547-0001&coll=moa&frames=1&view=50

*

Wildfire (Boston or New York) ...Destination Cuba. Captured 1860.
"The Africans of the Slave Bark, Wildfire
Key West, Florida, May 20, 1860.

On the morning of the 30th of April last, the United States steamer Mohawk, Lieutenant Craven commanding, came to anchor in the harbor of this place, having in tow a bark of the burden of about three hundred and thirty tons, supposed to be the bark Wildfire, lately owned in the-city of New York. The bark had on board five hundred and ten native Africans, taken on board in the River Congo, on the west side of the continent of Africa. She had been captured a few days previously by Lieutenant Craven within sight of the northern coast of Cuba, as an American vessel employed in violating our laws against the slave-trade. She had left the Congo River thirty-six days before her capture...."
http://blackhistory.harpweek.com/7Illustrations/Slavery/AfricansOnSlaveBoat.htm

also-
"...Slave Ships...
...WILDFIRE - Owned by Boston shipping firm - 1860..."
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/1390/oldnews.htm
(near bottom of page)

 

[ewc]

This is tired ole BS propaganda from abolitionist pamphlets.

Oh, for crying out loud, Battalion!! 'Abolitionist pamphlets' be blowed!!! This information does not come from 'abolitionist pamphlets' as you assert, which I have never read and which I very much doubt you have either, but from William C Davis's A Government of Our Own. The fact of the matter is that though by no means a majority of delegates, nor Southerners, favored opening the African slave trade, it was very much a consideration among a group of diehard fire-eaters headed by Robert Barnwell Rhett, the archsecessionist editor of the Charleston Mercury, a delegate at the convention/Congress, and a member of both the Constitution and foreign affairs committees. What's more, Rhett's logic is flawless- why indeed, if we opt to leave the Union and set up for ourselves over this vexing question of slavery, and we pledge to uphold our rights in regard to slavery in our new league to the death, and furthermore we hold the institution of slavery to be the proper condition of the status of the Negro in our society and in fact a conceivable good, do we allow this shameful onus on slavery by agreeing to abolish its' trade among nations? It is not the logic per se that is a problem, but its' practical application, for every moderate and cooperationist, and even perspicacious fire-eaters, saw that such a policy would lose it, the new Confederacy, support among the still in the Union slave states and also general goodwill in the North. It would also lose the new nation sympathy and endanger aid in Europe and abroad.

The sentiment was indeed significant in that it was cherished by fire-eaters and indeed discussed and as you even point out, voted on at Montgomery. If not significant,then why the vote? And this vote had a state in favor!!

The fire-eaters were in a minority at Montgomery, moderates predominated, and moderates were going to make policy. But again, issues held by the fire-eaters were significant, for without the fire-eaters, no secession takes place, and with no secession, no Confederacy. And with a Confederacy born of a radical group, that radical group's policy would matter, whether in the forefront or not, whether adopted or not. Your arguments about the merits and details of the issue are irrelevant because the issue indeed existed and was a concern to the delegates. In fact, it was not the only issue that you might call inconsequential that the delegates debated. There was talk of how to handle in the new Constitution too many states seceding from the Union; what would the Confederacy do if all the states of the Union seceded and joined the Confederacy?? Then the 'Confederacy' would be back where it started, God forbid!! So we must limit admittance to only slave states and take others on a state by state basis, and by the way, God **** the bloody abolitionists!! Perhaps laughable to us now, but serious matters to insecure and security minded revolutionists.

So all in all, I have to say your argument, though perhaps indeed with abolitionist pamhlets, here moreso lies with William C Davis and the facts. That you have facts yourself to rant and rave with, your fits and conniptions lack logic and applicability. To say that this is, what- tired ol BS propaganda- is in itself the purest manure with which to sow a field of perdition, and I might add, uinworthy of the honorable Southern gentlefolk I have come to admire both on this board and in our great land and among whom I would wish to include you. regards, ed

 

[samgrant]

There was talk of how to handle in the new Constitution too many states seceding from the Union; what would the Confederacy do if all the states of the Union seceded and joined the Confederacy?? Then the 'Confederacy' would be back where it started, God forbid!! So we must limit admittance to only slave states and take others on a state by state basis, and by the way, God **** the bloody abolitionists!! Perhaps laughable to us now, but serious matters to insecure and security minded revolutionists.

regards, ed

Powerful post, ewc!

I do recall the issue of limiting "admittance to only slave states and take others on a state by state basis", from Davis' Look Away, but was unaware that the idea may have emerged that "all the states" might have seceded. I wonder who might have imagined that!

 

[Battalion]

Oh, for crying out loud, Battalion!! 'Abolitionist pamphlets' be blowed!!! This information does not come from 'abolitionist pamphlets' as you assert, which I have never read and which I very much doubt you have either, but from William C Davis's A Government of Our Own. The fact of the matter is that though by no means a majority of delegates, nor Southerners, favored opening the African slave trade, it was very much a consideration among a group of diehard fire-eaters headed by Robert Barnwell Rhett, the archsecessionist editor of the Charleston Mercury, a delegate at the convention/Congress, and a member of both the Constitution and foreign affairs committees.

Anybody else in his club-of-one?

The sentiment was indeed significant in that it was cherished by fire-eaters and indeed discussed and as you even point out, voted on at Montgomery.

Again, BS...

If not significant,then why the vote? And this vote had a state in favor!!

They were establishing their Constitution.

They had to have votes on what they put in it.

No one proposed any law to re-open the slave trade.

The only debate concerning the issue was over the severity of the penalty for engaging in the trade. That is why South Carolina voted against the law as written...not because they wanted to re-open the trade.

Got it?

 

[william42]

Anybody else in his club-of-one?

Why, yes, I'm in that club. Thanks for asking.

Terry

 

[Battalion]

Why, yes, I'm in that club. Thanks for asking.

Terry

You are for re-opening the slave trade?

 

[unionblue]

Battalion,

I was a founding member of that club.

And I am afraid you are wrong that no one proposed (at the convention to draw up the Confederate Constitution) a re-opening of the slave trade. Do a very little research on that and you will come up with a few names who wanted exactly that.

But if you wish to keep on purposefully misreading other posters and what they have said just because you disagree with their conclusions, just remember what Lincoln said.

"Go on with it. If you think you can, by slandering a woman, make her love you, or by vilifying a man, make him vote with you. go on and try it."

I submit you are wasting your time which could be better pursued with actually researching and proving your point rather than trying to score points.

Unionblue

 

[ewc]

Got it?

Unfortunately and sad to say, yes. As we seem to have hijacked this thread concerning the just hanging of the piratical Gordon, ordinarily I would suggest starting a new thread on the question of reopening the African slave trade. However, I am afraid, in fact I am quite sure, that such a discussion cannot be undertaken civilly and the chances of having a tolerable discussion quite nil given its' antecedents. I consider the matter closed and any further discussion useless. Instead I believe I will go out and spend a few minutes banging my head against a brick wall for all the good it could conceivably do. At least this way, I have as much prospect of a rational, intelligent, and cordial discourse as I am likely to encounter under present conditions.

 

[Battalion]

Battalion,
....
And I am afraid you are wrong that no one proposed (at the convention to draw up the Confederate Constitution) a re-opening of the slave trade. Do a very little research on that and you will come up with a few names who wanted exactly that.
....
Unionblue

It's not there.....

...but if I have missed something....
...please show us where just such a proposal is made-
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...@field(DOCID+@lit(cc0011))#0010001&linkText=1

Wanting it to be there...doesn't make it so.

 

[ole]

Instead I believe I will go out and spend a few minutes banging my head against a brick wall for all the good it could conceivably do. At least this way, I have as much prospect of a rational, intelligent, and cordial discourse as I am likely to encounter under present conditions.

May I accompany you? Whilst you are banging your head, I will proceed to toss down some adult libations dedicated to the same end -- up the Romans ... or was it "Down with the Tsar"? I forget.

Actually ... yes ... the thread is hijacked and no longer involves the nefarious Captain. But the conclusion is right around the corner with unionblue naming the delegates who proposed re-opening the slave trade (I'm not about to wade through the convention acta to find one.). But the gauntlet has been cast. It is not up to Battalion to prove there were none -- he has provided the wherewithal to find one.

I'll go with "there were very few" but "at least a couple." And this is supposition. None is not logical. Many would be noted. A few is what I will settle on.

Ole

 

[unionblue]

Ole and ewc,

We don't have to leave Captain Gordon out of this thread, no matter how many twists and turns we take.

Check out the following site on the good Captain.

http://www.correctionhistory.org/html/chronicl/tombs/gordon/whytombs1.htm

Enjoy,
Unionblue

 

[samgrant]

It's not there.....

...but if I have missed something....
...please show us where just such a proposal is made-
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcc&fileName=001/llcc001.db&recNum=6&itemLink=r?ammem/hlawfield(DOCID+@lit(cc0011))%230010001&linkText=1

Wanting it to be there...doesn't make it so.

Enough head banging! Let's just figure this out as the "gentlemen" that we most certainly are!

I don't know if the issue of "reopening of the slave trade" was actually discussed 'in session', you will have to rely on unionblue and/or ewc to answer that question.

It would seem to me almost inconceivable, however, that the idea was not discussed at least informally at Montgomery, with Rhett most likely actively pursuing his agenda.


We do find on Feb. 8, 1861, Mr. Rhett introducing a motion that would strike out total prohibition of the African slave trade as provided in the proposed CSA Constitution, by giving the authority over that issue to the Confederate Congress. James Chestnut (who might reconsider his decisions a few years later while watching in awe the flames of Columbia) also put in his 2 cents, to a similar effect.

******************

"7.30 O'CLOCK P. M.
The first paragraph of the seventh section was read, as follows:
The importation of African negroes from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States of the United States, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Mr. Rhett moved to amend the same by striking out all after the
words "of African" and insert the words "negroes and slaves from Africa may be prohibited by Congress."Mr. Chesnut moved to amend the section by substituting for the whole paragraph the following words:
Congress shall have power to prohibit the importation of African negroes and slaves from any foreign country.

****************

Now, that says nothing about "reopening the slave trade", but does suggest that, as ewc says, "There was significant sentiment for opening the African slave trade among Southern delegates at Montgomery".

Significant in what way? In numbers?, or maybe in influence in the name of Rhett?

ewc continues "The fact of the matter is that though by no means a majority of delegates, nor Southerners, favored opening the African slave trade, it was very much a consideration among a group of diehard fire-eaters headed by Robert Barnwell Rhett, the archsecessionist editor of the Charleston Mercury." (I'll agree with that!)

He then goes, maybe, out on a limb by suggesting that the vote was about 'reopening'. I'll leave that for him to say. As to his other sentiments, I am most agreeable.

As for unionblue, who I see has, in the interim as I plod along, posted a Gordon thing; I would not count him out as one who might come up with the goods, so to speak.

 

[unionblue]

Battalion,

From the civil war home website on the csa constitution background page. If one scrolls down the page under the section titled The Permanent Constitution, one will read the following in paragraph 22:

"The Confederate Constitution also mirrored, but surpassed, the federal Constitution on the issue of the slave trade by absolutely forbidding the operation of the African slave trade. This was done over protestations of South Carolinians, who wanted the matter left to Congress."

Also, in the second to last paragraph of the page, you will read the following:

"Radicals delayed ratification in South Carolina. Robert Barnwell Rhett, Sr., wanted to amend the document to prohibit any free state from entering the Confederacy. But finally, on April 3, South Carolina ratified by a vote of 138 to 21. The negative votes represented not latent Unionist sentiment but the proslavery extremism in the Palmetto State. After ratification the South Carolina convention proposed amendments to eliminate the three-fifths provision and count all slaves for representation; to prohibit free states from joining the Confederacy; to repeal the constitutional prohibition on the slave trade; and to prohibit the government from going into debt, except in the event of war."

The site can be found here at:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.htm

From the book, Look Away! The History Of The Confederate States Of America, by William C. Davis:

"It would take them (the Montgomery Convention) two days to pass the provisional charter, yet pass it they did, almost unchanged in any significant component. There was some debate over exactly what to call themselves, but they settled on Stephen's suggested Confederate States of America. The only real attempt at substantive deletion came when Rhett tried to strike out the prohibition of the African slave trade. He believed that such a proscription on any aspect of slavery was a tacit condemnation of the institution that he regarded as one of divine ordination."

From the book, The Union That Shaped The Confederacy; Robert Toombs & Alexander H. Stephens, also by William C. Davis:

"(while going through the provisional draft of the Confederate Constitution) Then they hit upon the section that prohibited the African slave trade. It was always an emotional issue. To extremists like Rhett, it implied a stigma on slavery itself, which he found intolerable. Indeed, there had been a substantial movement in the early 1850's to reopen the slave trade, and though it had failed, many people still felt sensitive about an issue that touched their sectional pride and honor... and when Rhett attempted to soften the prohibition with an amendment to the existing clause, everyone who opposed a reopening voted to table the measure."

I would also recommend the book, The Counter-Revolution Of Slavery; Politics and Ideology in Antebellum South Carolina, by Manisha Sinha. There is an entire chapter devoted to reopening the African Slave Trade.

As to the source you gave (Provisional Congress of the Confederate States), you can check out pages 35-36 and pages 868-869 to see where Rhett tried to throw out or amend the provisions banning slavery imports and the slave trade.

Maybe wanting it to be there doesn't make it so, but when it is there I am reminded of the old saying, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[ewc]

Neil, Ole, Sam- your efforts at rehabilitating this topic are much appreciated.

Neil- Fascinating link on Capt Gordon.

 

[Fifth Iowa]

Radicals

The fire-eaters were in a minority at Montgomery, moderates predominated, and moderates were going to make policy. But again, issues held by the fire-eaters were significant, for without the fire-eaters, no secession takes place, and with no secession, no Confederacy. And with a Confederacy born of a radical group, that radical group's policy would matter, whether in the forefront or not, whether adopted or not...

Does it seem to anyone else like this would parallel the influence of staunch abolitionists vis-à-vis moderates in the Union government?