Restricted Debate More silly guys who worried that slavery would tear the country apart

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
827
#1
I have been quoting Thomas Jefferson about a "fire bell ringing in the night" in reference to slavery. Some posters assure me that there were hidden reasons contradicting what the secessionists said about why they seceded when they seceded. (It's true they have no evidence for their statements.) But guess what? Jefferson was not the first to worry that the country could not survive if slavery did.

George Washington expressed concerns over slavery's implications for the nation. In 1797, Washington is reported to have told a British guest: "I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principal." [Washington's spelling] According to Thomas Jefferson’s notes, he told Edmund Randolph that if the country were to split over slavery, Washington, "had made up his mind to move and be of the northern." Washington's will included freeing the enslaved people he held upon the death of his widow, Martha. She freed her husband's slaves in January 1801, just over a year after his death.
 

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

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
827
#2
To continue, Washington was not the only one.

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in …abhorrence.” Excerpt from a letter from John Adams to Robert Evans, June 8, 1819


While he was against this ownership, he also saw the challenges which abolition would present. Though he believed that enslavement should be (and in time would certainly be) brought to justice he was adamant it would erupt in the division of the new country. https://foundersandslavery.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/john-adams-and-the-institution-of-slavery/

Imagine that! The first three Presidents of the United States predicted a civil war if slavery was not ended.

So the first three Presidents were so wrong about the dangers of slavery? Or were they?

Please discuss
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,118
#4
Why the Union in the first place, if Slavery was the Disqualification? Why did the Federalists flirt with secession, which they thought was Legal? Many Federalists thought the West should or would secede, and should secede because they would dilute Yankee power and Influence. None of this had anything to do with Slavery. Back during the first 3 presidents, the North had Slaves. Since the Founding thru and beyond the CW, Yankee Merchants made huge sums of money supporting the South’s, and everybody else Slavery.

If It is was all about Union, why didn’t Lincoln Compromise? He had to subjugate the South, and take the issue of Secession off the table. That is why. He vowed to and though the Federal Government had no recourse against Slavery. He vowed to protect Slavery where it stood and to enforce the FSL. I think that would qualify him as being a Doughface!

Finally, no one suggest that in some form, Slavery wasn’t a Issue. It might of been the only issue for some. Others in could of been the 2nd or 3rd most important Issue.
 

Northern Light

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
10,686
#5
The founding fathers were too busy trying to build a country to deal, half of which were adamant they would not give up slavery. From the very beginning of the United States, the rest of the country was making compromises over slavery just to hold things together. That would have been the time for the south to secede. By the time they no longer held the whip handle, the north was too powerful and the slave states were not prepared.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,176
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#6
Why the Union in the first place, if Slavery was the Disqualification? Why did the Federalists flirt with secession, which they thought was Legal? Many Federalists thought the West should or would secede, and should secede because they would dilute Yankee power and Influence. None of this had anything to do with Slavery. Back during the first 3 presidents, the North had Slaves. Since the Founding thru and beyond the CW, Yankee Merchants made huge sums of money supporting the South’s, and everybody else Slavery.

Smoke and mirrors, excuses and diversions, misdirection and deliberate misunderstandings.

First, a nation, then slavery. Priorities that the Founder's had before them.

If It is was all about Union, why didn’t Lincoln Compromise?

Because it was all about Union to Lincoln. It was all about slavery to the seceding slaveholding Southern states.

He had to subjugate the South, and take the issue of Secession off the table.

Yep. But why is it always never mentioned the reason WHY the slaveholding South seceded?

That is why.

And why is it wrong that Lincoln wanted to take secession off the table?

He vowed to and though the Federal Government had no recourse against Slavery.

He did vow such, but it was forced upon him by the very slaveholders who fired on Sumter.

He vowed to protect Slavery where it stood and to enforce the FSL.

Yes, he did. Too bad he wasn't believed by those who feared slavery would not be secure under Lincoln.

I think that would qualify him as being a Doughface!

I think that would qualify him as a legally elected President trying to uphold his oath of office and the Constitution.


Finally, no one suggest that in some form, Slavery wasn’t a Issue.

Sorry, but that has not always been the case, even on this forum.

It might of been the only issue for some. Others in could of been the 2nd or 3rd most important Issue.
It was the most overriding concern, the number one issue that brought about Southern secession and revolution.

The paper trail is too long and too detailed to deny this obvious, historical, fact.

Unionblue
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
326
#7
That is really interesting. However, if they thought slavery was such an important issue, maybe they should have done something about it.
The issue was WHAT to do about slavery.
There was a substantial manumission movement everywhere but SC and GA. That led some to believe that slavery might just end with a whimper.The American Colonization Society was another cause to think slavery would just go away. But mistrust between Blacks and Whites and slaveholders and abolitionists foiled attempts to avoid real trouble.
Given that most White Americans were not interested in having large numbers of free Blacks in the country (that included Abraham Lincoln until two years into his presidency), then, WHAT TO DO?
 
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
197
#8
It was the most overriding concern, the number one issue that brought about Southern secession and revolution.

The paper trail is too long and too detailed to deny this obvious, historical, fact.

Unionblue
The issue was the right to property. Slaves were considered property. Wealth is property. Taxes and tariffs are confiscation of said property. The political party (considered as radicals) that won the White House and held sway in the northern States made clear their goal was to reduce the wealth of the southern States thru the taxes, tariffs and abolition of slavery and no means of compensation for the loss.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
 

damYankee

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Messages
3,843
#9
If my memory hasn't failed completely didn't Jefferson Davis support the plan to phase out slavery by freeing children born to slaves after 1800?
And then along came the Cotton Gin.....
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,083
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#10
if they thought slavery was such an important issue, maybe they should have done something about it.

One very simple answer, $$$, for both the southern slave owner that had so...much invested, and those in the north that took their immoral profits.

What, may I ask is so hard for so many to understand?
 

alan polk

Sergeant Major
Joined
Jun 11, 2012
Messages
2,441
#11
To continue, Washington was not the only one.

“Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States…. I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in …abhorrence.” Excerpt from a letter from John Adams to Robert Evans, June 8, 1819


While he was against this ownership, he also saw the challenges which abolition would present. Though he believed that enslavement should be (and in time would certainly be) brought to justice he was adamant it would erupt in the division of the new country. https://foundersandslavery.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/john-adams-and-the-institution-of-slavery/

Imagine that! The first three Presidents of the United States predicted a civil war if slavery was not ended.

So the first three Presidents were so wrong about the dangers of slavery? Or were they?

Please discuss
It’s a lot like the Bible, lots of things can be quoted to suit a person’s narrative, and this situation is not much different. That folks here argue back and forth about issues occurring 160 some-odd years ago, is indicative of how complex issues really were during those desperate days.

Politicians back then, particularly the Republicans, put forth similar arguments as you posted above. It never really resolved anything because Southerners offered their own responses that proved just as authoritative, just as historically accurate, as the opposition. It’s why we ended up killing one another in the end.

For example, Robert Toombs answered similar charges made by Republicans in a Senate speech in 1860. In response to those charges, Toombs simply entered into the record his own letters written by the some of the same founders, along with other historical facts in support.

Toombs readily agreed that Washington, Jefferson and Madison expressed opinions against slavery. However, he noted that they never “pretended that the Constitution, in any way whatever, or in any degree whatever, provided either for restraining, limiting, or abolishing it.”

In regards to Jefferson, Toombs also reminds the Senate that “Jefferson acquired a slave territory larger than the rest of the Union put together,” and “extended slavery over it, by protecting all slaveholders in any of the then existing States in emigration to and settling in it.”

Toombs’s full Senate speech was published in most newspapers at the time, this one from The New York Herald. Below, Toombs enters into the record letters by Jefferson and Madison in regards to slavery expansion:

CFFEE6AF-C012-46E6-8848-D9EF93D4F9AC.jpeg


So there we see a concern that interfering with slavery threatens the Union, not the other way around.

And here, below, Toombs offers a letter written by Daniel Webster in 1852, regarding the North’s attempts to violate the Fugitive Slave Act:

A47C1A48-E370-4884-AB37-AF929CC7563A.jpeg


.... and so the redundant circularity that started back then continues today; and it will not end until one type history can be erased and then replaced by a new narrative.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
197
#12
It’s a lot like the Bible, lots of things can be quoted to suit a person’s narrative, and this situation is not much different. That folks here argue back and forth about issues occurring 160 some-odd years ago, is indicative of how complex issues really were during those desperate days.

Politicians back then, particularly the Republicans, put forth similar arguments as you posted above. It never really resolved anything because Southerners offered their own responses that proved just as authoritative, just as historically accurate, as the opposition. It’s why we ended up killing one another in the end.

For example, Robert Toombs answered similar charges made by Republicans in a Senate speech in 1860. In response to those charges, Toombs simply entered into the record his own letters written by the some of the same founders, along with other historical facts in support.

Toombs readily agreed that Washington, Jefferson and Madison expressed opinions against slavery. However, he noted that they never “pretended that the Constitution, in any way whatever, or in any degree whatever, provided either for restraining, limiting, or abolishing it.”

In regards to Jefferson, Toombs also reminds the Senate that “Jefferson acquired a slave territory larger than the rest of the Union put together,” and “extended slavery over it, by protecting all slaveholders in any of the then existing States in emigration to and settling in it.”

Toombs’s full Senate speech was published in most newspapers at the time, this one from The New York Herald. Below, Toombs enters into the record letters by Jefferson and Madison in regards to slavery expansion:

View attachment 308547

So there we see a concern that interfering with slavery threatens the Union, not the other way around.

And here, below, Toombs offers a letter written by Daniel Webster in 1852, regarding the North’s attempts to violate the Fugitive Slave Act:

View attachment 308549

.... and so the redundant circularity that started back then continues today; and it will not end until one type history can be erased and then replaced by a new narrative.
It seems that endeavor is presently under way. And at what cost? May be that this question suggests a post to explore the matter.
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
18,201
Location
Central Pennsylvania
#13
IMO our Founding Fathers shuffled off the responsibility hence the ACW. That some were smitten by conscience only makes it worse.

This thing where anyone gets to shrug up shoulders and scurry behind " Well, it was the law " is baffling. Once upon a time someone made the decision that it was possible to own a fellow human being. It doesn't matter at which point in world history this occured, fact remains it was such a handy concept the whole thing got passed down. OWN. Another human. In order to feel ok about it the human-to-be-owned had to be transformed into a non-human- so poof, they did that too. Conscience is a funny thing however intrusive it is. Whatever works to sleep at night.

You know those gee-whiz descriptions of actual battles between ships that took place in Rome? They flooded the Colosseum. How awesome? Nope. You know HOW they did it? Water was pumped via these big hamster wheels- enslaved walked those things until dead, body was pitched elsewhere and another enslaved human put in place. Who walked that stupid wheel until dead. Mistake here is using the word ' slave ' instead of enslaved. Too easy. Making someone a noun instead of a victim and making as many laws as was necessary to keep them there sure gave everyone a handle on free labor. And is not a terrific excuse.
 
Joined
May 19, 2019
Messages
197
#14
IMO our Founding Fathers shuffled off the responsibility hence the ACW. That some were smitten by conscience only makes it worse.

This thing where anyone gets to shrug up shoulders and scurry behind " Well, it was the law " is baffling. Once upon a time someone made the decision that it was possible to own a fellow human being. It doesn't matter at which point in world history this occured, fact remains it was such a handy concept the whole thing got passed down. OWN. Another human. In order to feel ok about it the human-to-be-owned had to be transformed into a non-human- so poof, they did that too. Conscience is a funny thing however intrusive it is. Whatever works to sleep at night.

You know those gee-whiz descriptions of actual battles between ships that took place in Rome? They flooded the Colosseum. How awesome? Nope. You know HOW they did it? Water was pumped via these big hamster wheels- enslaved walked those things until dead, body was pitched elsewhere and another enslaved human put in place. Who walked that stupid wheel until dead. Mistake here is using the word ' slave ' instead of enslaved. Too easy. Making someone a noun instead of a victim and making as many laws as was necessary to keep them there sure gave everyone a handle on free labor. And is not a terrific excuse.
Wasn't "free labor". There was a cost associated. More like an investment. And slavery exists today. In more than one form. Even in the good ol' USA.
 

Norm53

Corporal
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Messages
483
Location
Cape May, NJ
#15
The OP reminds me that when it came to slavery, there were few who could walk the walk to end it. In this category I would include those slave owners who manumitted their slaves w/o compensation before their deaths (like C/J Taney), the colored Union troops who volunteered to fight, John Brown, and the Union white officers and men who fought to end slavery rather than save the Union as verified by their letters and diaries. There must be others who belong to this select group that the more seasoned CWT members can name.
 

matthew mckeon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
13,623
#16
The issue was the right to property. Slaves were considered property. Wealth is property. Taxes and tariffs are confiscation of said property. The political party (considered as radicals) that won the White House and held sway in the northern States made clear their goal was to reduce the wealth of the southern States thru the taxes, tariffs and abolition of slavery and no means of compensation for the loss.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"The political party" The Republicans, I assume. Could you quote a member of Lincoln's cabinet or Lincoln himself who stated his goal was to "reduce the wealth of the southern States" through taxes(what taxes?), tariffs and "abolition of slavery" and "no means of compensation."

Because historically the position of the Republican Party in the election of 1860 was to restrict the expansion of slavery into the western territories, not abolition.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,083
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
#17
"The political party" The Republicans, I assume. Could you quote a member of Lincoln's cabinet or Lincoln himself who stated his goal was to "reduce the wealth of the southern States" through taxes(what taxes?), tariffs and "abolition of slavery" and "no means of compensation."

Because historically the position of the Republican Party in the election of 1860 was to restrict the expansion of slavery into the western territories, not abolition.

I highly doubt Matt, that you will receive a "serious" response. It is quite uhh... repetitive....w/o...
 

Northern Light

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
10,686
#18
"The political party" The Republicans, I assume. Could you quote a member of Lincoln's cabinet or Lincoln himself who stated his goal was to "reduce the wealth of the southern States" through taxes(what taxes?), tariffs and "abolition of slavery" and "no means of compensation."

Because historically the position of the Republican Party in the election of 1860 was to restrict the expansion of slavery into the western territories, not abolition.
Well, techincally that restriction might reduce potential wealth, but I would like to see some evidence as well.
 

byron ed

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,488
Location
Midwest
#19
...None of this had anything to do with Slavery.
It's pretty clear from the OP that it did. Can you stop playing Confederate for even a minute?

Back during the first 3 presidents, the North had Slaves. Since the Founding thru and beyond the CW, Yankee Merchants made huge sums of money supporting the South’s, and everybody else Slavery.
...yet you literally just claimed "none of this had anything to do with Slavery." Can you take one more minute to be consistent?

If It is was all about Union, why didn’t Lincoln Compromise? He had to subjugate the South, and take the issue of Secession off the table.
Lincoln clearly did compromise, boldly broadcasting that he would not interfere with slavery where it existed. Perhaps give the "play Confederate" thing a rest for longer than a minute and investigate for yourself what was actually going on at the time.

As far as Secession, it was already well under way before Lincoln even arrived at Washington. There was no vehicle for Lincoln or anyone else to "take the issue of Secession off the table" at that point. And Lincoln was never in any way, shape or form about "subjugating" the South. He was born a Southerner and lived as a Southerner himself. Enough drama. Take a breather, go to the library, then get back to us.

...Finally, no one suggest that in some form, Slavery wasn’t a Issue. It might of been the only issue for some. Others in could of been the 2nd or 3rd most important Issue.
This is not a poll. What order of importance individuals assign to slavery as a cause matters not at all. In spite of whatever popularity poll there is, in spite of any agenda attempted, Slavery clearly was the primary issue leading to a Civil War. We're beyond playing it. Lost Cause has lost this one.

In 2019 we all can find overwhelming evidence that at the time, folks knew slavery was the primary issue leading to a Civil War. A good deal of that account is from Southerners themselves, quoted, in black and white. Declarations of Secession, written precept of the Confederate Constitution. All this available in detail on the internet and every public and university library in the country. Stop playing. Put on big boy pants.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 27, 2017
Messages
983
Location
NC
#20
if they thought slavery was such an important issue, maybe they should have done something about it.
And what might that have been? They were not military dictators. The votes in congress were not there.

No country ever establishes its independence from its parent country while fundamentally changing the cornerstone of its economy. Too much change, too quickly. For a while, we had to live with the system we had inherited from the British.

If we hadn't been in a war, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (an Executive Order) wouldn't have been possible. And if the Southern states hadn't succeeded, they couldn't have been required to ratify the 13th Amendment as a condition of readmission.

So, a President finally did put an end to slavery without waiting on the congress, but he had to wait until the right opportunity presented itself.
 



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