My Ancestors Never Owned Slaves...

Status
Not open for further replies.

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Perhaps you'll share your poll data on Union slaveowners.....though actually that they are Union rather accurately shows their sentiments.
It's common sense. Slaveholders were more likely to support the confederacy. And it's shown in the border states where regions with fewer slaves were more unionist, and the regions with more slaves were more pro-confederate.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Counter-factual history is something that is fraught with imagination. How can you say, "We'll never know, I have my doubts, or I believe that opposes events in history that actually occurred? Everything you posted in here is ahistorical: from doubting the patriots would have won the independence without slaves to believing that the country would not have advanced at the same rate it did without slaves.

The Colonists would have defeated the British and won their independence without slaves, and they did basically. More slaves fought for the British crown than for the patriots. Virginia Royal Governor Lord Dunmore's November 1775 proclamation stating that any person held as a slave by a colonist in rebellion against England would become free by joining the British forces in subduing the revolt. While 5000 black Americans, mostly free, from northern colonies joined with the colonists' fight for independence, few of our school books teach that tens of thousands more enslaved black people joined with the British, with an even greater number taking advantage of the war to escape the colonies altogether by running to Canada or Florida. They saw they had a better shot at "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" with the Britishthan with their colonial slave masters. To further put these numbers in perspective, the total population of the 13 colonies at the time was 2.5 million, of whom 500,000 were slaves and indentured servants. While there is some debate about the exact numbers, Peter Kolchin in American Slavery points to the "Sharp decline between 1770 and 1790 in the proportion of the population made up of blacks (almost all of whom were slaves) from 60.5% to 43.8% in South Carolina and from 45.2% to 36.1% in Georgia" (73). Other commonly cited figures from historians estimate 25,000 slaves escaped from South Carolina, 30,000 from Virginia, and 5,000 from Georgia. Gilbert in Black Patriots and Loyalists says "Estimates range between twenty thousand and one hundred thousand... if one adds in the thousands of not yet organized blacks who trailed... the major British forces... the number takes on dimensions accurately called 'gigantic' (xii). Among them were 30 of Thomas Jefferson's slaves, 20 of George Washington's, and good ole "Give me liberty or give me death" Patrick Henry also lost his slave Ralph Henry to the Brits. It was the first mass emancipation in American history. Evidently "domestic insurrection" was legitimate when led by slave owners against England but not when enslaved people rose up for their freedom--against the rebelling slave owners( Keith Brooking: Would Slavery Have Ended Sooner if the British Won the American Revolutionary War?). If anything, the intervention of France, Spain, and the Netherlands in the conflict made a crucial difference in the Revolution's outcome. It is highly improbable that the United States could have won its independence without the assistance of France, Spain, and Holland. Fearful of losing its sugar colonies in the West Indies, Britain was unable to concentrate its military forces in the American colonies.

You have your doubts that the population would have evolved without blacks? Evidently you never read about immigration, census percentages or quotas? In 1940, there were 12.9-14 million African-Americans which equates to 8.4% of the National population. In the 75 years before World War I, the number of immigrants to the United States rose sharply. In the 1850s, only about 2.2 million foreign-born people lived in the country. That figure doubled within 10 years and continued to climb steadily until it peaked in the 1930s, during which time about 14.2 million of the nation’s residents had been born abroad.

I'm curious to know how slavery/free blacks made the US economy evolve? I can tell you unequivocally that slavery hindered the US economy, especially in the south. I posted the data 1,000 times(use search engine) that cotton production never exceeded 5% of the national GDP. Real income decreased in the south from 1776-1860 and it rose in the north. The Gilded Age was the subsequent era where prosperity occurred: The Gilded Age economic date clearly shows this to be true: By the beginning of the 20th century, gross domestic product and industrial production in the United States led the world. U.S. national income, in absolute figures in per capita, was so far above everybody else's by 1914." Per capita income in the United States was $377 in 1914 compared to Britain in second place at $244, Germany at $184, France at $153, and Italy at $108, while Russia and Japan trailed far behind at $41 and $36(Kennedy, Paul (1987). The Rise and Fall of Great Powers New York: Random House. p. 242).

The rapid expansion of industrialization led to real wage growth of 60% between 1860 and 1890, spread across the ever-increasing labor force. Real wages (adjusting for inflation) rose steadily, with the exact percentage increase depending on the dates and the specific work force. The Census Bureau reported in 1892 that the average annual wage per industrial worker (including men, women, and children) rose from $380 in 1880 to $564 in 1890, a gain of 48%. Economic historian Clarence D. Long estimates that (in terms of constant 1914 dollars), the average annual incomes of all American non-farm employees rose from $375 in 1870 to $395 in 1880, $519 in 1890 and $573 in 1900, a gain of 53% in 30 years(Tregarthen, Timothy D.; Rittenberg, Libby (1999) Macroeconomics (2nd ed.). Worth Publishers. p. 177).

Australian historian Peter Shergold found that the standard of living for industrial workers was higher than in Europe. He compared wages and the standard of living in Pittsburgh with Birmingham, England, one of the richest industrial cities of Europe. After taking account of the cost of living (which was 65% higher in the U.S.), he found the standard of living of unskilled workers was about the same in the two cities, while skilled workers in Pittsburgh had about 50% to 100% higher standard of living as those in Birmingham, England. According to Shergold the American advantage grew over time from 1890 to 1914, and the perceived higher American wage led to a heavy steady flow of skilled workers from Britain to industrial America. This economic expansion occurred after emancipation.


How did slavery make the US a superpower? I would love to know, but I doubt I will get an answer. I say slavery hindered the US morally, socially and economically. I say the US would have been a superpower after WW1 and not WW2 if it wasn't for slavery.


Key points:

1). The Patriots won independence in spite of slavery not because of it.

2). The population increased from immigration to an equivalent of the number on African-Americans living in the US.

3). The US real wages growth of 60 percent between 1860 and 1890, which spread across the ever-increasing labor force.

4). Slavery slowed the process of the US becoming a superpower.
Thanks @lurid for a well thought out, & detailed rebuttal to my post. I will most certainly respond in kind, when I have time. My plate is full at the moment but, rest assured, I will answer your question.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
“White Supremacy” is a non-starter in any mid 18th century U.S. conversation. I doubt anyone here can name 5 white Americans in 1861 who weren’t supremacists. Edited
We can start with Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, Amos Dresser (this cat was publicly whipped in Nashville due to his abolitionist sentiments), William Lloyd Garrison, & Harriet Beecher Stowe. There are tons more. Pretending there weren’t forward thinking movements and people in the 1860s just to make us feel better about the Confederate Cause isn’t helpful.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
In other words, nothing in the Constitution ever said it protected slavery nationally. Otherwise we would have the specific text shown.
Again it clearly did, what do think the FSL is about. Then again with 3/5th clause, then again with importation clause. It's amazing there was no confusion at the time, so your confusion now isn't worth worrying about. Perhaps they just had a better grasp of their actions and intent.
 

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
We can start with Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, Amos Dresser (this cat was publicly whipped in Nashville due to his abolitionist sentiments), William Lloyd Garrison, & Harriet Beecher Stowe. There are tons more. Pretending there weren’t forward thinking movements and people in the 1860s just to make us feel better about the Confederate Cause isn’t helpful.
Can we start with Stowe?

“Judging Harriet Beecher Stowe’s actions and opinions by the nineteenth century standards, she was a civil rights radical. However, judging her by modern standards, she was not without severe faults on racial matters. While Stowe was advocating for improvement in the lives of slaves and black people, she did not seem to believe in equal rights for all, nor did she believe that black people were fully equal to white people or entitled to a share of “The American Dream.” Because of her own faulty thinking that continually seeped into the novel, Stowe should not be looked at as the mother of the civil rights movement that she might have been in the absence of these flaws.”

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1314&context=studentpub
 

Will Carry

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 1, 2015
Location
The Tar Heel State.
@FedericoFCavada had a good answer. We do have diaries from the time that allude to rape and sexual slavery - generally not in a detailed way as it would not have been acceptable to be forthright about this. But if you want to see DNA linkage in action, get on PBS and watch a few episodes of Finding Your Roots. Multiple celebrities have been on where a link to a plantation owner has been proved with the help of white descendants. Now - can we prove those relationships weren't consensual? No, not definitively. But how could an enslaved woman say no? There was no real possibility for true consent.
DNA cannot detect rape. An enslaved woman raped by an enslaved man is still rape but would not be detected by a DNA test. It cannot determine where or not the sex was consensual or not. It seems we can only speculate at best and the whole proposition that enslaved women were sex slaves can and is being weaponized. The truth may never be known. We can raise awareness of modern sex slavery and try and stop it.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
We can start with Thaddeus Stevens, John Brown, Amos Dresser (this cat was publicly whipped in Nashville due to his abolitionist sentiments), William Lloyd Garrison, & Harriet Beecher Stowe. There are tons more. Pretending there weren’t forward thinking movements and people in the 1860s just to make us feel better about the Confederate Cause isn’t helpful.
...depends on what we count as 'forward' thinking.

"The adoption of the measures I advocated at the outset of the war, the arming of the negroes, the slaves of the rebels, is the only way left on earth in which these rebels can be exterminated. They will find that they must treat those States now outside of the Union as conquered provinces and settle them with new men, and drive the present rebels as exiles from this country....They have such determination, energy, and endurance, that nothing but actual extermination or exile or starvation will ever induce them to surrender to this Government." -Thaddeus Stevens, US House of Representatives, January 8, 1863

I have no doubt there are some here (and some former members either banned or in self-exile) who would have supported this idea if they had lived back in those times. That's how the Radical mind works.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
@archieclement ,

No where in the Constitution is the word "slavery" to be found, that's just a fact that I think @DanSBHawk is trying to get across. We all know why this is so, as the Founding Fathers did not want to acknowledge slavery in that founding document.

However, one might want to read the book, The Slaveholding Republic: An Account of the United States Government's Relations to Slavery, by Don E. Fehrenbacher.

A review of the book gives some insight to it's content.

"The Slaveholding Republic is a fitting complement to Don Fehrenbacher's prize-winning book, The Dred Scott Case. With his hallmark of careful research and precise language, Fehrenbacher convincingly shows how domination of the federal government by slaveholding interests shaped a Constitution that was originally neutral toward slavery into a bulwark of the peculiar institution. The election of Lincoln in 1860 brought this domination to an end, causing the South to create a new slaveholding republic that plunged the nation into war."

--James M. McPherson

Unionblue
 

FedericoFCavada

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Blacks in the Americas were subject to a racialized hierarchy, e.g. in Spanish America a literal caste system in the 18th and early 19th century.

Blacks in North America were frequently met with racism and contempt, certainly, but what prevailed in the United States was a system of racial oppression not merely "racism."

I don't think there is any question that William Tecumseh Sherman was keenly and openly racist.
As for George Washington, he made money the old fashioned way: He inherited it from his father who stole it! He received all kinds of property, including human property through inheritance. He was a major slaveholder in Virginia, 'tis true. And yet, near the end of his life, he appeared conscious of the issues or dichotomy of holding people in bondage after bringing about a white man's republic. Perhaps I'm going off dated research, but he did decide to manumit all of his slaves after the death of his wife, Martha. He did not wish to deprive his wife of support or wealth on his deathbed. Martha, in turn, manumitted the slaves of the estate before she died. I could be wrong?

<><><><>

As to the OP of the thread, I will say that once, assisting a Californian with roots in Tyler, Texas, the person was rather shocked when I tracked the family back to Alabama where they had been much more prosperous before being ruined in the Civil War, and finding the ancestors owned slaves to operate their farm. The researcher simply had no idea and had been unable to get through a brick wall and find the documentation.
 

FedericoFCavada

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Again it clearly did, what do think the FSL is about. Then again with 3/5th clause, then again with importation clause. It's amazing there was no confusion at the time, so your confusion now isn't worth worrying about. Perhaps they just had a better grasp of their actions and intent.
Again, nutty ol' Lysander Spooner argued the contrary... Not much to say, I think the only lasting significance of the guy was reducing the cost of postage stamps to 3 cents... But some die-hard defenders of the peculiar institution did take note of his arguments, even as a whole slew of abolitionists took issue with them because it didn't suit their, uh, well, to use your word, "agenda."

Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slaver (1860)
 

FedericoFCavada

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
It's common sense. Slaveholders were more likely to support the confederacy. And it's shown in the border states where regions with fewer slaves were more unionist, and the regions with more slaves were more pro-confederate.
Once more, from the top: First seven states seceded. These were the "lower south." Then, armed forces were raised to put down the rebellion with violence, and some of the "upper south" states seceded. The so-called "border states" did not secede.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
No where in the Constitution is the word "slavery" to be found,

Which is not to say that the Constitution did not originally address and sanction slavery without actually naming it, because it did. Everyone knows what "persons held to service or labor" meant. And it was precisely because the Constitution protected slavery that a Constitutional amendment (where the word slavery is in fact found within the text of the Constitution) was needed to abolish it:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.​
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Again, nutty ol' Lysander Spooner argued the contrary... Not much to say, I think the only lasting significance of the guy was reducing the cost of postage stamps to 3 cents... But some die-hard defenders of the peculiar institution did take note of his arguments, even as a whole slew of abolitionists took issue with them because it didn't suit their, uh, well, to use your word, "agenda."

Spooner, The Unconstitutionality of Slaver (1860)
Again there are plenty of old nutty guys, why we go with a majority that's represented by Congress and the Supreme Court.

But of course nutty old spooner would advocate anarchy as he's considered an anarchist.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Once more, from the top: First seven states seceded. These were the "lower south." Then, armed forces were raised to put down the rebellion with violence, and some of the "upper south" states seceded. The so-called "border states" did not secede.
Yes, I agree. My point was that in the areas where there were more slaves - whether that area was in a border state, or the upper south, or the lower south - there was more sympathy for the confederacy.

In the areas with less slavery in the border states, upper and lower south - there was more sympathy with the Union.

More slavery, more confederate. Less slavery, more unionist.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Yes, I agree. My point was that in the areas where there were more slaves - whether that area was in a border state, or the upper south, or the lower south - there was more sympathy for the confederacy.

In the areas with less slavery in the border states, upper and lower south - there was more sympathy with the Union.

More slavery, more confederate. Less slavery, more unionist.
Not necessarily. No state had more slaves in 1860 than Virginia. Yet, Virginia didn't secede until military coercion was made clear.

Virginia was most concerned about Virginia. Though her principles dictated invasion by the federal government was unconstitutional. Only when that was announced (15 April '61), did Virginia vote again & join the CSA (17 April '61) after voting overwhelmingly against secession on 4 April '61. This is the actual historical timeline. It's not debatable.

Virginia suffered tremendously for doing so. I suppose that's why her sons & daughters erected so many monuments.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Not necessarily. No state had more slaves in 1860 than Virginia. Yet, Virginia didn't secede until military coercion was made clear.

Virginia was most concerned about Virginia. Though her principles dictated invasion by the federal government was unconstitutional. Only when that was announced (15 April '61), did Virginia vote again & join the CSA (17 April '61) after voting overwhelmingly against secession on 4 April '61. This is the actual historical timeline. It's not debatable.

Virginia suffered tremendously for doing so. I suppose that's why her sons & daughters erected so many monuments.
I think we've discussed this before. My wording "more slavery, more confederate" would be more specifically stated as "more slaves per capita." What was the number of slaves in Virginia as compared to the white population? One source I found says that slaves were 30% of the population in Virginia in 1860, while in South Carolina slaves were 57% of the population.

And the break off of West Virginia supports the idea of "less slavery, more unionist."
 
Last edited:

FedericoFCavada

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Again there are plenty of old nutty guys, why we go with a majority that's represented by Congress and the Supreme Court.

But of course nutty old spooner would advocate anarchy as he's considered an anarchist.
What about the nuts who were scions of aristocratic Southern slaveholding families who presided over SCOTUS in the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision? Under the protection of property in the Fifth Amendment, slaves were reconfirmed as property. But it didn't stop there. It overturned the Missouri Compromise and asserted Congress had no authority to regulate or block the extension of slavery into territories...

That decision, asserting that the the Constitution protected slaveholding, directly led to the election of the POTUS Lincoln and VeePOTUS Hamlin of a brand new political party, the Republicans, (with only 40% of the vote, you'll doubtless hasten to add? Thus a minority view...)

So nutty old Roger Brooke Taney did more to bring about the Civil War than, say, uh, well, the terrorism and murders of John Brown's gang?

U.S. Reports: Dred Scott v. Sandford

Library of Congress Research Guides: Dred Scott

https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep060393a/

Riddle me this? If Dangerfield Newby had no legal recourse to buy his wife and children from their owner, and Dred Scott refused to simply abscond and run away, but his owner refused to either free him or agree on a recognized price that he might manumit himself through self-purchase, and Roger Taney argued that all blacks, whether free or uh, "enslaved," were citizens and thus unable to press their claims in U.S. courts, what does that suggest about your vaunted sacrosanct laws at the time? Could it be that the "law" promoted division and sectarianism and polarization far more than a handful of lawless people like, say, Harriet Tubman who callously ran away from her legal owner without compensation paid to him of any kind, hmm?

But of course Roger Brooke Taney would advocate slavery and rightlessness for blacks, because he was a Maryland slave-ocrat?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top