Id use a less negatively-charged synonymous phrase too if I didn't want to look bad or was hiding something.
Id use a less negatively-charged synonymous phrase too if I didn't want to look bad or was hiding something.
The causes of secession were different from the cause of the war. Whether the Confederate States would be allowed to remain an independent country was the cause of the war. Neither the CS or the US went to war over slavery in April 1861...
Read your sources about that. This is not 1990, everybody has ample access now to prevailing scholarship on the CW, everybody knows the underlying cause of the CS and the US going to war was slavery. Of course the stated purpose the U.S. went to war was to retain the Union, and of course the stated purpose of the secessionists (virtually the very same thing as the Confederates, don't kid yourself) was to achieve independence.
We have the advantage in hindsight, and documented scholarship, to see how those stated reasons fell apart by mid-war to expose what was really going on. The U.S. would free slaves, and the Confederacy would have slavery torn from its cold dead hands.
It's 2019 now. Everybody knows the war was over slavery. The next step is to ponder why someone would want it to be -- in this age of overwhelming reliable evidence -- that the war wasn't about slavery. Why someone would defend a mere 4-year miserable experiment in social engineering over the much prouder history of those who endured and prevailed before and after those miserable 4 years. The history of Southerners, including a major proportion of those black at the time, is what matters. Get real.
...About half the slaves in the registrations at Gallatin County had not been residents of Illinois, but rather brought to Illinois from a slave state to be freed...Many of the other cases listed from Gallatin County here seem to be certifications of persons freed years earlier.
Whatever the implications of that, the reality of that part of the state was something else. It was a hotbed of the "reverse underground railroad":
"the crime of seizing free blacks, running them south and selling them into slavery from this State, for a long time was quite common.... [P]ortions of southern Illinois for many years afforded a safe retreat to those kidnapping outlaws. We cannot cite the numerous cases of kidnapping..."n the majority of cases the poor ignorant blacks, by fraud and deceit, were inveigled [tricked] into a trip south on a flat boat, or other errand, and at some pre-arranged point on the river, they would be turned over to confederates, forcibly and rapidly taken to the interior and there sold into slavery... Another mode was to seize a black and forcibly convey him to a rendezvous either on the Ohio or Mississippi, but not out of the State, where a confederate would appear and carry him beyond." - Complete History of Illinois, 1876
and as typified in the Crenshaw house operation in Gallatin county:
"...The house was used as a pit stop to house captured escaped slaves and kidnapped free black slaves before selling them to back to the southern slave states. The third floor of the home had 12 rooms. These rooms were believed to have been where Crenshaw kept the slaves chained in a jail. Crenshaw was believed to be the master mind behind the capturing of these Blacks, because there was no way he could not have known the Blacks were being chained and housed on his property, although he owned several acres of land. Crenshaw was well-known and a very wealthy man during his time. Illinois was a free state, and no one was allowed to have slaves. However, there was an exception to Crenshaw because of his business in salt. The law permitted the use of slaves at the salt works since the labor was so arduous that no free men could be found to do it... Crenshaw was indicted in 1820 for operating the slave jail, and again in 1842..." - 1996 Jon Musgrave December 1996 issue of Springhouse Magazine
...Who are some the more prominent among the "everybody" saying it? Not everybody is saying it...abbeville institute...clyde-wilson-library
Meaning that the New England trade had ditched chattel slavery decades before the slave South went to war to protect it. Is there something that we're missing here?
“A new act of 1800 tightened the federal law ...in 1794, the members had been “drilled into [passing the act ...Then, in 1804...Collins...part-owner of the slave ships...was sworn in...
Not such a good back up. An Emancipation as late as 1863 was not an indication of endorsement or certification of freedom by the state of Illinois, but rather merely the recording of the status of a slave brought into the state by their slaveowner from a slave state. Per the Federal Fugitive Slave Act, Illinois had no authority to deny the rights of property dispensation of slaveowners who had brought their chattel into the state. A change in status was a proper thing for an Illinois County to record, but that was to benefit black residents who might be targeted by slave bounty hunters. Those slave catchers could not prevail before an Illinois judge if a record of emancipation resided on the County books.
So the attempt to cite an 1863 emancipation as "proof" of slavery being legally allowed in Illinois is disingenuous. The article and reference to it should be criticized for the attempt to imply that slavery was yet legal in Illinois, seemingly for the purpose of ameliorating the culpability of Southern slavery by "equating" it with a few irregular instances of virtual slavery in a Northern free state.
Was there a legal work-around in Illinois that allowed "contract indenture" as a euphemism that allowed slaves to be used in Illinois? Yes.
...havent seen anyone actually provide any evidence whatsoever if the 1863 emancipation was from an in state resident, or an out of state resident...…nor any of the other post 1848 emancipations...…are these just assumption's, or do you have evidence?
Solid evidence. Illinois wasn't a slave state at that time. Slavery was illegal for Illinois citizens, so of course they could not emancipate a slave that they could not have owned to begin with. That means that any emancipation entered into the County record was to record the act of a legal slaveowner from out of state, per the rules of that state, which because of the Fugitive Slave Act were bound to be respected. The point is that no Illinois court was itself granting the emancipation.*
...anyone in state or out of state would have to record it as slavery was legal in Illinois.
Once slavery is illegal it would be as unnecessary for an out of stater moving to Illinois as it would for an in stater, as the slave wouldn't remain a slave in Illinois whether one emancipated him or not...
.... so see little reason to assume some out of state origin...
NPR states slavery continued in Illinois past 1848, I'm wondering what you have to refute the NPR assertation.
Slavery was not legal in Illinois. Slave catching was legal in Illinois per the Fugitive Slave Law.
For the sake of a former slave who had been brought into Illinois, it was necessary to record that he or she had been legally emancipated, the reason Illinois counties or cities recorded emancipations. Illinois courts didn't do emancipations because slavery wasn't legal in the state to begin with. That's how we know the emancipations originated out-of-state. This is not that hard to grasp.
If a slave owner decided to stay in Illinois as an Illinois resident, there would be no point for him to attempt to invoke his slave property rights under the FSL for the simple reason nobody could legally own a slave in Illinois anyway. However, if a slave owner was just visiting there would be a point for him to invoke his slave property rights, because he could legally own a slave where he was a resident. On a practical level, all a slave owner had to do was revert (declare) residence in a slave state to have the FSL work for him once more.
How 'bout a big reason then: we know all the emancipations were enacted out of state because Illinois wasn't performing emancipations, rather merely recording them in local civic records. If it helps, let's put it another way: Illinois courts didn't perform emancipations because they were the slave state's venue, not the free state of Illinois' venue.
The system wasn't hunky-dory, most folks in Illinois hated it because per the FSL Illinois was bound to respect whatever status some slave state could legally provide about a black in Illinois. At least it was up to the slaveowner to prove legal ownership, just as it was up to the former slave or any black person to disprove legal ownership. That brings us right back to why it was so important that emancipations were recorded in local Illinois civic records.
Nothing to refute there. Virtual slavery did continue in Illinois past 1848 because of legal dodging: grandfathering pre-statehood ownership of slaves, designating "indentured servitude" to avoid the intent of the law, personal restraint in rural areas beyond the reach of regular legal enforcement, and outright stripping of legal papers from legally-emancipated former slaves or even free blacks (which once again brings us back to why it was so important that emancipations were recorded in Illinois civic records).
No thats the primary fallacy of this emancipation argument in being somehow only out of state. Illinois didnt free all its slaves, they continued as indentured servants, Now the children of these indentured servants were required to emancipated by Illinois residents, girls at 18 and boys at 24, so this notion the only emancipation's in Illinois were from out of state is false. This shouldn't be hard to graspSlavery was not legal in Illinois. Slave catching was legal in Illinois per the Fugitive Slave Law.
...The children of those you just noted as exceptions, however were still required to be emancipated by Illinois residents upon coming of age. So Illinois residents would be still emancipating slaves as well...
Again you seem to ignore the fact that the slaves were grandfathered in, their children were also in bondage, required to be emancipated upon coming of age by Illinois residents. a slave grandfathered in could be held for life if the owner chose, and children born to such a slave, even after 1818 also held until coming of age, when they were required to free. Note the clause saying children born hereafter have to have the date of birth recorded, because they could also be held in bondage to coming of ageThose exceptions were not legally slaves. As mentioned indentured servitude was a work-around which enabled held persons (and their children) to be treated as slaves. That's called virtual slavery. Held as such, they could not be emancipated in Illinois because slavery was not legal in Illinois to begin with. So Illinois residents would not still be emancipating slaves, if visiting slaveowners could. If an Illinois resident freed their virtual slaves they were doing so under the terms of indentured servitude. No Illinois document of emancipation.
Regarding the other exception mentioned: grandfathering of pre-statehood slave ownership; well, in that case Illinois had effectively surrendered its authority. From then on the status of the slave was solely between the master and his slave, including when the master chooses to emancipate his slave -- a private document of emancipation. No Illinois document of emancipation.
Regarding the other exception mentioned: the holding of humans against their will in areas of the state where there was no regular enforcement of Illinois' statutes -- well, that was simply a crime under Illinois law. True enough when those held in that circumstance were freed it would be under an Illinois local court order, but it was not an emancipation. It simply was a resolution of a suit brought by the state against convicted criminals. No Illinois document of emancipation.
We understand what's going on though. If the idea can be sold that what remained of slavery in Illinois or any other free state in the Antebellum -- virtual slavery -- can be equated with slavery in the slave South, then the slave South, including the Confederacy, was no more culpable for retaining and expanding slavery than the free Northern states were (sub text: the war wasn't over slavery).
|Sacred Harp Music and Shape Notes||Music & Songs of the 1860's||0|
|Discussion In the total estimates in the Northern and Confederate armies, are guerrillas and partisans included?||Civil War History Discussion||4|
|Was Pumpkin Pie an Act of Northern Aggression?||Mid-19th Century Life||53|
|T||Lee’s Northern Battlefields||Contemporary Photos of Sites & Events||4|
|Discussion Did the Southern men fight better than the Northern men?||Civil War History Discussion||374|