Op-ed: scarlet 'S' for slavery

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Seems a rather silly argument to claim that since there were northern slave traders this was the North's fault or that that somehow makes it acceptable. The distaste for slavery (and the economics of it) had led to its end throughout most of the North well before the Civil War.

Best number I found was that approximately 645,000 slaves were brought to what would become the U.S. over 300+ years--the value apparently is based on something like 27,000+ recorded voyages. There were 4 million slaves by 1860.

With the value of cotton being so great and the work so difficult slaves had a lot inherent value to the planters. It would have been difficult and expensive to hire free men for the job. Certainly would have required a lot of immigration...something that was notably lacking in the South because of the large captive workforce.

States of the upper south had less demand for slaves because the crops were far less lucrative. This was resulting in slaves being sold south where the relative value of a slave was greater. The smaller percentage of slaveholders made the upper south/border states reluctant to secede, while the fire eaters of the Deep South were doing what they could to incite a fight and force their slave owning neighbors to join them. It worked except for the borders states of Kentucky and Missouri, even though slave owners controlled most of the elected offices.

There is a strong correlation between secession date and the percentage of slaves in a state.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Another poster's words comes to mind.

"No Northern slave ship captain ever had to hold a pistol to a Southern slaveholders head in Charleston harbor in order to sell his human cargo."

Note that the words "Northern" and "Southern" are used in the same sentence.

What did Lincoln say? That if the South were great users of slaves, the North were great carriers of slaves.

The existence of slavery in America, North or South, is an American sin, not a regional one. And the North and the South paid a high price for permitting its existence in a nation that proclaimed "all men are created equal."

The butcher's bill for that proclamation came due and was paid from 1861 through 1865, in full.

Unionblue
 

Rebel from Finland

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 24, 2010
Location
Tampere Finland
Religious belief and conscience are a powerful force. While the south tended to use Old testament passages concerning the existence of slavery ( And the curse of ham) to bolster their religious beliefs it is much harder to reconcile New testament teachings with Slavery by those that claim they are Christians.
How does one reconcile the golden rule with slavery? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Or Paul's teachings about everyone's equality before God? and New testaments teachings that Christians would be held accountable of their treatment of others.
Capitalism and other types of money worship is openly praised by the same people that say they follow the New Testament teachings, so is it so surprising that it (false interpretation) was done 150 years ago.. And yes, I´m a sinner too.
 

Red Harvest

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
Capitalism and other types of money worship is openly praised by the same people that say they follow the New Testament teachings, so is it so surprising that it (false interpretation) was done 150 years ago.. And yes, I´m a sinner too.

Well, to be honest they don't follow New Testament teachings...except possibly those of Paul who was essentially an establishment type zealot, pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus espoused. Many modern "Christians" are actually Old Testament Judaists and are oblivious to that.

It isn't Jesus' teachings that were used to rationalize slavery (or modern day right wing econ), it is Old Testament scripture. It doesn't take a theology degree to recognize which is "Christian" and which is not.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Well, to be honest they don't follow New Testament teachings...except possibly those of Paul who was essentially an establishment type zealot, pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus espoused. Many modern "Christians" are actually Old Testament Judaists and are oblivious to that.

It isn't Jesus' teachings that were used to rationalize slavery (or modern day right wing econ), it is Old Testament scripture. It doesn't take a theology degree to recognize which is "Christian" and which is not.


I'd question if Modern Day Christians are much of anything Biblical.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Seems a rather silly argument to claim that since there were northern slave traders this was the North's fault or that that somehow makes it acceptable. The distaste for slavery (and the economics of it) had led to its end throughout most of the North well before the Civil War.

Best number I found was that approximately 645,000 slaves were brought to what would become the U.S. over 300+ years--the value apparently is based on something like 27,000+ recorded voyages. There were 4 million slaves by 1860.

With the value of cotton being so great and the work so difficult slaves had a lot inherent value to the planters. It would have been difficult and expensive to hire free men for the job. Certainly would have required a lot of immigration...something that was notably lacking in the South because of the large captive workforce.

States of the upper south had less demand for slaves because the crops were far less lucrative. This was resulting in slaves being sold south where the relative value of a slave was greater. The smaller percentage of slaveholders made the upper south/border states reluctant to secede, while the fire eaters of the Deep South were doing what they could to incite a fight and force their slave owning neighbors to join them. It worked except for the borders states of Kentucky and Missouri, even though slave owners controlled most of the elected offices.

There is a strong correlation between secession date and the percentage of slaves in a state.

Cotton was the curse. Sans cotton, slavery would be a rather boring subject.
 

KeyserSoze

Captain
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Location
Kansas City
See Post #12 of this thread

You are correct, the Rhode Island slave merchants enormous profits was in the trans-Atlantic African slave trade and those profits were more readily realized by selling their chattels south rather than keeping them at home.

Enormous profits made by Rhode Island slave merchants. But hard as I try I don't see where you mention the Southern slaveocracy and their enormous profits made from the labor provided by those slaves. You blame the North and the North alone for the slave trade. As all true Southron do.
 

jpeter

1st Lieutenant
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 14, 2007
Location
Dallas, TX
Slavery was never going to be decided strictly on the basis of morality or Christian ethics.

There are always ways of rationalizing existing conditions to meet your beliefs (i.e. slaves are only property. They are not God's people so the Golden Rule doesn't apply).

If slaves are bringing in your income, you'll find a way of making them fit your paradigm. Most northern abolitionists had far less reason to rationalize their beliefs as the slaves ability to change a slave-owners income was not nearly as great without a cash crop.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Slavery was never going to be decided strictly on the basis of morality or Christian ethics.

There are always ways of rationalizing existing conditions to meet your beliefs (i.e. slaves are only property. They are not God's people so the Golden Rule doesn't apply).

If slaves are bringing in your income, you'll find a way of making them fit your paradigm. Most northern abolitionists had far less reason to rationalize their beliefs as the slaves ability to change a slave-owners income was not nearly as great without a cash crop.


Don't forget that money buys political power and propaganda. With money one can buy ministers of the faith, pandering philosophers, political influence and make the public paradigm match the profitable one.


As slavery died out in the north so did the money to buy influence.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Enormous profits made by Rhode Island slave merchants. But hard as I try I don't see where you mention the Southern slaveocracy and their enormous profits made from the labor provided by those slaves. You blame the North and the North alone for the slave trade. As all true Southron do.

I recently posted on another thread that the Deep South cotton states were among the wealthiest in the nation 1860 -- Louisiana #2, South Carolina #3 and Mississippi #5. If I didn’t make it clear, at that time, that I thought those states great wealth came almost entirely from land and slaves let me make it clear now.

“The Northern slaveholder traded in men and women whom he never saw, and whose separations, tears, and miseries he determined never to hear.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe “The Education of Freedmen” The North American Review, June 1879
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I recently posted on another thread that the Deep South cotton states were among the wealthiest in the nation 1860 -- Louisiana #2, South Carolina #3 and Mississippi #5. If I didn’t make it clear, at that time, that I thought those states great wealth came almost entirely from land and slaves let me make it clear now.

“The Northern slaveholder traded in men and women whom he never saw, and whose separations, tears, and miseries he determined never to hear.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe “The Education of Freedmen” The North American Review, June 1879


More accurately it was cotton which needed the slaves and land to grow that made the wealth. Without cotton, slavery may have been viable, but nowhere as profitable.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
More accurately it was cotton which needed the slaves and land to grow that made the wealth. Without cotton, slavery may have been viable, but nowhere as profitable.


Do I need to make it clearer that cotton comes from the land?

“The Northern slaveholder traded in men and women whom he never saw, and whose separations, tears, and miseries he determined never to hear.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe “The Education of Freedmen” The North American Review, June 1879
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
CSA Today, have you ever read "Uncle Tom's Cabin?"

Do I need to make it clearer that cotton comes from the land?

“The Northern slaveholder traded in men and women whom he never saw, and whose separations, tears, and miseries he determined never to hear.”

Harriet Beecher Stowe “The Education of Freedmen” The North American Review, June 1879

Matthew McKeon,

No, but the impact of the book on the Southern people was discussed, at some lengths, by a professor in a “Civil War and Reconstruction” class.

"The purpose of war is to explore each other."

Zebulon Vance (wartime and post Reconstruction governor of North Carolina)
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Matthew McKeon,

No, but the impact of the book on the Southern people was discuss, at some lengths, by a professor in a “Civil War and Reconstruction” class.

"The purpose of war is to explore each other."

Zebulon Vance (wartime and post Reconstruction governor of North Carolina)


Fair enough. UTC has been discussed on this forum, too. I don't know if I recommend it exactly, its a little bit of a slog, but someday you might want to look into it.

Is what Vance saying "The purpose of wa ris to exploit each other." ? Makes more sense in this context.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Belated...and somewhat lame. But of course only the Northern supplier should be condemned, right?

Belated? Please cite one of my earlier posts that brought you to this conclusion and, while you’re at it, I would be especially interested in seeing where I said only Northern suppliers should be condemned for slavery?

"The purpose of war is to explore each other."

Zebulon Vance (wartime and post Reconstruction governor of North Carolina)
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Fair enough. UTC has been discussed on this forum, too. I don't know if I recommend it exactly, its a little bit of a slog, but someday you might want to look into it.

Is what Vance saying "The purpose of wa ris to exploit each other." ? Makes more sense in this context.

Zebulon Vance had something of a sense of humor, considering the tumultuous times. I rather suspect he meant, “explore”

"The purpose of war is to explore each other."

Zebulon Vance (wartime and post Reconstruction governor of North Carolina)
 

Lee

Colonel
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Wow the Confederate Naval Jack never flew from the mast of a slave ship?????? Oh well live long enough see and hear everything I guess. I really enjoy reading the threads on this site and I spend more time reading than posting. I believe human nature forces some or perhaps more of us to find and credit one region or the other with the at least 51% or more of the blame for slavery in North America and in doing so assigning the lion's share of the blame to the side with the 51% for the lives lost in the ACW.

Don't get me wrong I applaud the excellent contributers who venture beyond the 19th century to the early days of colonization of both regions and what those earlier folks did to promote and utilize slavery to better thier lot in life in the new world. But shouldn't we go back further still to the Europeans who purchased slaves from Black Africans who first captured and sold slaves on the shores of West Africa? Are we losing sight of the fact that it was sugar that sparked the driving need for slaves in the new world not cotton?

Why is it no one ever credits or blames the ancients for thier long lived practice of slavery? Ever hear someone say OMG you're Italian? Did you know your ancestors the Romans murdered and enslaved people for hundreds of years? Many believe slavery would still exist in the South if the ACW never happened........ I strongly disagree. I believe slavery would have died a natural death in the face of the Industrial Revolution specifically due to advances in farm equipment. Alas we can only speculate on how and when that would have occured. But one thing that is certain is over 600,000 Americans would have passed on more of thier strengths and hard work to a growing nation.
 
Top