Slavery Myths

connecticut yankee

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Here is in my opinion a well written article from the American Civil War Museum (yes, those folks at Tredegar) that attempts to show how closely the North and South were linked in 1860 to the slavery question, citing how northern financial markets were largely dependent on the expansion of slavery. Above all, the article tries to debunk the notion that slavery by 1860 was solely a "Southern thing", and the notion that the North somehow by then found it's morality as to this 'Peculiar Institution". By the time Uncle Tom's Cabin was published Abolistionist Harriet Beecher Stowe was calling slavery the "National Sin".

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slavery/
 
Last edited:

kitty o'cairre

Corporal
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Location
out amongst the tumbleweeds north texas =)
itsa mess for sure as that culture doesnt seem to know its own history & doesnt bother to research a lot of what i find i go to the black colleges /Uni's an some greatinfo on you tube as well... one thing that get me its the talk about reporations.. dont know bout yall my kinfolks were dirt poor they hardly managed to take care & feed themselevs
 

FedericoFCavada

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Location
San Antonio, Texas
The reparations debate is complex insofar as slavery was replaced by tenant farming and share cropping arrangements, the large-scale sustained use of "convict leasing" of men accused of "vagrancy" and similar breaches of the "law" and by the maintenance of white supremacy through a variety of legalistic or "Jim Crow" or other mechanisms, viz. "red-lining" neighborhoods, etc. etc. Slavery was one thing, and the "nadir" of race relations in the early 20th century another, and the Civil Rights movements another.

As for cotton, poverty, and our great State of Texas, by 1900 Texas was the leading cotton producer in the nation. Unfortunately, cotton at the time relied on poor workers to do the labor, be they Euro American "whites," African American "blacks," or Mexican American "brown":
See Neil Foley's, The White Scourge.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-culture/the-white-stuff/

https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520207240/the-white-scourge
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
North participated in every other counties Slavery. Cuba, Peru, Bahamas. The most Important commodity of the period was Cotton. Cotton had more to do with the Sections, couldn’t be separated than anything else. All of those spinning mills in Yankeedom. Exported to the Brits, who paid in Gold.

The North could do without the Negro. But the North was built on Slavery.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
North participated in every other counties Slavery. Cuba, Peru, Bahamas. The most Important commodity of the period was Cotton. Cotton had more to do with the Sections, couldn’t be separated than anything else. All of those spinning mills in Yankeedom. Exported to the Brits, who paid in Gold.

The North could do without the Negro. But the North was built on Slavery.

The North apparently could do without the Negro, hence that term "Free States."

The South apparently could not do without the Slave, hence the term, "Slave States."

And, not just the North, but the South, East and West, was built with the help of Slavery.
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Location
Central Pennsylvania
That article is awfully convoluted. Heading is " Myths " yet pounds away at a singular theory. Last paragraph is particularly weird, like a Rubic's Cube of a summation, keep turning it around convinced it'll make sense eventually.

Wish this " They did it too ' narrative were not so pervasive. Like UB said, this whole place exists on slavery's foundation and in fact I've actually never seen that argued, that the north did not first enslave then later also profit. Seems to come up anyway, no idea why.
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Here is in my opinion a well written article from the American Civil War Museum (yes, those folks at Tredegar) that attempts to show how closely the North and South were linked in 1860 to the slavery question, citing how northern financial markets were largely dependent on the expansion of slavery. Above all, the article tries to debunk the notion that slavery by 1860 was solely a "Southern thing", and the notion that the North somehow by then found it's morality as to this 'Peculiar Institution". By the time Uncle Tom's Cabin was published Abolistionist Harriet Beecher Stowe was calling slavery the "National Sin".

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slavery/
Certainly a national sin, a national stain. We should all rejoice that one good thing resulting from the war was abolition.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The North apparently could do without the Negro, hence that term "Free States."

The South apparently could not do without the Slave, hence the term, "Slave States."

And, not just the North, but the South, East and West, was built with the help of Slavery.

That’s right. Slavery was a National Institution. Just as much the Norths as the Souths.

However Cotton was more important than Slavery. Slavery ended, Cotton Didn’t. North had economic benefits from Cotton. Wasn’t going to let it go. Cotton was King. South just misused it.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
The North apparently could do without the Negro, hence that term "Free States."

The South apparently could not do without the Slave, hence the term, "Slave States."

And, not just the North, but the South, East and West, was built with the help of Slavery.

That’s right. Free States/Free of the Negro. Your learning. Free of any Minority. Different shades of White.

North’s fear of Free Blacks was the overwhelming majority of the reason being Anti Slavery.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
If the North Benefited from Cotton, it Benefited from Slavery.

Both Slavery Myths because the Northern Narrative rejects that the National Economy had Any Benefit from the South. It is the Yankee’s Lost Cause.

Slave Labor allowed for Cotton to be grown at a lower cost. Lower commodity price reduced the cost of Cotton Cloth. So anyone who wore cotton clothes benefited from Slave Labor. Efficiency of Slave Grown Cotton was never duplicated post Civil War.

Another Slavery Myth. Many Abolitionist thought that Yankee Pluck and Free Labor would grow Cotton Cheaper that the Lazy Southern Planted with the slothful Slave. This was the basis of Anti Slavery. Attempts were made to Colonize the South By the Yankee. German Free Labor in Texas was successful. So the Yankee though they could make the Negro more efficient with Free Labor. If not, they could replace him with poor Southern whites or immigrants and get rid of 2 problems. Northerners came south during the War and after To try their get rich scheme. Most failed and went back home. So many Yankees though ending Slavery would reduce Cotton growing Cost. Which would be reflective with higher profits in the North’s Spinning Mills. So this Slavery Myth is that These Northerners were Concerned about the condition of the Slave. Many said they had No Feeling for him.
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
That’s right. Slavery was a National Institution. Just as much the Norths as the Souths.

However Cotton was more important than Slavery. Slavery ended, Cotton Didn’t. North had economic benefits from Cotton. Wasn’t going to let it go. Cotton was King. South just misused it.

If Cotton was King, why Britain and France did not help the South with military intervention? Maybe the South had too much faith in their cash crop and it was not worth for European powers to go a war against United States of America?

The Confederacy misused cotton, alright. It's difficult to understand the logic behind of the Confederacy's Cotton trade embargo. Did the Confederacy seriously think that Brits and French would recognize the Confederacy as a soverign state and declare a war against the US just to get some cotton?

In fact, both Free States of the US and the UK could have used slaves in a lot of different settings and industries, yet they abolished slavery. It was their conscious choice.

The Antebellum South decided to keep their slaves to maximize their profits. At the end, the issue of slavery became their downfall. Blacks started to outnumber whites in American South. The fear of servile insurrection was real. The South had to control the growing black population which was perceived as an existential threat to white Southerners and they saw no alternative to slavery. "Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other".
 

Horrido67

Private
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
That’s right. Free States/Free of the Negro. Your learning. Free of any Minority. Different shades of White.

North’s fear of Free Blacks was the overwhelming majority of the reason being Anti Slavery.

Actually, it was the exact opposite. It was the Pro-Slavery argument presented by both Doughface politicians and Moderate slaveowners. If the North wants to keep blacks out of their states, they should allow the South to have slaves.

Free States argued that (at least in 1860) they only wanted to ban slavery in federal territories and the South would still be allowed to keep their African slaves. No issue of free blacks moving up to the North. The South which would have been surrounded by Free States would be gradually forced to abolish slavery by either sending blacks back to Africa (Liberia) or selling them further down to South (Brazil and Carrabean islands).

The abrupt end of slavery was not what Republican Party intended. Nevertheless, it happened as some slaveowners started a war over slavery as they were too upset with the fact that they lost an electin to the anti-slavery party and couldn't fathom this idea that slavery might not be a permanent institution in North America. Reconstruction amendments were not possible without the Civil War.

A silver lining here is that a good number of people disliked slavery enough to vote Lincoln in the election of 1860 even though they benefited directly and indirectly from slavery. Yes, it was a national sin, yet some people tried to amend their past and redeem themselves by voting against their financial interests.
 
Last edited:

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Actually, it was the exact opposite. It was the Pro-Slavery argument presented by both Doughface politicians and Moderate slaveowners. If the North wants to keep blacks out of their states, they should allow the South to have slaves.

Free States argued that (at least in 1860) they only wanted to ban slavery in federal territories and the South would still be allowed to keep their African slaves. No issue of free blacks moving up to the North. The South which would have been surrounded by Free States would be gradually forced to abolish slavery by either sending blacks back to Africa (Liberia) or selling them further down to South (Brazil and Carrabean islands).

The abrupt end of slavery was not what Republican Party intended. Nevertheless, it happened as some slaveowners started a war over slavery as they were too upset with the fact that they lost an electin to the anti-slavery party and couldn't fathom this idea that slavery might not be a perment institution in North America. Reconstruction amendments were not possible without the Civil War.

A silver lining here is that a good number of people disliked slavery enough to vote Lincoln in the election of 1860 even though they benefited directly and indirectly from slavery. Yes, it was a national sin, yet some people tried to amend their past and redeem themselves by voting against their financial interests.

North hated Free Blacks. Lincoln tried to Colonize the 1% they had. When that failed he North locked ex slaves in the South and thought their free Blacks would go home, to the South. Even he Abolitionists link Sumner and Andrews wouldn’t accept Southern Free Blacks. Andrews stated he wanted Northern Free Blacks to go South. He refused to let 2k refugees to come to MA. Sumner said it was intolerable for Southern Blacks to go North. The should stay in the south and be the South’s brute labor. In other words grow Cotton.

North consistently refused Diffusion. 1820 said t made as much sense as to allow Yellow Fever. Lincoln ask for diffusion. Said only 1 in 7 of the population was Black. What was the matter if some came North. They were Refused.

Fear of Chinese gaining the vote and their numbers to rise so as to have political power led ro heir Banning. Republicans confirmed White n our Immigration laws in 1873.

Puritan view was they didn’t want race conflict. To protect was to have a White Society.

Voting for Lincoln was a vote to limit Slavery where it was. In the South with a majority of slaves growing Cotton. This Protected Northern Financial Interest.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
North hated Free Blacks. Lincoln tried to Colonize the 1% they had. When that failed he North locked ex slaves in the South and thought their free Blacks would go home, to the South. Even he Abolitionists link Sumner and Andrews wouldn’t accept Southern Free Blacks. Andrews stated he wanted Northern Free Blacks to go South. He refused to let 2k refugees to come to MA. Sumner said it was intolerable for Southern Blacks to go North. The should stay in the south and be the South’s brute labor. In other words grow Cotton.
Your theory about the evil North is complicated by the facts.

One the things in the antebellum that enraged the South was lack of cooperation from the North in returning fugitive slaves. In fact, in displays of exercising their own 'states rights,' some Northern states created Personal Liberty Laws which protected due process rights for fugitive slaves. The slave-owners threw a fit.

I know here in Wisconsin, there were black rural communities that got along fine with the Scandinavian immigrants in the area.

And just before the war, a white mob in a town here almost lynched a southern slave owner that had come to recover his fugitive slave.

So your broad brush is not 100% accurate.
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Your theory about the evil North is complicated by the facts.

One the things in the antebellum that enraged the South was lack of cooperation from the North in returning fugitive slaves. In fact, in displays of exercising their own 'states rights,' some Northern states created Personal Liberty Laws which protected due process rights for fugitive slaves. The slave-owners threw a fit.

I know here in Wisconsin, there were black rural communities that got along fine with the Scandinavian immigrants in the area.

And just before the war, a white mob in a town here almost lynched a southern slave owner that had come to recover his fugitive slave.

So your broad brush is not 100% accurate.

Wisconsin had a .0015 percent Black Population in 1860.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
Your theory about the evil North is complicated by the facts.

One the things in the antebellum that enraged the South was lack of cooperation from the North in returning fugitive slaves. In fact, in displays of exercising their own 'states rights,' some Northern states created Personal Liberty Laws which protected due process rights for fugitive slaves. The slave-owners threw a fit.

I know here in Wisconsin, there were black rural communities that got along fine with the Scandinavian immigrants in the area.

And just before the war, a white mob in a town here almost lynched a southern slave owner that had come to recover his fugitive slave.

So your broad brush is not 100% accurate.
Another example of why broad brushes don't work - maybe the poster can fill us in on the story of Anthony Burns and explain how that fits into his construct. Another white mob that forced the slavers into getting federal troops to help them reclaim their "property".
 

uaskme

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Location
SE Tennessee
Another example of why broad brushes don't work - maybe the poster can fill us in on the story of Anthony Burns and explain how that fits into his construct. Another white mob that forced the slavers into getting federal troops to help them reclaim their "property".

More Free Blacks were kidnapped in the North and sold south than were recovered under the FSL.

Might want to Read Up on the NYC Race Riots in July 63. A Hundred or Hundreds were Lynched and a large portion of the Free Black Population was chased off, never to return.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
More Free Blacks were kidnapped in the North and sold south than were recovered under the FSL.

Might want to Read Up on the NYC Race Riots in July 63. A Hundred or Hundreds were Lynched and a large portion of the Free Black Population was chased off, never to return.
Might want to wager I've read plenty about the NYC draft riots - including, among other published and unpublished works, the books by Bernstein and Schecter. Let's see if you can answer this question - who were the rioters? By the way, "hundreds" were lynched? Kindly provide a source. And when you're done with that, tell us about the Union League Club, who was in it, and what it did.

Bonus question: How many Free Blacks were "kidnapped in the North" during the period June 20, 1863 - July 4, 1863, where, and by whom?
 
Top