The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[CSA Today]

I don't think you can say that. If you compare the growth of the free black population in Southern states between 1850 and 1860 you'll find it was pretty stagnant. In some states the population actually fell. In many cases the growth rate in Northern states exceeded that in Southern states.

It couldn't have been much of a growth since in no so-call free state did the number of blacks exceeds a fraction of one per cent of the total population.

"Black is nothing other than a darker shade of rebel gray"

Nelson Winbush

 

[KeyserSoze]

It couldn't have been much of a growth since in no so-call free state did the number of blacks exceeds a fraction of one per cent of the total population.

"Black is nothing other than a darker shade of rebel gray"

Nelson Winbush

In raw numbers, perhaps. But the free black population was growing at a greater rate up North than is was down South.

 

[NedBaldwin]

It couldn't have been much of a growth since in no so-call free state did the number of blacks exceeds a fraction of one per cent of the total population.

Wrong.
In 1860 the black population..
in R.I. was 2.26% of the total
in New Jersey 3.77% [a higher % than North Carolina]
in Connecticut was 1.87%
in New York it was 1.26%.
in Ohio 1.57%
in Penn. 1.96%

 

[CSA Today]

In raw numbers, perhaps. But the free black population was growing at a greater rate up North than is was down South.

It would be interesting to see a source for your information. The Southern free black birth rate would have more than compensated for the meager increase of blacks allowed to move north or into western territory.

"Black is nothing other than a darker shade of rebel gray"

Nelson Winbush

 

[KeyserSoze]

It would be interesting to see a source for your information. The Southern free black birth rate would have more than compensated for the meager increase of blacks allowed to move north or into western territory.

The Fisher Library at the University of Virginia has census information online. Compare the 1850 census with the 1860 census.

Link

 

[NedBaldwin]

It would be interesting to see a source for your information.

The US Census as accessed through the University of Virginia -- http://mapserver.lib.virginia.edu/

 

[KeyserSoze]

More likely unwelcome people on our land.

And you decided to bombard the **** out of them and start a war. And then spend the next 150 years complaining that you lost.

 

[NedBaldwin]

They were all for movement where, another slave state that didn't want them or to a Northern or western state that didn't want them? In any case, the law wasn't strongly enforced in the South, Maryland and Virginia had the largest population of free blacks in the country, North Carolina was in the top five or six and all Southern Sates had free blacks with long time residency.

Treatment of free blacks varied a lot from state to state, north and south.

For example the situation in Maryland or Virginia (with large free black populations) was completely different than in Arkansas (with a very small free black population) where a law was passed in 1859 expelling the few who still remained.

 

[CSA Today]

Wrong.
In 1860 the black population..
in R.I. was 2.26% of the total
in New Jersey 3.77% [a higher % than North Carolina]
in Connecticut was 1.87%
in New York it was 1.26%.
in Ohio 1.57%
in Penn. 1.96%

OK, I stand corrected. I'm not going to take the time to figure all the percentages. Did New Jersey have the highest pertage outside the South?

http://www.freeaainnc.com/censusstats1790-1860.pdf

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

 

[KeyserSoze]

OK, I stand corrected. I'm not going to take the time to figure all the percentages. Did New Jersey have the highest pertage outside the South?

No. Delaware had about 19%

 

[NedBaldwin]

OK, I stand corrected. I'm not going to take the time to figure all the percentages. Did New Jersey have the highest pertage outside the South?

http://www.freeaainnc.com/censusstats1790-1860.pdf

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html

Based on 1860 census:
Delaware (17.67%) and Maryland (12.22%) [far and away with more free blacks as a % than any other state].
then came New Jersey (3.77%) and Virginia (3.64%)
then North Carolina (3.07%) and Louisiana (2.63%)
then (in decreasing order of %) Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Ohio, South Carolina, and New York
After that it drops off quite a bit.

With some states it is interesting to look at county data. In Virginia for example, the free black population down in the south coastal area -- Ricmond down to Norfolk -- was more significant, like 10-20% of the population. Whereas much of the western part of the state it was negligible.

Likewise, on Lonmg Island, NY, free blacks were like 5% of the population but in the north and west part of the state it was negligible.

 

[Potomac Pride]

I know this isn't exactly what we were talking about, but I started reading The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo last night. I couldn't believe how flat out hypocritical it was. The biting irony that he gives the definition of what a "cult" is, when it perfectly describes the author's own followers. I found over 30 things in the first 3 chapters alone that are the author's opinion stated as facts, which he never backs up. Anyone agree?

Some of the issues that DiLorenzo mentions about Lincoln have been brought up in other books also. Some of these books include "Lincoln Reconsidered" by David Donald and "Constitutional Problems under Lincoln" by James G. Randall.

 

[FrazierC]

Thomas Dilorenzo is to scholarship what Helen Thomas is to beauty pagents.

Harsh... but I have to agree.

 

[FrazierC]

Even when you don't get aggressive it appears Southerners will still start a fight. Must be something in the water down there.

Hey, not all of us are overly aggressive. It's nothing more than a stereotype, really. You could find plenty of people up north the same way, right?

 

[johan_steele]

More likely unwelcome people on our land.

"War means fighting, and fighting means killing."
Nathan Bedford Forrest

When did you become an Indian? Because you live on land taken from them.

 

[James B White]

They faced one danger in slave states that they didn't in free ones--the possibility of being sold into slavery for not complying with the law. In free states, the worst that could happen was being expelled to another state or imprisoned

...he shall be sold to pay fine and costs, (if unable to pay them,) and his purchaser shall have the right to compel him to work, and if, when his term of service under the sale is out, he doesn't leave the State in ten days, he shall be fined $100 and be sold again; and this process of fine, it being increased at every succeeding offense $50, was to go on till the negro or mulatto died or left the State...

Don't see how that contradicts my point, which was that free blacks could not be sold into slavery in free states. Unless I missed one, the punishments you cited were fines, or labor equal to the value of the fine, imprisonment, or whipping, but the person could not be sold as a slave for life, unlike in slave-states.

Here's a random example from Mississippi's 1848 code:

85. If Negro or Mulatto neglect to procure such Certificate [to show his registration as a free negro], he may be committed to Jail and Sold. In case any negro or mulatto, who resides in, or is employed to labor, in any county, shall neglect to procure such certificate, it shall be lawful for any Justice of the Peace, in the said county, to commit to jail such negro or mulatto, there to remain until such certificate is produced, and the jailor's fees paid; or until the Orphans' Court of such county shall be satisfied that such certificate has been accidentally lost or destroyed, or that such free negro or mulatto is otherwise entitled to be discharged; and, in case of inability or failure to do so, the said court may order such free negro or mulatto to be sold; and after paying the jailor's fees and the expenses of such sale, the residue shall be paid into the county treasury, for the use of the poor of such county.

I'd say that's a typical north-south difference. The northern free black who failed to do his paperwork had a choice of paying a fine or, if he could not pay, had to work until the value of the fine was paid, and then either register as a free black or leave the state to live as a free man in another state.

The southern free black who failed to do his paperwork would be sold into lifetime slavery under the Mississippi law quoted above (obviously the exact laws varied over time and between states). He had no option to pay a fine or to leave the state. His life as a free man was permanently over.

That was my point. Obviously both requirements and punishments are wrong, racist, horrible, etc. etc., but as far as I know, no free black in the north could legally be sold into lifetime slavery. If I missed something, let me know.

The constitutional provisions before set out remained unchanged and unaltered till August, 1870."

Since they didn't include slavery as prohibited by the Constitutional amendment, they continued to be legal.

 

[johan_steele]

Hey, not all of us are overly aggressive. It's nothing more than a stereotype, really. You could find plenty of people up north the same way, right?

That is the truth, no one region has a monopoly on scumbags or saints. Some like to paint the rest of the US as **** compared to their own little bit of real estate. I've lived & worked all over the place, both North & South and found people generally the same rough percentage of asshatness to common decency. Really there isn't a lot of difference between the people of SC & IA, they have the same wants needs & desires w/ the same rough percentage of people w/ a work ethic vs those w/out. One state better than another simply because of it's geographic location or which side it fought on 150 years ago? Not really, most people today probably couldn't spell Appomatox or Vicksburg, much less find them on a map... & frankly could care less. Most Yahoos waving a CBF wouldn't know Minty from Wheeler and probably think the CBF has more to do w/ Daisy Duke than 1861-65. But then there is that small percentage who embrace all the corruption that came from the CBF and firmly believes history begins & ends south of the Mason Dixon between 1861 & 65. I like to think they're a smaller percentage than those who actually study the subject... then somebody starts spouting Diloserenzo or quoting Davis as though he was the messiah. And I wonder again if there is any hope for the human race.

 

[Sid J.]

Some of the issues that DiLorenzo mentions about Lincoln have been brought up in other books also. Some of these books include "Lincoln Reconsidered" by David Donald and "Constitutional Problems under Lincoln" by James G. Randall.

Then why bother at all with a worthless hack like DiLorenzo?

 

[johan_steele]

Then why bother at all with a worthless hack like DiLorenzo?

Several years ago my wife picked up the book from the library for me thinking she was doing me a favor... I made the mistake of reading it. We had a member here, Dawna, who went so far as to invite Dilorenzo to come and defend himself against those who knew better. He never appeared, oddly Dawna never stopped defending him though.

DiLorenzo couldn't research his way out of a wet bag. he preaches to a choir that wants to hear what he has to say and he knows exactly what he has to say to keep them buying.

 

[CSA Today]

No. Delaware had about 19%

Delaware was a Southern border slave state in.1860. The state voted for John C Breckinridge, the Southern Democratic, in the presidential election of 1860.

"The North, having won the war on the battlefield, immediately set out to win it again and consolidate victory on the printed page. A flood of books appeared, and the South took umbrage at most of them. A new invasion was on, and the South must meet words with words – but words based on historical facts."
E. Merton Coulter