The Imaginary Abe Lincoln

[Battalion]

Apparently this was desired by the South as a condition to sign the Constitution. Thus the South made the US Constitution contain that unique phase.

What was the vote?--What states voted for it?...against it?
Who profitted from the slave trade?

...when the South wrote it's own Constitution

...it mandated the outlawing of the Atlantic slave trade.

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

The US Constitution did not - not even after the 20 years.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight..."

 

[CSA Today]

Are you trying to say that Deleware was a southern slave state?

Delaware was the lest southern of the border states but did vote for John C Breckenridge, the Southern Democratic candidate for president, in the 1860 election and while the state had the lowest percentage of slaves, it was one of the 15 slaves states in 1860.

"I have always been struck by the intensity of the feelings generated against slavery and slaveholders in men who had no direct or first-hand contact with either. Yet there was much about their actions and reactions which suggested something more real and personal. I have suggested the possibility that behind the determination to (put) slavery on the road to ultimate extinction there may have lain drives that had little to do with Negro slavery or the American South…"

Avery O. Craven

 

[NedBaldwin]

Are you trying to say that Deleware was a southern slave state?

It was clearly a slave state in 1861. Whether it is southern is a matter of perspective. From here in Boston, it seems south to me. Someone in Mobile might feel the opposite.

 

[wilber6150]

Slave state yes, but clearly Unionist in its thoughts and leanings.. When the Confederacy states sent represenatives to them they made no headway and failed in getting them to join..And when the shooting started they were clearly behind the Union..

 

[James B White]

What was the vote?--What states voted for it?...against it?
Who profitted from the slave trade?

One could ask the same question: who profited from closing the Atlantic slave trade in 1861? The answer was Virginia and other slave-producing states, because it made for a captive market in the lower south and kept the price of domestic slaves high.

The lower states had agitated for the reopening of the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the 1850s to provide a steady source of cheap labor, but not even all deep-south owners were willing to see the price of their investment drop. When secession loomed, the advantage of having a larger Confederacy that included buffer states in the upper south was worth the compromise, so those who wanted to reopen the trade ended the pressure.

Here's a good overview: http://abolition.nypl.org/print/revival_of_slave_trade/

From that article:

The agitation for the reopening of the transatlantic slave trade exposed regional, social, political, economic, and class fractures within the South....

In the end, the revival never took place. It was too divisive an issue at a time when the South, on the verge of secession, needed unity. The Confederacy also wanted support from Great Britain and France in its upcoming war with the Union, and its leaders understood that they would never get it if they did reopen the international slave trade.

 

[CSA Today]

Slave state yes, but clearly Unionist in its thoughts and leanings.. When the Confederacy states sent represenatives to them they made no headway and failed in getting them to join..And when the shooting started they were clearly behind the Union..

Your original question was: "Are you trying to say that Deleware was a southern slave state? " if you want to count Delaware as a northern slave state It's fine with me."

"I have always been struck by the intensity of the feelings generated against slavery and slaveholders in men who had no direct or first-hand contact with either. Yet there was much about their actions and reactions which suggested something more real and personal. I have suggested the possibility that behind the determination to (put) slavery on the road to ultimate extinction there may have lain drives that had little to do with Negro slavery or the American South…"
Avery O. Craven

 

[jgoodguy]

What was the vote?--What states voted for it?...against it?
Who profitted from the slave trade?

Who profited from the slave trade? The South. Without slave trade - no slaves, without slaves no cotton without cotton no Southern wealth. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was tobacco, sugar and rice.

From the debate on the Constitution

Mr. Sherman said it was better to let the Southern States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.

It appears that the South will not join the Union if slavery is threatened.

During the Revolution, all of the new states banned or suspended the international slave trade. Most slaves arrived on English ships, and even those on American ships were purchased from agents of the Royal African Company stationed on the west coast of Africa. Thus, all the colonies (which soon became the states) banned the African slave trade as part of their overall policy of refusing to import anything from Britain. The "non-important" movement was an attempt to cut all economic ties with Britain. Since most slaves were brought in by British ships, and virtually all were purchased from the British on the coast of Africa, a ban on the trade was an important part of the colonists' general policy not to trade with Britain.

In March 1794, Congress prohibited the use of any U.S. port or shipyard for the purpose of fitting out or building any ship to be used for the introduction of slaves. The law also prohibited ships sailing from U.S. ports from trafficking in foreign countries. Ships sailing from the United States to Africa, even if of foreign registry, were required to "give bond with sufficient sureties, to the treasurer of the United States, that none of the natives of Africa, or any other foreign country or place, shall be taken on board... to be transported, or sold as slaves in any other foreign place, within nine months thereafter." Penalties under the law included fines ranging from $2,000 for outfitting a ship to $200 for an individual working on such a vessel. The act provided that the ships could be confiscated, and half of all fines given to any informants, thus providing an incentive for ship captains and mariners to monitor the activities of anyone they suspected of being involved in the illegal slave trade.


Until 1800 none of the states had reopened the African trade, which had been effectively closed since the Revolution. Before 1800 all introductions into the U.S. were thus illegal, even if the slaves were brought in by foreign ships. After 1800, however, Georgia and South Carolina reopened their international slave trade, and in the next eight years, these two states would introduce about 100,000 new slaves from Africa.

As soon as possible, 2 Southern Ports reopened their international slave trade.

...it mandated the outlawing of the Atlantic slave trade.

"The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same."

The US Constitution did not - not even after the 20 years.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight..."

[/QUOTE]

A little late as it had been outlawed since 1808 in the US.

 

[OpnCoronet]

In point 0f fact though, it is in the consciousness of 'lost cause' enthusiasts and neo confederates that 'the' imaginary Lincon resides.

 

[Battalion]

What was the vote?--

answer/jgoodguy: ["don't know"]

What states voted for it?

answer/jgoodguy: ["don't know"]

...against it?

answer/jgoodguy: ["don't know"]

Who profitted from the slave trade?

answer/jgoodguy:

...The South.

I guess half an answer to one question is better than none at all.

 

[Potomac Pride]

Thomas James DiLorenzo (born August 8, 1954) is an American economics professor at Loyola University Maryland.

As you mentioned, DiLorenzo is a college professor who specializes in economic history and political economy. Therefore, he examines history from an economic perspective and his book examines how Lincoln's mercantilism policy influenced his tenure as President. Most historians tend to deify Lincoln but DiLorenzo offers a more candid view of the President in terms of the affect he had on the political and economic structure of the country.

 

[jgoodguy]

What was the vote?--

answer/jgoodguy: ["don't know"]

What states voted for it?

answer/jgoodguy: ["don't know"]

...against it?

answer/jgoodguy: ["don't know"]

Who profitted from the slave trade?

answer/jgoodguy:


I guess half an answer to one question is better than none at all.

With your shorted and redacted post, I lead 1/2 to 0.

 

[Georgia Coast]

Who profited from the slave trade? The South. Without slave trade - no slaves, without slaves no cotton without cotton no Southern wealth. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, it was tobacco, sugar and rice.

From the debate on the Constitution





It appears that the South will not join the Union if slavery is threatened.




As soon as possible, 2 Southern Ports reopened their international slave trade.

A little late as it had been outlawed since 1808 in the US.[/quote]



Also, although lots of Georgia and SC slaves were always attempting to escape into Florida, the flow also went the other way -- once importation was illegal in the US, newly imported slaves were being brought into Florida (not then a US state or territory) and illegally sold and smuggled across the border into Georgia and beyond (in spite of the laws rewarding informants). And I think Lafitte smuggled slaves into Texas for a time via Galveston.

 

[jgoodguy]

A little late as it had been outlawed since 1808 in the US.

[/QUOTE]

Not late for the Constitutional debates.

 

[rpkennedy]

As you mentioned, DiLorenzo is a college professor who specializes in economic history and political economy. Therefore, he examines history from an economic perspective and his book examines how Lincoln's mercantilism policy influenced his tenure as President. Most historians tend to deify Lincoln but DiLorenzo offers a more candid view of the President in terms of the affect he had on the political and economic structure of the country.

The problem with DiLorenzo isn't that he offers an economic view of Lincoln, he offers a view which has virtually no historical basis. He cherry-picks quotes and takes them out of context in order to further his thesis despite the fact that the quotes that he uses don't say what he wants them to say when put back into their proper context.

R

 

[unionblue]

As you mentioned, DiLorenzo is a college professor who specializes in economic history and political economy. Therefore, he examines history from an economic perspective and his book examines how Lincoln's mercantilism policy influenced his tenure as President. Most historians tend to deify Lincoln but DiLorenzo offers a more candid view of the President in terms of the affect he had on the political and economic structure of the country.

DiLorenzo could not find his historical hind end with both hands and a flashlight, in broad daylight.

Yes, the man is that horrible at American Civil War history and anyone who refers to him as a source or some sort of proof in a debate about Lincoln, the Civil War, etc., runs the very real risk at not being taken seriously as a student of that time in history.

I have read the man's books, I have run down his sources (when he bothers to give such or does not constantly change them in later editions of his books), and found that he just flat-out lies.

At best, he can be called a cheerleader and no where close to being labeled a historian, not even a bad one.

Like I said, I have read his books.

Vent over,
Unionblue

 

[cash]

As you mentioned, DiLorenzo is a college professor who specializes in economic history and political economy. Therefore, he examines history from an economic perspective and his book examines how Lincoln's mercantilism policy influenced his tenure as President. Most historians tend to deify Lincoln but DiLorenzo offers a more candid view of the President in terms of the affect he had on the political and economic structure of the country.

DiLiarenzo doesn't specialize in economic history. He specializes in writing lies. He doesn't have a body of scholarly work. His published books are nearly universally panned, and rightly so, as being hack pieces showing shoddy scholarship.

Such as here:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

He has no credibility among anyone who has any expertise in history.

 

[rpkennedy]

DiLiarenzo doesn't specialize in economic history. He specializes in writing lies. He doesn't have a body of scholarly work. His published books are nearly universally panned, and rightly so, as being hack pieces showing shoddy scholarship.

Such as here:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

He has no credibility among anyone who has any expertise in history.

No matter how many times I read that review, it always makes me smile.

R

 

[jgoodguy]

DiLiarenzo doesn't specialize in economic history. He specializes in writing lies. He doesn't have a body of scholarly work. His published books are nearly universally panned, and rightly so, as being hack pieces showing shoddy scholarship.

Such as here:
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

He has no credibility among anyone who has any expertise in history.

He has a product that sells to a specific clientele like certain political or religious writers. The clientele wants self assurance rather than accuracy.

 

[dvrmte]

As soon as possible, 2 Southern Ports reopened their international slave trade.

As soon as their state legislators allowed it. South Carolina legislature turned a deaf ear to the interior's plea for more slaves, rejecting an 1802 bill to reopen the African slave trade by an overwhelming margin. In 1803 it was finally reopened by a 55-47 vote. Several times, bills were presented to close the trade but they were narrowly defeated until the Federal ban went into effect.

 

[johan_steele]

And yet the Wanderer made immense profit ww/ the owners hailed as heroes...