Where in the US Constitution does it say that Lincoln was granted the legal authority to initiate a military invasion against the southern states ?

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Maybe you missed this part of my post:

From a piece by Dr. Maurice Melton:

For a slave, Moses Dallas had it made. He was a coastal pilot, guiding passenger and cargo steamers through the shoals and over the bars in the waterways from Savannah south through the sounds, down the coast to Jacksonville, Fla. and up the St. Johns River all the way to Palatka. By 1860, he was in late middle age and at the top of his profession. The steamboat companies knew his reputation, and paid good money for his expertise.

Dallas was owned by a widow named Harriet Ann Elbert, of St. Marys, Ga. on the Florida-Georgia line. Her sister, the widow of a St. Mary’s doctor named Bacon, owned Dallas’ wife (also named Harriet) and their six children.
1 In 1860, the sisters agreed to let Dallas and his family move to Savannah, the center of the area’s shipping business. There, Moses and Harriet Dallas rented five acres and a house out Bryan Street east of town, across the bayou in the rice fields and woods behind Fort Jackson. Moses and Harriet Dallas lived there on their own, like a free family.

Whenever Dallas took a job with a new shipping line, Mrs. Elbert’s agent, G.W. Conn, negotiated the initial contract. But it stipulated that henceforth, Moses Dallas would act as his own negotiator on any contractual changes, including pay. And his salary would be paid directly to him.
2 It was normal for a hired-out slave’s wages to be paid to the owner (who often allowed the slave a small allotment for living expenses). But Dallas kept all his wages. 3 His hiring out earned Mrs. Elbert nothing. Dallas was good with money: His reputation for frugality matched his reputation as a pilot. 4 He knew the value of a dollar, and trusted himself to get the best value for his services......

Dr. Maurice Melton is a history professor at Columbus State University and the author of several books and articles about the Civil War navies.

I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand the differences between the free labor system and the slave labor system: Money over Mastery, Family over Freedom: Slavery in the American Upper South, by Clavin Schermerhorn.

This is from a description of the book:

Once a sleepy plantation society, the region from the Chesapeake Bay to coastal North Carolina modernized and diversified its economy in the years before the Civil War. Central to this industrializing process was slave labor. Money over Mastery, Family over Freedom tells the story of how slaves seized opportunities in these conditions to protect their family members from the auction block.​
Calvin Schermerhorn argues that the African American family provided the key to economic growth in the antebellum Chesapeake. To maximize profits in the burgeoning regional industries, slaveholders needed to employ or hire out a healthy supply of strong slaves, which tended to scatter family members. From each generation, they also selected the young, fit, and fertile for sale or removal to the cotton South. Conscious of this pattern, the enslaved were sometimes able to negotiate mutually beneficial labor terms―to save their families despite that new economy.​

One useful aspect of the book is that, among other things, it looks at how slaves navigated the slave rental economy. It poignantly shows that the ability to negotiate rental terms, which again, was not uncommon in the urban South and the Upper South, did not make slaves "free" by any stretch of the imagination. However, enslaved people in the urban rental economy could make lives for themselves that was superior to that of farm hands.

The book makes heavy use of personal stories and anecdotes that bring this history to life, at least, it did for me.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
In every country's in the world there is some sort of legal procedure for it.
You might have to pay your wife 50% of your fortune and keep paying her for years.

There might be cases like, the wife being unfaithfully, where you can get it with no cost... but then you will need to prove it in front of a court.

The legal procedure for getting out of the union would be going to congress and have it pass a bill saying you are out.
(since Congress is the legal authority that can add states they should be the one to undo it)

There are probably three ways for a State in the United States of America to legally leave the Union.
  1. An agreement in the Congress as you describe (similar to the agreements that admitted Texas and Vermont in to the Union). There is no actual text in the Constitution allowing it, but a political agreement reached in the Congress would probably be legal (or at least honored by the courts). On some matters, the Supreme Court will punt a case over to the Congress as a "political matter" instead of making a decision.
  2. An Amendment to the Constitution. If #1 was used, the politicians might pass and ratify an Amendment to nail down the legality of what they were doing.
  3. A legal decision in the Supreme Court. This requires that a case be won showing that the State has suffered an injury so violent and damaging as to make this the only possible legal remedy available to the Court for that the breaking of the bargain between that State and the United States, setting aside the law to heal the injury. This type of decision is extremely rare and nearly unknown in legal history -- which is probably why the secessionists of 1860-61 made no attempt to pursue this course. Either that, or they realized no such injury could be proven.
 

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
There are probably three ways for a State in the United States of America to legally leave the Union.
  1. An agreement in the Congress as you describe (similar to the agreements that admitted Texas and Vermont in to the Union). There is no actual text in the Constitution allowing it, but a political agreement reached in the Congress would probably be legal (or at least honored by the courts). On some matters, the Supreme Court will punt a case over to the Congress as a "political matter" instead of making a decision.
  2. An Amendment to the Constitution. If #1 was used, the politicians might pass and ratify an Amendment to nail down the legality of what they were doing.
  3. A legal decision in the Supreme Court. This requires that a case be won showing that the State has suffered an injury so violent and damaging as to make this the only possible legal remedy available to the Court for that the breaking of the bargain between that State and the United States, setting aside the law to heal the injury. This type of decision is extremely rare and nearly unknown in legal history -- which is probably why the secessionists of 1860-61 made no attempt to pursue this course. Either that, or they realized no such injury could be proven.
As you suggest, I think it's really down to 1 and 2 as possibilities. 1 is a maybe. As for 2, the States would have to ratify it by 3/4 vote. More potential problems. Regarding 3, secession is either lawful or not. The Court is supposed to apply the Constitution. Of course, nothing is ever 100% but the strong likelihood is that a challenge would be DOA.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I don't see where I've missed anything. Dallas Moses was a slave, he was held to the service of his masters. He was able to negotiate the terms of his rental agreement, as I stated. You are confusing the negotiation of a rental agreement ~ which was not uncommon for slaves to do ~ with the negotiation of a labor contract. As noted above, Whenever Dallas took a job with a new shipping line, Mrs. Elbert’s agent, G.W. Conn, negotiated the initial contract. After that, Moses was able to get into the details of the rental agreement. Perhaps you missed that part.

Let's do that thought experiment again. Suppose Moses wanted to engage with the CS Navy, but his masters strictly forbade him from doing so. Could Moses just go ahead and pilot for the Navy anyway? Of course not. His labor was owned and controlled by his masters. In terms of slavery and freedom, there is a huge difference between a short leash and no leash at all. If Moses was a free man, the wishes and desires of his master would not have been relevant, because a free man has no master. I don't see how this controversial.

- Alan
I think we're splitting hairs.

You said earlier, Slaves, by definition, could not engage in a labor "contract" with an employer;
While, Moses Dallas was in a unique situation, I was simply pointing out, like every rule, there are exceptions.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I think we're splitting hairs.

You said earlier, Slaves, by definition, could not engage in a labor "contract" with an employer;
While, Moses Dallas was in a unique situation, I was simply pointing out, like every rule, there are exceptions.
We're not splitting hairs. Negotiating a rental agreement is not the same as negotiating a labor contract. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's the same difference between being a slave held to service and a free man who isn't.

Question: can a slave negotiate a labor contract with his or her owner? The answer is no.

It's that simple. If a slave can't negotiate a labor contract with his or her owner, how can he or she negotiate a labor contract with the person to whom they've hired out, who is not their owner? The Navy did not control Dallas's labor, his owner controlled his labor, his owner hired him out, and allowed Moses to set the terms of his hire-out. I must stress again, this was not exceptional for hired-out slaves, it was not that uncommon for them to negotiate such agreements. Masters allowed this as long as slaves met some minimum requirements that the master demanded.

I will again ask the question which you did not answer. Suppose Moses wanted to engage with the CS Navy, but his masters strictly forbade him from doing so. Could Moses just go ahead and pilot for the Navy anyway? Of course not. Moses was, in the words of the US Constitution, "held to Service." His labor was owned and controlled by his masters, period. His time with the Navy was a function of his master's active or passive consent, he acted under the dictates of his master. This is not splitting hairs, it's an indisputable statement of fact. If you can show me how this is not a fact, I will listen, but I don't think it will happen.

This is an important conversation to have. No doubt there are people who think that because a small number of slaves negotiated the terms of their hire-out, therefore they had the same freedom to negotiate labor contracts as free people. NO! I once heard it remarked, something to the effect that, while slaves might have had varying levels of agency in dealing with whites, that must not be confused with them having the rights and privileges of free people. There were slaves, perhaps not Moses Dallas, who learned that lesson quite painfully.

- Alan
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
Maybe you missed this part of my post:

From a piece by Dr. Maurice Melton:

For a slave, Moses Dallas had it made. He was a coastal pilot, guiding passenger and cargo steamers through the shoals and over the bars in the waterways from Savannah south through the sounds, down the coast to Jacksonville, Fla. and up the St. Johns River all the way to Palatka. By 1860, he was in late middle age and at the top of his profession. The steamboat companies knew his reputation, and paid good money for his expertise.

Dallas was owned by a widow named Harriet Ann Elbert, of St. Marys, Ga. on the Florida-Georgia line. Her sister, the widow of a St. Mary’s doctor named Bacon, owned Dallas’ wife (also named Harriet) and their six children.
1 In 1860, the sisters agreed to let Dallas and his family move to Savannah, the center of the area’s shipping business. There, Moses and Harriet Dallas rented five acres and a house out Bryan Street east of town, across the bayou in the rice fields and woods behind Fort Jackson. Moses and Harriet Dallas lived there on their own, like a free family.

Whenever Dallas took a job with a new shipping line, Mrs. Elbert’s agent, G.W. Conn, negotiated the initial contract. But it stipulated that henceforth, Moses Dallas would act as his own negotiator on any contractual changes, including pay. And his salary would be paid directly to him.
2 It was normal for a hired-out slave’s wages to be paid to the owner (who often allowed the slave a small allotment for living expenses). But Dallas kept all his wages. 3 His hiring out earned Mrs. Elbert nothing. Dallas was good with money: His reputation for frugality matched his reputation as a pilot. 4 He knew the value of a dollar, and trusted himself to get the best value for his services......

Dr. Maurice Melton is a history professor at Columbus State University and the author of several books and articles about the Civil War navies.
It appears he was one step away from manumission. But since he continued to be legally enslaved, that probably made it easier for him to stay in South Carolina, especially Charleston. There is an exception to every rule.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
It appears he was step away from manumission. But since he continued to be legally enslaved, that probably made it easier for him to stay in South Carolina, especially Charleston. There is an exception to every rule.
He was given a lot of space to negotiate his hire-out, more than I think is typical even for slaves who negotiated their rentals. I don't know how close he was to manumission, but it would no doubt be in his best interest to make his masters happy, perhaps through Navy service. That would be a case where the desire (need?) to satisfy the master was so overriding that it was coercive.

The most famous (or infamous, depending on your orientation) Civil War African American waterman from Charleston was Robert Smalls. He was born in 1839 in Beaufort, S.C. We don't know who his father was, but Smalls was a mulatto. Smalls was sent to Charleston to be rented out to work. He worked as a waterman, and was a pilot for a ship (a cotton steamer) called the Planter. He was allowed to keep a portion of pay for himself, and this was not uncommon for hire-outs in cities.

In Charleston he met his wife, Hannah, a slave at a Charleston hotel. With their owners’ permission, the two moved into an apartment together and had two children: Elizabeth and Robert Jr. Smalls asked his wife’s owner if he could purchase his family outright; they agreed but at a steep price: $800. Smalls only had $100 at the tie, he was 22 or so. How long would it take for Smalls to earn that much?

During the Civil War, that point became moot. Just before dawn on May 13, 1862, Robert Smalls and a crew composed of fellow slaves, in the absence of the white captain and his two mates, slipped the Planter off the dock, picked up family members at a rendezvous point, then slowly navigated their way through the harbor. Smalls, doubling as the captain, even donning the captain’s wide-brimmed straw hat to help to hide his face, responded with the proper coded signals at two Confederate checkpoints, including at Fort Sumter itself, and other defense positions. This was in the pre-dawn darkness, when the crew could not be fully seen.

Cleared, Smalls sailed into the open seas. Once outside of Confederate waters, he had his crew raise a white flag and surrendered his ship to the blockading Union fleet.

In the North, Smalls was feted as a hero and personally lobbied the Secretary of War Edwin Stanton to begin enlisting black soldiers. After President Lincoln acted a few months later, Smalls was said to have recruited 5,000 soldiers by himself. In October 1862, he returned to the Planter as pilot as part of Admiral Du Pont’s South Atlantic Blockading Squadron.

According to the 1883 Naval Affairs Committee report, Smalls was engaged in approximately 17 military actions, including the April 7, 1863, assault on Fort Sumter and the attack at Folly Island Creek, S.C., two months later, where he assumed command of the Planter when, under “very hot fire,” its white captain became so “demoralized” he hid in the “coal-bunker.”

According to biographer Andrew Billingsley notes, Confederates put a $4,000 bounty on Small's head.

For his valiancy, Smalls was promoted to the rank of captain (NOT Naval captain), and from December 1863 on, earned $150 a month, making him one of the highest paid black men during the war.

- Alan
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
We're not splitting hairs. Negotiating a rental agreement is not the same as negotiating a labor contract. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. It's the same difference between being a slave held to service and a free man who isn't.

Question: can a slave negotiate a labor contract with his or her owner? The answer is no.

It's that simple. If a slave can't negotiate a labor contract with his or her owner, how can he or she negotiate a labor contract with the person to whom they've hired out, who is not their owner? The Navy did not control Dallas's labor, his owner controlled his labor, his owner hired him out, and allowed Moses to set the terms of his hire-out. I must stress again, this was not exceptional for hired-out slaves, it was not that uncommon for them to negotiate such agreements. Masters allowed this as long as slaves met some minimum requirements that the master demanded.

I will again ask the question which you did not answer. Suppose Moses wanted to engage with the CS Navy, but his masters strictly forbade him from doing so. Could Moses just go ahead and pilot for the Navy anyway? Of course not. Moses was, in the words of the US Constitution, "held to Service." His labor was owned and controlled by his masters, period. His time with the Navy was a function of his master's active or passive consent, he acted under the dictates of his master. This is not splitting hairs, it's an indisputable statement of fact. If you can show me how this is not a fact, I will listen, but I don't think it will happen.

This is an important conversation to have. No doubt there are people who think that because a small number of slaves negotiated the terms of their hire-out, therefore they had the same freedom to negotiate labor contracts as free people. NO! I once heard it remarked, something to the effect that, while slaves might have had varying levels of agency in dealing with whites, that must not be confused with them having the rights and privileges of free people. There were slaves, perhaps not Moses Dallas, who learned that lesson quite painfully.

- Alan
I've never suggested that Moses Dallas wasn't a slave. However, he had a unique term of enslavement with Mrs Elbert, as evidenced by his actions, living arrangements, & employment. It certainly appears from what I've read of the man, he lived much differently than most slaves. I'd say, he was a slave "on paper" but, lived more like a freeman.

As far as your inquiry, there's no way to know. Obviously Mr. Dallas was a unique circumstance. The man is listed in official correspondence, as an Officer in the CS Navy. I don't think what the US Constitution says about "held to service" applies. Just because something is law, doesn't mean it is/was always followed. We've seen too many examples of such, from inception of our country, to present day. There's always exceptions.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I've never suggested that Moses Dallas wasn't a slave. However, he had a unique term of enslavement with Mrs Elbert, as evidenced by his actions, living arrangements, & employment. It certainly appears from what I've read of the man, he lived much differently than most slaves. I'd say, he was a slave "on paper" but, lived more like a freeman.

As far as your inquiry, there's no way to know. Obviously Mr. Dallas was a unique circumstance. The man is listed in official correspondence, as an Officer in the CS Navy. I don't think what the US Constitution says about "held to service" applies. Just because something is law, doesn't mean it is/was always followed. We've seen too many examples of such, from inception of our country, to present day. There's always exceptions.
People keep saying it was exceptional that Moses negotiated a hire-out deal. It wasn't. Slaves were doing that before the war. Of course they were not hiring out to the Navy before the war, because there wasn't that much need for it.

You consistently confuse enslavement and employment. Employers hire employees. Employees provide goods and services to employers, for which they receive compensation. This is a labor contract under a free labor system.

The US Constitution, while not using the word "slave," does refer to persons "held to service." Interestingly, a person held to service doesn't actually have to provide a service or product to a slave-master. For example, babies, toddlers, and small children are practically unemployable, yet they are still the slaves of their master. Their status as life-long property distinguishes them from any actual employees the master may have, employees with whom the master will enter into labor contracts.

Masters don't need labor contracts with slaves, contracts are unnecessary since the slave is held to Service from birth. By contrast, the details of a rental agreement need to be worked so that the use of the master's property can be established.

As noted in the case of Robert Smalls (see above), he was able to get married, get a job, rent his living quarters, keep a portion of his pay, and even negotiate a deal to buy his children, despite his enslavement. Again, this was not unique or exceptional for enslaved hire-outs, especially those living in cities. But even with all of that, Smalls was not free, and he risked his life and his family to gain his and their freedom.

You say "I don't think what the US Constitution says about "held to service" applies." If you're saying that Dallas's military service abrogated his owner's rights to the ownership of this property, then thinking about that is not enough, I would need to see some proof.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
People keep saying it was exceptional that Moses negotiated a hire-out deal. It wasn't. Slaves were doing that before the war. Of course they were not hiring out to the Navy before the war, because there wasn't that much need for it.

You consistently confuse enslavement and employment. Employers hire employees. Employees provide goods and services to employers, for which they receive compensation. This is a labor contract under a free labor system.

The US Constitution, while not using the word "slave," does refer to persons "held to service." Interestingly, a person held to service doesn't actually have to provide a service or product to a slave-master. For example, babies, toddlers, and small children are practically unemployable, yet they are still the slaves of their master. Their status as life-long property distinguishes them from any actual employees the master may have, employees with whom the master will enter into labor contracts.

Masters don't need labor contracts with slaves, contracts are unnecessary since the slave is held to Service from birth. By contrast, the details of a rental agreement need to be worked so that the use of the master's property can be established.

As noted in the case of Robert Smalls (see above), he was able to get married, get a job, rent his living quarters, keep a portion of his pay, and even negotiate a deal to buy his children, despite his enslavement. Again, this was not unique or exceptional for enslaved hire-outs, especially those living in cities. But even with all of that, Smalls was not free, and he risked his life and his family to gain his and their freedom.

You say "I don't think what the US Constitution says about "held to service" applies." If you're saying that Dallas's military service abrogated his owner's rights to the ownership of this property, then thinking about that is not enough, I would need to see some proof.

- Alan
Moses Dallas wasn't unique because he negotiated his own salary. Like Smalls, he was married, had a family, lived in his own pad, & unlike Smalls, kept all of his negotiated salary. He also died in combat. Mr Dallas was unique because of all those factors.

Notice when it was time to file for claims of property taken by the US military, it was Dallas' widow who filed a claim, not Mrs Elbert.
claims-of-harriet-dallas-jpg.jpg


Moses & Harriet Dallas may have been slaves on paper but, it appears they were living independently, & had a sizable estate for the times. I'd say that made them "unique". This nearly $1,000 claim is just property that was taken. I have plenty of ancestors who didn't own that much personal property at the time.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Moses Dallas wasn't unique because he negotiated his own salary. Like Smalls, he was married, had a family, lived in his own pad, & unlike Smalls, kept all of his negotiated salary. He also died in combat. Mr Dallas was unique because of all those factors.

Notice when it was time to file for claims of property taken by the US military, it was Dallas' widow who filed a claim, not Mrs Elbert.
View attachment 398975

Moses & Harriet Dallas may have been slaves on paper but, it appears they were living independently, & had a sizable estate for the times. I'd say that made them "unique". This nearly $1,000 claim is just property that was taken. I have plenty of ancestors who didn't own that much personal property at the time.
If your point is that Dallas was unique because his masters allowed him to keep all of his salary, I would agree with that... it's obvious. I suspect that Dallas was not merely a slave, but also one of the family, if you know what I mean. As Creedence Clearwater Revival might say, it's good to be the fortunate son, even as a slave.

Robert Smalls was 22 when he made his successful escape to freedom. By that time, he had saved $100. Over the years, he could have made and saved more, but he was only getting a portion of his pay to keep. I assume that Dallas was older and had more time to save. The point being, these hire-out were getting paid a decent amount of money, the portion going to the master was the difference maker for them.

Earlier, you provided this:

enhance-jpg.jpg


As noted earlier, Robert Smalls received $150 a month after December 1863. These skilled waterman were in high demand, and as the letter from W. A. Webb seems to suggest, they could almost name their price, although Massa was usually the main beneficiary.

I wonder what the white men were getting.

- Alan
 

trice

Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
As you suggest, I think it's really down to 1 and 2 as possibilities. 1 is a maybe. As for 2, the States would have to ratify it by 3/4 vote. More potential problems. Regarding 3, secession is either lawful or not. The Court is supposed to apply the Constitution. Of course, nothing is ever 100% but the strong likelihood is that a challenge would be DOA.
#1 and #2 are political solutions. "The South" would actually be in a powerful position to tie up the Congress in 1861-62 if they remained united in their actions (30 Senators from 15 slave States). Concessions of one type or another would be more likely, but a political deal allowing one or more states to separate would not be impossible.

#3 would be very unlikely because "The South" has no real injury to point to, much less one so appallingly severe as I described in #3. The only reason to think it might happen is tenuous at best: Chief Justice Taney thought secession was unconstitutional, but preferred secession to civil war.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Moses Dallas wasn't unique because he negotiated his own salary. Like Smalls, he was married, had a family, lived in his own pad, & unlike Smalls, kept all of his negotiated salary. He also died in combat. Mr Dallas was unique because of all those factors.

The journal of the Canadian Nautical Research Society has an essay which in part discusses Moses Dallas, of Savannah, Georgia, who was hired as a pilot by the CS Navy. The essay, written by Maurice Melton, is titled Two Georgia Coast Pilots and the Capture of the USS Water Witch. I believe you referenced this in a previous post.

Regarding the fact that Dallas kept his full pay, the essay notes: "This arrangement was not unique to Moses Dallas. Bernard E. Powers, Jr., in Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 , records a number of instances of hired slaves keeping all their wages. In Savannah, another slave pilot who kept his wages was William Jones."

I wonder what the white men were getting.
The essay notes that the "squadron’s two white senior pilots, Tom Hernandez and William W. Austin, always made top pay in the squadron, keeping ahead of Dallas by $20 per month."

The essay mentions that "when the war began and civilian river traffic declined, (enslaved persons) Isaac Tattnall and Moses Dallas were two of many area pilots who hired on to the Confederate Navy. But after the battle of Port Royal Sound in November of 1861, Tattnall escaped to the Union blockading squadron. A “contraband,” he was allowed to enlist in the U.S. Navy as an Ordinary Seaman, and was soon showing the Yankees a way into the back door of Savannah through Wassaw Sound and Wilmington River."

- Alan
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The journal of the Canadian Nautical Research Society has an essay which in part discusses Moses Dallas, of Savannah, Georgia, who was hired as a pilot by the CS Navy. The essay, written by Maurice Melton, is titled Two Georgia Coast Pilots and the Capture of the USS Water Witch. I believe you referenced this in a previous post.

Regarding the fact that Dallas kept his full pay, the essay notes: "This arrangement was not unique to Moses Dallas. Bernard E. Powers, Jr., in Black Charlestonians: A Social History, 1822-1885 , records a number of instances of hired slaves keeping all their wages. In Savannah, another slave pilot who kept his wages was William Jones."


The essay notes that the "squadron’s two white senior pilots, Tom Hernandez and William W. Austin, always made top pay in the squadron, keeping ahead of Dallas by $20 per month."

The essay mentions that "when the war began and civilian river traffic declined, (enslaved persons) Isaac Tattnall and Moses Dallas were two of many area pilots who hired on to the Confederate Navy. But after the battle of Port Royal Sound in November of 1861, Tattnall escaped to the Union blockading squadron. A “contraband,” he was allowed to enlist in the U.S. Navy as an Ordinary Seaman, and was soon showing the Yankees a way into the back door of Savannah through Wassaw Sound and Wilmington River."

- Alan
The facts suggest that some enslaved men enjoyed privileges more commonly found in the Roman administration of slavery, especially Greek slaves who were literate and could do arithmetic and accounting. Outside of Maryland I think it was difficult for a black man to live as a free man in the deep south.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
The facts suggest that some enslaved men enjoyed privileges more commonly found in the Roman administration of slavery, especially Greek slaves who were literate and could do arithmetic and accounting. Outside of Maryland I think it was difficult for a black man to live as a free man in the deep south.
As I see it, the lives of African Americans were mostly affected by these factors, which overlapped
• geographic location
• race (ie, if the enslaved person had white ancestry)
• type of work
• the peculiarities of an enslaved person's relationship with a slave-owner

White ancestry is a very under-rated or ignored factor (among white people for sure) in the treatment of African Americans, but it was quite important. In 1860, 36% of free blacks were identified as "Mulatto" in the 1860 Census, but only 10% of enslaved blacks were noted as mulatto. Anecdotal evidence indicates that slaves with family ties to their masters received better treatment than other slaves. The whole subject of the better treatment of light-skinned African descent people relative to that of darker-skinned African descent people (called "colorism") has been a subject of scholarly study as well as a subject of much discourse in the African American community.

African Americans in the Chesapeake Region, with its tobacco economy, are generally considered to have received better "treatment" than those who lived in the Deep South, with its economics built around the more demanding crops of cotton, rice, and sugar cane.

Type of work was a factor also, but this is not as commonly known among most people.

We know, for example that so-called "hire-out" enslaved people were often able to make better lives for themselves than farmhands on labor plantations. Cases of enslaved men negotiating hire-outs, including Moses Dallas, were not exceptional, that is, they were not exceptions to a rule. There were simply other rules for such men and women. Masters would often let them negotiate the terms of their hire out, and as long as the master got his cut, the hire-out person could keep a share. Many enslaved people paid for their freedom by the money they retained for their work.

We must be careful to distinguish between "exceptional" and "rare." Hire-outs were a small part of the slavery economy to be sure. They are not representative of the broad swath of the enslaved population. But where they occurred, there were "rules" that men like a Moses Dallas or Robert Smalls would follow.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
We know, for example that so-called "hire-out" enslaved people were often able to make better lives for themselves than farmhands on labor plantations. Cases of enslaved men negotiating hire-outs, including Moses Dallas, were not exceptional, that is, they were not exceptions to a rule. There were simply other rules for such men and women. Masters would often let them negotiate the terms of their hire out, and as long as the master got his cut, the hire-out person could keep a share. Many enslaved people paid for their freedom by the money they retained for their work.

We must be careful to distinguish between "exceptional" and "rare." Hire-outs were a small part of the slavery economy to be sure. They are not representative of the broad swath of the enslaved population. But where they occurred, there were "rules" that men like a Moses Dallas or Robert Smalls would follow.
I find this interesting: In the case of Moses Dallas, those rules enabled him to get a pay increase for his hire-out to the Navy. The CS Navy knew that he was a resource on which other enterprises could bid. And he could not be compelled to stay with the Navy. (At that time, Dallas was apparently not subject to impressment.)


enhance-jpg-jpg.jpg


Contrast that with the case of R.B.K. Murphy, a white, draft-eligible pilot who, like Dallas, was also from Savannah. As noted in Maurice Melton's essay Two Georgia Coast Pilots and the Capture of the USS Water Witch: when the Confederacy instituted conscription in 1862, Murphy evaded the draft by rowing out to one of the Union blockaders and offering his services as pilot to the U.S. Navy.

Because Murphy was not a chattel property controlled by an owner, he could be compelled to join the military and serve. Meanwhile, Moses Dallas could demand more money to stay with he Navy, because the Navy had no right to command his services.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
#1 and #2 are political solutions. "The South" would actually be in a powerful position to tie up the Congress in 1861-62 if they remained united in their actions (30 Senators from 15 slave States). Concessions of one type or another would be more likely, but a political deal allowing one or more states to separate would not be impossible.
And my basic argument is that:
Congress can pass a simple bill that say x area is now a state.
We also know that any changes to existing states require the consent of congress and the effected state(s).

And if congress (with consent from the state) can change a state and make it smaller, they should be able to remove it completely.

So I think the procedure could be.
The State house (maybe based on a referendum) pass a bill saying they want out. (with a clear majority)

Then Congress pass a bill saying that the state will be out on x date and the conditions.
(modern political content edited Details like if the state should pay for federal installations should be included in the bill.
So both parties agree on what happens if the bill passes)

The state house also agree to the conditions.

The state is out on the agreed date.

Had something like this been attempted I think most of the south would have joined the idea and I think at least some free states would have supported it.. to get rid of the slavestates. That would have given a clear majority for it.

And as long as there is a clear majority for it and there is clear support from the effected states, I don't think the supreme court would want to get involved.


Obviously the two parties might not be able to agree on the future of the west. This might kill any deal.
Or they might simply ignore the issue... with a war likely in the future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
The OP asked where in the constitution Lincoln found the authority to suppress the rebellion (prior to the thread being sidetracked regarding Moses Davis). This has been answered beyond any reasonable doubt. That those sympathetic to the rebels who stated the constitution was void may wish the facts were otherwise is immaterial.

It’s been exhaustively shown through case law, previous precedent, and the constitution itself that the President has not only the authority but the duty to use any means at his/her disposal to suppress rebellion. While we may not like that type of authority invested in one individual, it is there.

I still find it humorous that those who so easily applaud the throwing out of the constitution in secession will turn on a dime to claim it’s protection for the same act.
 
Last edited:

Belfoured

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 3, 2019
The facts suggest that some enslaved men enjoyed privileges more commonly found in the Roman administration of slavery, especially Greek slaves who were literate and could do arithmetic and accounting. Outside of Maryland I think it was difficult for a black man to live as a free man in the deep south.
And, as we well know, occasionally a desperate need creates an opening for the isolated exception. Under most of the Slave Codes that were statutory law in the Southern states, IIRC slaves neither had a right to contract or a right to enforce a contract in court.
 

wausaubob

Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
The OP asked where in the constitution Lincoln found the authority to suppress the rebellion (prior to the thread being sidetracked regarding Moses Davis). This has been answered beyond any reasonable doubt. That those sympathetic to the rebels who stated the constitution was void may wish the facts were otherwise is immaterial.

It’s been exhaustively shown through case law, previous precedent, and the constitution itself that the President has not only the authority but the duty to use any means at his/her disposal to suppress rebellion. While we may not like that type of authority invested in one individual, it is there.

I still find it humorous that those who so easily applaud the throwing out of the constitution in secession will turn on a dime to claim it’s protection for the same act.
He had a duty to every person in the Confederate region, both free and enslaved, to not let a faction take them out of the US and weaken republican protections by that means. Powers prohibited to states cannot be reclaimed by seceding first and then assuming the prohibited powers. If they could, then why bother ratifying the Constitution?
 
Top