Shedding light on slavery in the north

CNN ^ | 3/17/2006 | AP

[stand watie]

most were SOLD to the southern slave-owners OR (worse yet) to the sugar planters in the Caribbean.

free dixie,sw

[JamesP81]

Beg to differ. The Republican party was formed in 1854 in Ripon Wisconsin specifically to eliminate slavery. The poitical parties of the day refused to deal with this issue and we wished to do so. 11 years later, in 1865, we destroyed slavery.

If that's true, then Lincoln was a pretty crappy republican. He proved as such when he stated that he'd do whatever he had to to preserve the union. He said that if he could do that by freeing slaves, he would. If he could do it by not freeing slaves, he'd do that. And he said if he could do it by freeing some slaves and not freeing others, that he would also do that.

Lincoln: the original RINO.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Republican Party position was the "free soil" position. The earliest Republicans as a whole (apart from individual abolitionists in their ranks) did not claim the right to interfere with slavery in the states which had it, but were determined not to allow slavery to expand into any new areas. Stephen Douglas (D-IL) had gotten the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed, which had opened up to slavery regions formerly closed to it by the Missouri Compromise--that was the immediate cause of the rise of the Republican Party.

[Publius6961]

Well...
I clearly recall that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the rebel States, which clearly implies volumes...

[billbears]

1) "I don't want you kids to demonize the South. We here in the North were no angels. Judge yourself and your ancestors first before you go putting down people who live in Alabama or Mississippi."

Works for me.

2) "You kids think your hands are clean. You think the rednecks in the South did all the bad stuff. Well, those stupid hillbillies did do a lot of bad stuff. An awful lot. But, hey, your ancestors were no angels either. You kids are guilty as hell. Reparations are the least you can do for blacks, seeing as how involved your families were in the slave trade. Now, do your duty, step up, feel guilty, and vote to increase government spending on inner cities."

Take out the portions in bold and it still works for me. Either way, it's about time to lay the guilt and the blame where it belongs in the War. On the north.

[Southside_Chicago_Republican]

I'm a Yank, more or less, (I grew up in a part of Illinois that had a short-lived secessionist movement -- before federal troops were sent in) and I am all in favor of teaching history as it was, and without any agenda except to teach history as it was. Otherwise, it isn't history.

[Tax Government]

One aspect of the culture divide in America is the notion that during times of slavery the North was it pure-hearted opponent, and the South its evil supporter.

The unwarranted self-righteousness seen in liberal democrats in part derives from this.

[Tax Government]

One aspect of the culture divide in America is the notion that during times of slavery the North was it pure-hearted opponent, and the South its evil supporter.

The unwarranted self-righteousness seen in liberal democrats in part derives from this.

[Paige]

Oh, I have plenty of information. I have gone into this program with a BA in history knowing when I relocated to go to a Northern School I would run into this...there isn't one thing he has been able to dispute when I have raised my hand and asked him to explain how the North was so perfect. These Northern professors aren't prepared for a southern Conservative who actually knows a little about history. But thanks ! :)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Like this is news or unknown except to morons.

[Paige]

When did Lincoln do this ? YOU do know the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free slaves in the North, don't you?
It took the 13th amendment to free the slaves in the North. That yankee education isn't all it is cut out to be, is it? :)

[Paige]

Hey George was the man! Without George, there would have not been a United States of America! ;)

[Paige]

The North would have been holding on to slavery with everything they had if they would have been able to have crash crops.
Moreover, the North did not want the slaves freed because they didn't want to lose their jobs to people who would work for lower wages; plus, as for the expansion of slavery...the North did not want slavery expanded so free white men could get land and work for wages. It had nothing to do with the North loving the slaves.
So, please don't even go there about the North being about freedom because that would be historically incorrect.

[Heyworth]

I clearly recall that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the rebel States, which clearly implies volumes...

It implies that Lincoln recognized he had no fiat powers over slavery in the states that weren't in rebellion. You guys always attack Lincoln for being a dictator, then attack him for not using his dictatorial powers. For the record, three of the five loyal slave states--West Virginia, Missouri, and Maryland--ended it on their own before war's end. Furthermore, Lincoln fully supported passage of the 13th amendment, even insisting on it being included in the 1864 Republican platform. It had already passed the Senate in April, 1864 but Democrats in the House blocked it until after the November election. Once passed, Lincoln promptly signed it and it went to the states.

Mississippi, by the way, didn't ratify the 13th until 1995.

[lemura]

I think these straw men arguments are weak. No one believes that the northern states didn't practice slavery, or that notherners particularly liked blacks.

What people do understand, however, is that (1) slavery was on the decline, or had been outlawed in many northern states by 1861, and (2) an independent, slave-based South represented competition over who would control the West.

The South declared independence and lost. Trying to overcome any stigma associated with that campaign by forwarding irrelevant comparisons reveals more about themselves than they may have intended.

[the OlLine Rebel]

How come so few Northerners (presumably Republican in votes, because Lincoln won) wanted to be dragged into war over blacks/slaves (altho the real purpose for Lincoln was to "preserve the Union" - at gunpoint), then? How come the riots of New York over drafts? Doesn't sound like too many Northerners/Republicans were actually high and mighty about slavery.

[P-40]

When did Lincoln do this ?

It was shortly after the time of the Emancipation Proclamation. The reasoning was along the lines of how could you continue to have slaves after determining others should not have them. Makes sense, of course. You will hear this brought up in reparations discussions from time to time as the slaves that were freed, and their decendents, are known.

[the OlLine Rebel]

There is no greater man, ever, than George Washington.

[TexKat]

Advertisement for Runaway Rivington's New York Gazeteer September 15, 1774 The Library Company of Philadelphia

Advertisement Offering a Slave for Sale New York Weekly-Journal April 15, 1734 New-York Historical Society Advertisements for the sale of slaves offer historians a wealth of information about the physical appearance and skills of individuals. They also shed light on the survival of Africanisms in dress and body adornment and proficiencies in occupations and language(s). The woman who is described in this advertisement could only speak English. Thus she could not communicate easily with those New Yorkers, both white and black, whose primary language was Dutch.

[lemura]

Of course, the greatest irony is that the South really didn't lose. By maintaining a solid regional alliance, an incorporated South has controlled the US government for generations. See Reagan/ColdWar, Clinton/BJs, BushII/Iraq, etc.