Replies

DiogenesLamp: "It gave Northern Slave owners time to go sell their slaves in the South and recoup their money."

Also time for older slaves to die naturally, which was certainly the preferred outcome.

But speaking of selling slaves "down South", that was in fact the reason states like Virginia agreed to the Constitution's ban on international slave imports.
Virginians and other "old South" states made fortunes selling their slaves into "new South" states like Mississippi and Alabama.
So, abolishing the possibility of importing new slaves from Africa only made Virginia bred slaves much more valuable.

By the way, Massachusetts recorded one "slave" in it's 1840 census, but none in any census either before or after.
So, all claims that Massachusetts somehow tolerated slavery because it lacked some law or other, must be viewed as just the normal run-of-the-mill cockamamie nonsense we've come to expect and love from our indefatigable Lost-Causers.

We have no actual records of any Northern slaves being sold "down South", but outside New York and New Jersey, if any, the numbers could only theoretically be in the hundreds, since there were never more than a few slaves.
And certainly more Southern slaves escaped North on the Underground Railroad than were ever sold in Northern states for transport South.

Over that same time period, hundreds of thousands of Old South slaves were sold to plantations in the Deep South.

We should note that those counties with the fewest slaves also had the most loyal Unionists.
1860 percent of slaves in Southern Counties (darker=more):

Also time for older slaves to die naturally, which was certainly the preferred outcome.

So long as it gets them out of the state, eh? Do not discount the absolute racist hatred that Northern States had for blacks. You should read the Illinois Anti-Black laws.

So, abolishing the possibility of importing new slaves from Africa only made Virginia bred slaves much more valuable.

I have no doubt that Money was the primary motivating factor in this effort, as it is in most efforts.

By the way, Massachusetts recorded one "slave" in it's 1840 census, but none in any census either before or after. So, all claims that Massachusetts somehow tolerated slavery because it lacked some law or other, must be viewed as just the normal run-of-the-mill cockamamie nonsense we've come to expect and love from our indefatigable Lost-Causers.

Well see here, in order for a statement to be correct, it must not have exceptions. If a Slave was recorded in Massachusetts, then Massachusetts didn't really ban slavery now, did they?

As for "Lost-Causers", i'll tell you what is a "lost cause." Making the Federal Finances Balance with 50% of the population being a parasite class, and 100 trillion in unfunded obligations. I dare say there may come a time when you think breaking from the Union is quite the rational thing to do, because anyone that remains with it is going to be turned into an actual slave, at least insofar as their income is concerned.

Should such a time come, you will be eating your words I think.

We have no actual records of any Northern slaves being sold "down South",

Why would there be such records? Especially if it is from one person to another? No doubt there were "bills of sale" but why would they get into any official "record"?

You might read this.

We should note that those counties with the fewest slaves also had the most loyal Unionists.

Of that I have no doubt. If you aren't making any money off of slavery, why would you support it?

We have no actual records of any Northern slaves being sold "down South"

Illinois habitually arrested free black men for the offense of "walking while black" in Illinois, and sold them south in accordance with the State's "Black Code". After the grandfathering period in which French-owned slaves resident in the State at its admission were held to labor until expiry, no black person could legally live in Lincoln's adoptive State.

Looking at your interesting map, I notice that the Shenandoah Valley held precious few slaves -- but a gallant Union cavalry general burned it all down anyway.

I'm sure they deserved it.