Posted on 11/15/2004 12:05:16 PM PST by nosofar
African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]
When the minutemen marched off to face the redcoats at Lexington in 1775, the wives, boys and old men they left behind in Framingham took up axes, clubs, and pitchforks and barred themselves in their homes because of a widespread, and widely credited, rumor that the local slaves planned to rise up and massacre the white inhabitants while the militia was away.[2]
African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery. Robert Steinfeld's deservedly praised "The Invention of Free Labor" (1991) states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England," ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England. Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. “African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,” The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).
(Excerpt) Read more at slavenorth.com ...
The Prime Minister said otherwise and I'll take his word on the course of the English government over yours.
Irrelevant. A tariff that "indirectly" kills off trade still kills off trade.
Now you are finally agreeing with me that the first tariff was a revenue tariff after arguing with hundreds of words on other threads that it was an example of protectionism.
Wrong as usual. The 1789 tariff act PREDATED Hamilton's protectionist Report on Manufacturers of 1791. The 1792 tariff was the first to implement part of Hamilton's plan and, as I showed you, the southern opposition to it was solid.
You're as clueless as ever. Protected industries are almost never exporters (i.e. they cannot compete on the world market, hence protection).
But there is not a universal impact on all sectors contrary to your belief.
There is a net welfare loss on the economy as a whole and that much is a mathematical certainty.
Since we were speaking about comparisions of power available the per capita evaluation becomes irrelevent.
Not so. Far from noting the obvious and undisputed fact that the north had a numerically larger industrial sector, you were attempting to portray the south as economically backwards and without even the most basic industrial implements when the fact is that they enjoyed a strong economy in those areas on world standards.
The real issue, is there were just a different set of morals back then. Generally people were just rotten to each other. Most of the country stayed drunk at any given time, they enjoyed public executions, blacks too, owned slaves and as in general treated their slaves worse than the white owners. The problem basically stimmed from Africa itself by the wholesale selling of slaves. The ones they couldn't sell, they killed. We contributed to it by having a market available here and arming the more powerful tribes. These problems still go on in Africa today. That is basically where the problems started and still exist.
I agree with your entire statement except in the spelling of stemmed.
Nor does it recognize that not all people believed Blacks were less than human North and South.
It is true that education was severely neglected in the states which rebelled. Having mostly newly established colleges doesn't change that fact and even your list shows that there were 83 in those states compared to 123 in the rest of the nation. Hence you are incorrect.
Most of those MS colleges probably didn't survive the War and even if they did they were mediocre at best even today MS colleges are hardly a hotbed of scholarly production.
William and Mary was the only college which could even approach Columbia, Harvard, Yale, or Princeton and its existence does not disprove my contention.
One of the major problems of the South was the degree of illiteracy compared to the North. This was a result of the lack of concern about education that was endemic to its culture. Your list is of historical interest but proves nothing to contradict the higher degree of illiteracy and disdain for education which plagued the South.
You might modify it to replace the name Columbia with Kings College, its original name.
And you are aware that Virginia did not have the same degree of fanaticism regarding slavery and actually had an industrial base. As well as being the richest colony, then state, until the early 1800s.
Tariffs killed off little if any exports from the North.
Hamilton was SecTreas by 1789 and was an important part of formulating financial policy from the being. His Report was not adopted.
Protected industries can export particularly when the tariff is combined with subsidies which was often the case in the 1800s.
You have never seen me defend tariffs from an economic perspective. They are mostly political instruments.
Compared to the North which is the issue the South was obviously economically backward, See Rhett Butler for details.
You simply have not established that gratuitous and unsubstantiated slander. As I have show, the six southern colonies out of the original thirteen had 7 out of the 16 pre-revolutionary colleges in the United States. The southern state of Virginia also has the highest concentration of prerevolutionary colleges with 3 operating before 1776. Thus it may be said with full accuracy that the south started out on virtually equal footing in the number of colleges. By 1850 the addition of new colleges in the south outpaced all but the two most populous northern states, which seems to indicate that the south added colleges AT A FASTER RATE to their already-existing colonial college system than the north did.
Having mostly newly established colleges doesn't change that fact and even your list shows that there were 83 in those states compared to 123 in the rest of the nation.
Your figures are wrong as usual. There were 118 colleges south of the Mason-Dixon line in 1850. That leaves 114 colleges in the northern states.
Most of those MS colleges probably didn't survive the War
First, you do not know that with anything even remotely approaching certainty given that you have no statistical data to offer (read: you pulled it out of your @$$). Second, even if it were true the observation remains irrelevant and inconsequential to a discussion of the number of colleges BEFORE the war.
William and Mary was the only college which could even approach Columbia, Harvard, Yale, or Princeton and its existence does not disprove my contention.
More garbage. You are using the modern 21st century concept of university "prestige" to weigh their 19th century status when such prestige was not measured as it is today nor understood on the same level of comparison. Among the modern "prestigious" universities that were located in the south though at the time of the war are W&M, University of Virginia, Duke (known as the Union Institute back then), Georgetown, St. Johns, and Emory. That said, I could care less what US News and World Distort says about the ivy league schools and would never send a kid to any one of them today because they all teach left wing garbage.
You sure like being wrong today, capitan. It was generally the case in the 1860's that rural frontier states had higher illiteracy rates than non-rural states (thus both Minnesota and Arkansas boast higher illiteracy among the white populations than do states in the east). Even then, the highest illiterate adult rates in any state were seldom more than 10% of the white population in 1860. The discrepancy was nothing even remotely near what you make it out to be with most states, north and south having illiteracy of adults between about 4-8% of the total white populations. Numerically speaking, the most populous northern states like NY had the highest number of illiterate adults.
Your list is of historical interest but proves nothing to contradict the higher degree of illiteracy and disdain for education which plagued the South.
You have yet to substantiate either of those claims beyond gratuitous slurs which have been proven wrong. It is a simple fact that in 1850 the south had (1) more colleges total, (2) a comparable number of pre-revolutionary colleges, and (3) an illiteracy rate among whites that was not substantially greater than that found in the north.
And you are aware that Virginia did not have the same degree of fanaticism regarding slavery and actually had an industrial base.
Irrelevant. It was a leading southern state and home of the confederate capitol. If you are going to make unsubstantiated blanket slurs against the south as a whole you cannot ignore one of its most prominent states when it turns out that state contradicts your slur.
Wrong as usual. After the 1861 Morrill Tariff, trade as a whole out of the port of New York halved. Northern commodities were never a substantial source of exports to begin with though.
Hamilton was SecTreas by 1789 and was an important part of formulating financial policy from the being. His Report was not adopted.
Wrong. The bounties in Hamilton's report were defeated. The tariff adjustments were not and almost every single one of them was implemented in the 1792 Tariff act.
Wrong. The export figures for the united states in that era contradict you. Almost 60% of exports in 1860 were in southern cotton. Another 15% came from southern tobacco and southern rice. All else was relegated to the remaining 25%, and most of that was in agricultural grains that were not protected.
You have never seen me defend tariffs from an economic perspective. They are mostly political instruments.
You demonstrably do not understand either, thus it is inconsequential as to what sort of an instrument you defend them for.
The 11 confederate states plus the three border states that, at least in part, supported the confederacy or divided on the issue had a total of 116 colleges between them. It could also be noted that at the time of the war there were 34 states. From this we may observe that:
1. The 11 CSA states made up 32% of the total number of states yet had 36% of the colleges.
2. The non-border yankee states made up 59% of the total number of states yet had only 50% of the colleges.
Put another way, the south had a disproportionately higher number of colleges to its total number of states than the north, which ran a disproportionate deficit.
The last thing the UN is trying to do is reduce slavery throughout the world!
There are more slaves today than were seized from Africa in four centuries of the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The modern commerce in humans rivals illegal drug trafficking in its global reach and in the destruction of lives.
Read about Child Sex Slaves!!<
Tennessee in June 1861 became the first in the South to legislate the use of free black soldiers. The governor was authorized to enroll those between the ages of fifteen and fifty, to be paid $18 a month and the same rations and clothing as white soldiers; the black men appeared in two black regiments in Memphis by September.
Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia, Ervin L. Jordan, Jr., (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1995) pp. 218-219
Citing the official US Census of 1830, there were 3,775 free blacks who owned 12,740 black slaves. Furthermore, the story outlines the history of slavery here, and the first slave owner, the Father of American slavery, was Mr Anthony Johnson, of Northampton, Virginia. His slave was John Casor, the first slave for life. Both were black Africans. The story is very readable, and outlines cases of free black women owning their husbands, free black parents selling their children into slavery to white owners, and absentee free black slave owners, who leased their slaves to plantation owners.
-"Selling Poor Steven", American Heritage Magazine, Feb/Mar 1993 (Vol. 441) p 90
Of course, a full telling of Black History would not be complete without a telling of the origin of slavery in the Virginia colony:
Virginia, Guide to The Old Dominion, WPA Writers' Program, Oxford University Press, NY, 1940, p. 378
"In 1650 there were only 300 negroes in Virginia, about one percent of the population. They weren't slaves any more than the approximately 4,000 white indentured servants working out their loans for passage money to Virginia, and who were granted 50 acres each when freed from their indentures, so they could raise their own tobacco.
Slavery was established in 1654 when Anthony Johnson, Northampton County, convinced the court that he was entitled to the lifetime services of John Casor, a negro. This was the first judicial approval of life servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
But who was Anthony Johnson, winner of this epoch-making decision? Anthony Johnson was a negro himself, one of the original 20 brought to Jamestown (1619) and 'sold' to the colonists. By 1623 he had earned his freedom and by 1651, was prosperous enough to import five 'servants' of his own, for which he received a grant of 250 acres as 'headrights.'
Anthony Johnson ought to be in a 'Book of Firsts.' As the most ambitious of the first 20, he could have been the first negro to set foot on Virginia soil. He was Virginia's first free negro and first to establish a negro community, first negro landowner, first negro slave owner and as the first, white or black, to secure slave status for a servant, he was actually the founder of slavery in Virginia. A remarkable man." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/johnson.html
I found the reference, out of Michael A. Hoffman II's "They Were White and They Were Slaves: The Untold History of the Enslavement of Whites in Early America" : Joseph Cinque was himself a slave trader, selling his fellow blacks into this horror after he himself was set free by a US court.
Amistad producer Debbie Allen calls this destabilizing fact a "rumor." She'd better. If the thinking public, black and white, discover that "noble" Cinque later sold his own people in the very manner he condemned, then there will be a second mutiny, this time against Spielberg and his shameless hoaxing.
Here is Samuel Eliot Morrison, one of the most distinguished of American historians, writing in his "Oxford History of the American People,"
(New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1965), p. 520:
"The most famous case involving slavery, until eclipsed by Dred Scott's, was that of the Amistad in 1839. She was a Spanish slave ship carrying 53 newly imported Negroes who were being moved from Havana to another Cuban port. Under the leadership of an upstanding Negro named Cinqué, they mutinied and killed captain and crew. Then, ignorant of navigation, they had to rely on a white man whom they had spared to sail the ship.
"He stealthily steered north, the Amistad was picked up off Long Island by a United States warship, taken into New Haven, and with her cargo placed in charge of the federal marshal. Then what a legal hassle! Spain demanded that the slaves be given up to be tried for piracy, and President Van Buren attempted to do so but did not quite dare.
"Lewis Tappan and Roger Sherman Baldwin, a Connecticut abolitionist, undertook to free them by legal process, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. John Quincy Adams, persuaded to act as their attorney, argued that the Negroes be freed, on the ground that the slave trade was illegal both by American and Spanish law, and that mankind had a natural right to freedom.
"The court with a majority of Southerners, was so impressed by the old statesman's eloquence that it ordered Cinqué and the other Negroes set free, and they were returned to Africa. The ironic epilogue is that Cinqué, once home, set himself up as a slave trader."
(End quotation from historian Samuel Eliot Morrison)
BLACK SLAVEOWNERS
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm
Child slavery today in West Africa?
http://gbgm-umc.org/nwo/99ja/child.html
Slavery throughout historyhttp://www.freetheslaves.net/slavery_today/slavery.html
"To pursue the concept of racial entitlement--even for the most admirable and benign of purposes--is to reinforce and preserve for future mischief the way of thinking that produced race slavery, race privilege and race hatred. In the eyes of government, we are just one race here. It is American."
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take it away from those who are willing to work and give it to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
Perhaps the group that had the strongest vested interest in seeing the South victorious were the black slaveowners. In 1830 approximately 1,556 black slaveowners in the deep South owned 7,188 slaves. About 25% of all free blacks owned slaves. A few of these were men who purchased their family members to protect or free them, but most were people who saw slavery as the best way to economic wealth and independence for themselves. The American dream in the antebellum South was just as powerful for free blacks as whites and it included the use of slaves for self-improvement. They bought and sold slaves for profit and exploited their labor just like their white counterparts.
Richard Rollins
After their capture one group of white Virginia slave owners and Afro-Virginians were asked if they would take the oath of allegiance to the United States in exchange for their freedom. One free negro indignantly replied: "I can't take no such oaf as dat. I'm a secesh nigger." A slave from this same group, upon learning that his master had refused, proudly exclaimed, "I can't take no oath dat Massa won't take." A second slave agreed: "I ain't going out here on no dishonorable terms." On another occasion a captured Virginia planter took the oath, but slave remained faithful to the Confederacy and refused. This slave returned to Virginia by a flag of truce boat and expressed disgust at his owner's disloyalty: "Massa had no principles." Confederate prisoners of war paid tribute to the loyalty, ingenuity, and diligence of "kind-hearted" blacks who attended to their needs and considered them fellow Southerners.
Ervin L. Jordan, Jr.
In the 1840's or 50's there was a black doctor who lived near New Orleans who was the most sought after doctor in the South. He was also a big plantation owner. Then again that area of Louisiana and Mississippi was different from the rest of the south. There was a small section in Mississippi that attempted not to be part of secession but they were put down by force of arms from the South. It was a mixture of blacks, whites and Indians. The "Gone With the Wind" South was a figment of the imagination. Even though the movie is now banned, "The Song of the South" probably shows a more accurate representation of how life was on a more humane plantation. Also the sequel to "Roots", the one that showed the where the great grand mother came from, was probably fairly accurate also. "Roots" was not very accurate. We can never forget George Washington Carver, he came from somewhere.
That quotation shows that Trollope had no understanding of the strength of that "meager political union", the United States Constitution.
This insurrection showed the wisdom of the Founders in writing that document and the dire need for a stronger government than provided by the Articles. Thanks James, Alex, Georgie, Jimmie and the rest of the boys.
When I was a kid in S Arkansas I remember seeing SoS and it having a tremendous impact on my emotions and it had one of the greatest movie songs ever, Zippity Do Da. I also greatly enjoyed The Little Colonel.
GWC was born in SW Missouri and was adopted for all practical purposes by a white family.
Border States were not part of the Slaver political empire and did not share its cultural void. They remained part of the Union.
Again I do not consider the educational potential the same from one college to another. Neither do authorities on this issue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.