Posted on 10/11/2015 10:08:23 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
Not that it’s any of your business, but I served 11 years in the armed forces; my father and grandfather fought and were wounded in world wars under the US flag, and I lost ancestors on both sides of the conflict in the War for Southern Independence, so I couldn’t care less whether I pass muster with you in terms of patriotism.
None of which changes the facts about that war. If you want to believe that the evil Confederacy fought to preserve slavery, and the Union fought for the noble cause of freeing the slaves, then knock yourself out. However, when you classify those who defended their homeland against invading northern armies as traitors, then it’s unfortunate that we’re citizens of the same country because you’re not worthy of shining their boots.
The Union didn’t go to war to end slavery. It went to war to preserve the Union and won. The South went to war to preserve slavery and lost everything. My ancestors fought for the Union. They also fought in WW1&2, Korea and Vietnam. I wouldn’t want to shine the boots of a Confederate.
I don’t think that is right. The first constitution proposed by the legislature was rejected by voters. Male voters, BTW. The next one was actually written by one of my ancestors. It didn’t address slavery but it was used later as the basis of petitions by slaves to sue for their freedom. Another ancestor owned the last slave in Massachusetts. The last person called a slave. Quite a few slaves stayed with their former owners and were called something else in the census. Because of that Massachusetts claims to have been slave free when in fact they had slaves.
How is it you come to a conservative website if you are against states' rights?
The war of aggression was about states' rights - no matter what you were taught in northern public skools.
The only “states right” the southern slavers were interested in was the “states right” to own other human beings. It is interesting that when free northern states spoke of “states fights” to not be involved in the slave trade they were rudely denied (see Fugitive Slave Act and Scott v Sanford).
It’s hard to know what they were thinking.
The states joined with other states of their free will and believed they were free to leave if they decided to do that.
Unfortunately the southern states brought in 90% of the tariff money so the northern states - obviously - didn’t want to lose that money.
I see there's no mention of your wearing the uniform. What a surprise. /s
One of the favorite lost causer myths.
All the European nations exploited the Indians. I find it interesting that Mexico freed the slaves in 1828, but I’ve also read that slave raids into the USA continued into the late 1860s for Indians to be used as slaves on Mexican rancheros.
I don’t owe you any explanations. And if you’ve been here since 2010, you know very well that no one here “venerates” slave owners or democrats. You strike me as a troll who has managed to sneak through the wire without tripping any flares for five years. So....piss off!
Well, there is a difference without a distinction.
If it was illegal to by and sell people, it was abolished.
Don’t pick nits. It sounds like Hillary.
He also said “War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
Actually, if you go through the census records from back then, in a way you're right. After the court cases there were many blacks living in the homes of whites. They were not called slaves but that's essentially what they were. A difference without a distinction.
The government didn't want slaves emancipated because the town would have to take over their care, house and feed them. They punished homeowners who turned them out so the slaves remained in the homes but they were called something else in the census.
Remember - it was the northerners who didn't even want to count blacks as people. It was the northerners who finally compromised and allowed them to be counted as 3/5.
When it came to counting heads for representational purposes, no they didn't. And why should they? It wasn't like they were actually being represented.
Remember - it was the southerners who didn't even want to count blacks as people when it came to taxation. It was the southerners who finally compromised and allowed them to be counted as 3/5.
I don’t know what part of MA your folks come from. Mine are from the Western part of the state—the farm end of the state. Trust me, if they wanted to have slaves out here they would have. While the ground is pretty fertile, it is rocky and hilly. It would have been perfect for slave holding.
The last slave in our county was off the books before the revolution.
I guess they were just more “evolved.”
And you might want to rethink that “the town would have to take care of them” thing. The church might have tossed them a bone or two, but welfare was not a state thing back then. No workie...no eatie.
My ancestors settled around Boston and Watertown in the early 1600’s. The slave trade, which BTW was centered in Massachusetts, began later than that. I’m not familiar with the census data in the western part of the state. In the eastern part there were a lot of slaves and also many free blacks. You can find documentation in the census data and also in the old cemeteries.
A great resource is the New England Historic Genealogical Society. Also this is a good resource: http://www.americanancestors.org/index.aspx
One of the arguments against freeing the slaves really was about protecting the community. There was no welfare but the community did not want to be burdened with caring for the freed slaves. I don’t have all the references at my fingertips right now but here’s one I found on the net.
“A 1641 law linked slavery to Biblical authority[12] and created a set of rules for slaves. A 1703 law required owners to post a bond for all slaves to protect towns in the case that a slave became indigent should the master refuse to continue caring for him or her.[2]”
“The state [Massachusetts] never formally abolished slavery until the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865. Legislators were unable or unwilling to address either slave-owners’ concerns about losing their “investment”, or white citizens’ concerns that if slavery were abolished, freed slaves could become a burden on the community. Some feared that escaped slaves from elsewhere would flood the state.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Massachusetts
I look at your posts as symbols of ignorance and historical incompetence.
Lets’ bury all history of the original republic and states rights. Do it for the children. /sarc
The mythology was created by the victors that needed an excuse for killing the republic. So freeing the slaves filled the need for viable justification.
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.