Tag: slavery

Categories
History

There Was No Abolition Activity in the South

chains to birds/freedom image

This was not true.

It is true that the first abolitionist, society was established in 1777 in Pennsylvania and was a Quaker institution.

Quakers, themselves, owned slaves such as the famous poet Phyllis Wheatley. According to their beliefs as pacifists, their methods were peaceful: sermons, pamphlets, and other means of gentle persuasion. Appropriately, they began with their own meetings.

Quakers lived mostly in the north, but some lived in the future Confederate States of Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, and bore witness in those states.

In 1827, Benjamin Lundy, who was a Quaker, abolitionist, and newspaper publisher, moved to Ohio and began the first abolitionist society west of the Appalachian Mountains. He went on tour and started 130 abolition societies. One hundred were in the South.

Enough said. chains to birds/freedom image

Categories
History

The North West Territory States Welcomed Blacks

North West Territory States Map

There is a huge difference between being a free state and welcoming blacks into the state.

I know most about Indiana and Ohio, so I will talk about them as examples.

It is true that all states previously part of the North West Territory were established as free states. This meant that slavery could not exist in those states.

It did not mean that blacks were welcome. You see, the overwhelming belief in the United States was that it was destined to be a country of western European Christians. Free states were meant to be rid of Indian nations and of blacks. Period.

The South needed new land because crop rotation was usually not practiced, and the Deep South land was producing less. They also believed that all land of the United States was to be a land of western European Christians, but blacks were acceptable as slaves/servants. Indian nations were not acceptable.

In the north, more and more people had never seen a black person. They were easily persuaded by stereotypes of animal behavior and intelligence. Indiana set a head tax on blacks entering the state of $300 in gold. That’s three years wages for a white laborer. It was impossible for a free black.

Many immigrants came from political states that had slavery, which, in fact, was almost all of the world. Most of the immigrants entered through New England harbors.

Indiana and Ohio shared the Ohio River with slave states. Indiana was settled by an influx of Kentuckians, with only a relatively few immigrants coming through the Great Lakes. Ohio was also impacted from the south, but also from the east.

Indiana was not happy that blacks from Kentucky ravished the local and state coffers. Bad masters sent unwanted slaves across the Ohio River and dumped them: the old, the ill, the disabled. Indiana had to pick up the tab.

And then when Kentucky masters moved to the state, there was the cost of court cases. Although there were few, it still angered the state capital of Corydon, located in southern Indiana. Even when the black person won freedom, it was another black person, now free, in Indiana. Poor whites saw that as competition for their jobs because blacks were paid less for the same work.

Categories
History

There Were No Slaves in the “Northern States”

American Civil War 1864 Map

By northern states, I mean states loyal to the United States of America during the Civil War. The answer is yes, there were slaves in the North. In fact, there were more than 450,000 in 1860. Eight northern states and Washington DC practiced slavery while the seven confederate states did so.

The reason was that the states each chose their path toward abolition, and each plan progressed at its own rate. It was much easier for many northern states because their land did not lend itself to plantations, and by the time of the Civil War, all tobacco and cotton plantations had moved to the south. The North could deal with the economic effects much easier than the South. Still, even while progressing on a plan, some states, such as Delaware, had not legally declared abolition of their slaves.

The South knew that abolition was coming, but its path was much more difficult economically. Still, the number of plantation owners was quite small compared to the overall population—but those were the people in the legislature.

As the South continued to look for a path out of slavery, the Civil War erupted and slavery was, of necessity, tabled because of the overall need for defense measures.

Meanwhile, the North’s virtue signaling intensified through the Abolitionists who did not take the North-South differences into consideration and demanded immediate abolition everywhere, although the South was elected to play the bogey-man.

Categories
History

Slaves Had No Protection against Cruelty

gavel

First, the accusation of cruelty to slaves is greatly overemphasized. Even in Uncle Tom’s Cabin there are kind masters and cruel masters. One of the best things in the DVD series North and South, in my opinion, is that it pointed out that cruel masters were cruel men—to everyone in their dominion, and that the North had its share of cruel masters in its industries.

Legally, every southern state had anti-cruelty laws to protect slaves (“servants”) by the early 1800s. Cruelty included abridgement of rights. Rights listed in these laws included:

  1. the right to marry
  2. the right to sue another and to give evidence in certain cases
  3. the right to have days off
  4. the right to hire themselves out
  5. the right to receive care from these temporary masters as from a permanent master
  6. the right to write up and sign their own work contracts
  7. the right to practice and receive religious instruction
  8. the right to receive food, clothing, shelter, and a small piece of land adjacent to the cabin to grow their own crops
  9. the right to receive care in times of illness, disability, and childbirth
  10. the right to child care until the child is old enough to work
  11. the right to be cared for in old age until death.

Please understand that these are laws and had to be popular enough to pass when voted on. Remember that until the Nat Turner Rebellion, black people were not only allowed but encouraged to read and write, as well as learn skills and professions that were open to them.

Were these laws enforced? Yes. There are records of warnings, fines, time served in jail, and one white person was shot! (I don’t know if he resisted arrest or was executed.)

I have to admit there were difficulties in enforcement, however. The idea that “a man’s home is his castle” was strong in the South, so neighbors did not interfere unless the cruelty was horrendous. Next, some plantations were as large as a European country and some were far from officers of the law. It would almost take an inspection—which was illegal without a complaint—to gather enough evidence against a white man to arrest him.

Do you see what is missing? I have not discovered anti-cruelty laws in northern slave states or Washington (D.C.).  And why do we hear no screams of protest against cruel slave masters in the north? It stretches credibility that they were all kind.

Categories
History

The United States Wallowed in the Slave Trade Longer Than Other Nations

colonial illustration

We had stated the belief that “all men are created equal.” After that, the Revolutionary War took all of our efforts. In 1782-1790, a wave of voluntary emancipation swept the states, but this was only encouraged by conscience, not law.

In 1794, the United States was the first country in the world to pass a law that impeded the slave trade. The building and outfitting of slave ships in American harbors was outlawed.

Yes, I know. This is a far cry from the emancipation of all slaves. But remember that gradual movement toward emancipation was by far the preference of the American people.

This law ended slavery for no one, but it immediately impacted the slave trade itself. American harbors were closed to building and outfitting slave vessels.

This immediately cut the demand for slaves in Africa, where slavery had increased exponentially because of foreign demand. It also cut American cruelty during the middle passage.

The only Americans who continued the trade had to buy and outfit ships in other harbors, which was an extreme nuisance. The American slave trade was almost erased without making slavery itself illegal.

What were other results within the United States?

Southern states were fine with the law. As would be seen in later years, there were plenty of slaves already in the South to procreate more for future needs.

New Englanders who were involved in the slave trade were screaming. They had been making fortunes in the slave trade: building and outfitting slave ships then running the slave trade in those ships. However, most New Englanders were not in the slave trade and approved the law.

Categories
History

Reconstruction Was the First Plan to Solve the “Negro Problem”

road to the future

Wrong again.

What to do about slavery and the resulting free Negroes was never far from the minds of the public and politicians.

Fernando Fairfax, a prominent Virginian, was the first known individual to write a proposal. It was called the “Plan for liberating the negroes within the united states.” (Notice the capitalization choices.) It is dated “Richmond March 6, 1790.” The text can be found in Encyclopedia Virginia.

Fairfax first reviews the arguments.

Pro-emancipation friends claim their basis on natural right and justice, considering this claim “paramount” to all other considerations. (This will be the stand of abolitionists of the Civil War era.)

The other party agrees with the claim of natural right and justice, but insists on a cohesive policy that also considers “the inconveniences which would result to the community and to the slaves themselves.” These included the right to property legally obtained at the time of purchase.

And in this explanation, we see the conflict of liberal and conservative thinking that continues today.

Liberals see in black and white, and can therefore demand something be done immediately. The results are always “unintended consequences.” Conservatives see in color, considering all shades of the problem. Therefore, they proceed slowly and often offer step by step solutions. They rarely see unintended consequences, because they have foreseen outcomes.

This is why our best government is when liberals and conservatives actually talk to each other. But liberals have no time for thoughtful consideration. They live in the present.

Fairfax next says that the general opinion is for gradual emancipation. So, there are few who agree that slavery should exist perpetually. As a conservative, Fairfax points out the unfairness and illegality of taking a person’s property by force or legislation. Therefore, the states would be required to reimburse the owners. We know that the states, at this point in time, were still struggling with debt incurred by the Revolutionary War and could not reimburse immediate emancipation.

Fairfax says that “it is equally agreed, that, if they be emancipated, it would never do to allow them all the privileges of citizens: they would therefore form a separate interest from the rest of the community.”

Fairfax provides no proof for that statement. He has not explored this from the black point of view at all.

He also states that the one thing that could form a common community would be intermarriage between whites and blacks. He asks which owner, upon freeing a male slave, would allow his daughter to marry that man.

This is faulty logic, but it does show white thinking that would exist in many places well into the 1960s. To Fairfax, this is the final determinant in his argument.

The Fairfax plan is gradually to emancipate slaves, first on a voluntary basis and then, as the states become financially secure, by reimbursement to the owners. All former slaves would be exported to a colony in Africa, to be governed by whites until the blacks show the educated ability to rule themselves thanks to schools established for that purpose.

Fairfax then repulses the argument that England tried this and failed by insisting that the plan did not accomplish the policy. From what Fairfax says, England failed because the slaves were not required to operate within a capitalistic society. What we know as a socialistic society failed, just as it did in the initial years at Jamestown, according to Fairfax.

This plan would actually remain the most popular choice among whites all the way to the Civil War and would be the personal opinion of Abraham Lincoln, as he stated himself on a number of occasions.

https://encyclopediavirgina.org/primary-documents/ferdinando-fairfax-plan-for-liberating-the negroes-within-the-united-states-december-1-1790

Categories
History

First Federal Intervention with Slavery was the Mason-Dixon Line

Midwest US map

It began long before that. The New England states were, as usual, flexing their power muscles.

The first federal intervention was the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 that established the new territory located northwest of the Ohio Rivers. It established the admission protocol for future states. It addressed the slavery issue by declaring the Territory as free; however a fugitive slave law was also included.

This sounds like a good compromise on paper, but the South was not happy.

The federal government had, for the first time, addressed the slavery question instead of leaving it to the people. This was against the US Constitution’s limitation of powers, as the South saw it.

It also did not like the fugitive slave law. It set a bad precedent.

Most insidious of all, this established a way for New England to expand its power base because all of the future states were already proclaimed free. Future federal senators and representatives of the states would vote with New England.

Categories
History

Emancipation Proclamation was First Large-Scale Emancipation

breakikng chains overhead

That is another lie.

The first large-scale emancipation occurred 1782-1790. It didn’t take a constitutional amendment or federal intervention by a proclamation or a law. Each slave was manumitted by his or her owner without coercion. It was the result of promises to revolutionary veterans, the US Constitution, personal ethics, and state laws.

In 1776, the population of the new United States of America was 2.5 million. More than 500,000 blacks were part of that population, including about 450,000 slaves.

In 1782, Virginia led the charge with the 1782 Manumission Act, which allowed owners to free slaves by will or deed. In contrast, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey implemented gradual emancipation. Notice that each state chose its own course.

Gradual emancipation allowed the development of economic knowledge and work skill mastery that would enable the slave to make a decent living without oversight. Thus, for owners taking advantage of this, they would continue to make income from the slave in the meantime and allow owners to adjust economic realities to a free workforce.

The wave of emancipation ended in 1790. In that census, there were 59,000 free blacks in the United States. Of that, Virginia freed at least 20,000.

Categories
History

The Constitution and the 3/5 Clause

flag next to we the people parchment

The Article of Confederation did not work well. Congress had the power to make rules. However, it had no power to demand funds (only request) from the states. It had no enforcement power and could not regulate commerce or print money.

In May 1787, through the hot summer, and until September 17, rancorous arguments erupted about nearly everything within the shuttered windows of the State House. With delegates sworn to secrecy, the citizens of the new republic waited for news. European nations waited for the collapse of the American experimental government.

What emerged was a document so radical that it was not sent to the state legislatures to ratify, because it required states to give up some of their power, and that never would have passed. Instead, special ratifying conventions were convened in each state. Even then, only 6 states were willing to ratify it. Massachusetts, the last state needed, agreed to ratify the Constitution only with the agreement that it would be amended later. It was with the Bill of Rights.

Some changes were a stronger central government which could regulate commerce, print money, and enforce their laws. It was limited strictly to the list of powers within the Constitution. All branches of the government were equal and ways to balance this were described. The election to congress was a balance between democracy (the House was elected directly by the people) and a republic (senators were nominated by state legislature!)

The argument that is still talked about today, was the disagreement regarding how many House representatives each state should have. The constitution stated one representative for every 30,000 people. The term “people” had been used throughout the Constitution, but in this instance, it translated directly into POWER. Southern states, as can be seen in the excised Jeffersonian section, held the world understanding that, of course, slaves were also “people of the United States.” (Notice, the Constitution does not say Citizens of the United States anywhere except for the members of the central government.) Northerners, determined to limit southern power, refused to count slaves in the assignment of representatives.

The final compromise was to count each slave as 3/5 of a person—but note that it was the northern states that denied personhood to slaves.

That is not what we have been taught.

Categories
History

Articles of Confederation and Slavery

Drafting Articles of Confederation Stamp

The Articles of Confederation enacted in 1777 was the first attempt at a document of self-governance. The federal government would prove to be too weak to be effective.

Today, we can see it in the function (or dysfunction) of the United Nations. Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

For our discussion on slavery and the Civil War, the most important point of this document is the choosing of the word “state.”

Why did the representatives endorse the use of “state?” Why not province? Or county? Or parish?

Because “state” relates to an independent power, a nation.

The United States of America could be rendered the United Nations of America. This was a political union of nations primarily for defense and diplomacy. There is no mention of slavery.

It is the definition of “state” that underlies the entire “states’ rights” conversation.