Tag: slavery

Categories
History

Darwin Had Nothing to Do with the Civil War

evolution illustration

Darwin sailed on the Beagle in 1831. He subsequently would organize his findings into the Evolutionary Theory in 1838. Publication of The Origin of Species in 1858 was immediately sold out, indicating that there was enormous interest and discussion around it. Plus, it was condemned by the Christian church, both Protestant and Catholic.

The vaunted (and overstated) closeness between man and ape in Darwin’s theory was immediately used to “prove” the “scientific basis” for slavery.

It was argued that because everything—including humans—continued to evolve, it was logical that the three races (oriental, occidental, and negroid) occupied different points on the evolutionary journey.

It was further argued that by simple observation, it was obvious that the order of evolution was occidental (white) as the most evolved, then the oriental race. The negroid race was clearly the least developed and in need of direction and supervision until it was ready to “join the human race.”

Realize that this was the belief of the great majority of Americans, north and south. The blacks were not yet quite human. They were closer to apes than to white people.

Thus, science was added to the Bible, whose note that “Ham shall serve his brothers” was interpreted as a command instead of a statement of fact, to build a case for slavery of the black population.

Categories
History

Mormonism Had Nothing to do with the Civil War

In March 1830, the Book of Mormon was published in Palmyra, New York. In April, the Church of Latter Day Saints was organized. Are you surprised that Mormonism began in New England?

To begin in New England was to receive maximum attention immediately. It was well covered in newspapers and church property.

For the newspapers, it was juicy because of its command to practice polygamy and the equally juicy blazing condemnation of heresy from every denomination. Ecumenism at last! At least on this topic. And that meant a huge increase in the number of newspaper copies sold.

But what does Mormonism have to do with the Civil War? The connection is indirect.

Throughout the flood of articles and books covering Mormonism and specifically polygamy (including a 1000 page tome in my personal library!) is the correlation drawn between polygamy and slavery, in that people simply could not understand how any red-blooded American girl would participate in polygamy without being forced into it by the men.

The next step was when early women’s rights advocates loudly proclaimed that polygamy was not unique. It was only one way that women in America were enslaved to the men in their lives under an unjust system of laws which were created, voted on, and enforced by men.

And with the repeated word of “slavery” as related to women, the connection to Negro slavery was unavoidable. Activists of all stripes: social, political, and journalistic congealed around the expanded use of the word slavery.

Categories
History

The Civil War Began at Fort Sumter

Trade: Deal / War

This is one of many lies by omission. True historians admit that there are many candidates for the title, depending on what is meant by “began the Civil War.”

Here are the biggest three: Northerners often blamed it on the secession of South Carolina, arguing that without the secession, the re-supply of Fort Sumter would not have been an issue.

The Lincoln Administration pushed the CSA firing on Fort Sumter as the beginning of the war.

But the South has a longer memory. It point to the beginning of abuse of the Constitution by what it called the Treaty of Abominations.

Realize that in 1828, the south controlled the majority of imports and exports because they grew crops valued by the world: tobacco and, first and foremost, cotton. The north struggled with imports and exports, especially after the law against the slave trade. Their lands were not optimal for growing those prize crops.

Another factor is the enormous influence of New Englanders with their wealth and their connections socially, industrially, and politically.

So what’s in the 1828 Treaty of Abominations, and why did it upset southerners?

It’s actually called the Treaty of 1828. It was the South that called it the Treaty of Abominations. The new country had imposed tariffs previously to pay down the national debt of the Revolutionary War. But there were three important differences in this treaty:

1. There was no stated common purpose for the tariff.

2. The amount of this tariff went as high as 50% to protect New England’s industries.

3. The tariff did not benefit all of the states. The federal government represented all of the states. Its policies should have been good for all. But this treaty was good for the New England and Mid-Atlantic states at the expense of the Southern economy.

The South had direct economic ties to Great Britain. Tobacco and cotton were extremely popular products. However, as the prices went up with the Tariff of 1828, demand dropped.

Also, the south was trying to increase mechanization. Machines were bought from Britain because New England could not compete in free trade. It was easier for the South to trade tobacco and cotton directly with Britain for machinery and other manufactured goods.

With the tariff, the prices were so high that the South could not purchase the machines it needed, extending the need for slave labor as an economic necessity beyond expectations.

The result of the Treaty of 1828 was an explosion across the South. Although the percentages of the tariffs were lowered in the next tariff act, one following it reintroduced high rates.

Results included South Carolina’s first stab at secession. (She was not the first to do so. Massachusetts and other states had also explored this option for various reasons. No one had been upset about those threats.)

The doctrine of Nullification, propounded by Vice President Calhoun, lit the explosion. The Nullification Doctrine stated that if the federal government could annul state laws that infringed on constitutionally named responsibilities, then states could nullify federal laws that applied to areas not ceded to the federal government by the Constitution.

South Carolina nullified the 1828 treaty and the following one. In 1833, the treaty with lowered tariff rates was passed and also the Force Act empowering the President to collect tariffs by force, if necessary. South Carolina removed the nullification acts on the earlier treaties, since the new rates were now acceptable, then nullified the Force Act.

There is a theory that all wars begin with money, or in a wider sense wealth including land. In the Southern point of view, this was true of the Civil War.

Categories
History

States’ Rights was used to bolster Slavery

Thomas Jefferson: Father of States' Rights
Thomas Jefferson: Father of States’ Rights

States’ Rights was much larger than the issue of slavery. From the earliest years of the country, politicians had separated into two camps: Jefferson and States’ Rights vs. Hamilton and Federalism (supremacy of a national government).

As we saw in an earlier blog post, the United States was established under states’ rights. This was logical because a state is an independent political entity. It is not part of a country, because it is one.
These arguments continued into the antebellum years. For instance, a great congressional debate in 1830 on the subject was argued by the great orator Webster from Massachusetts and the congressman from South Carolina. It’s remembered not for content as much as the oratory skill of Webster.

What I am saying is that States’ Rights is the overall argument, as the Confederacy declared. Slavery was only one policy in the disagreement.

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