Tag: slavery

Categories
History

The South Wasn’t Serious about Emancipating Their Slaves

 

Combine: developed from the McCormick Reaper
Combine: developed from the McCormick Reaper

This was a point of view that was represented without data.

Here are the facts:

  1. The South had led early emancipation efforts, especially in Virginia.
  2. The South’s money crops were cotton and tobacco.
  3. Crop rotation was known and practiced at least to a limited extent because plantations were self-sufficient, growing food for people and livestock.
  4. The cotton gin made slaves’s lives easier, and fewer were required.
  5. Now, in 1831, the first practical reaper was invented by Cyrus McCormick, who was born in Virginia. This cut time and slave effort for standing crops, such as wheat.
  6. Few people owned slaves.
  7. The South was markedly less racist than the north, as noted by many travelers, both foreign and domestic, throughout the years.

Against the facts were these issues:

  1. Although the South was less racist, it was difficult for free blacks to make a living. This had to do with paying blacks less for equal work and certain work not being available to blacks—just as in the North. Southerners felt responsible for the slaves and knew that they lacked the understanding of the enormity of the task of complete self-care. They needed to be taught these things and to be allowed to increase self-care gradually—as was being done by Northern states even into the Civil War.
  2. The plantations, where almost all slaves lived, looked rich, but the wealth was not in cash: it was in land, livestock, and slaves. Many struggled with cash flow, even taking severe economies when not extending hospitality (when it didn’t show). The plantations would not continue to exist with simultaneous loss of slave wealth plus wages required for replacing them—even with the former slaves. In that case, everyone was out of a job. Where would they go to make a living?

The answer, of course, was mechanization. But this was a slow evolution.

  1. The planter had to find money to buy a cotton gin—impossible on plantations that were already mortgaged.
  2. The workforce had to be carefully reduced. The slaves knew the hard times of free blacks. Many, especially house slaves, prided themselves on the plantation to which they belonged. So, after eliminating some positions with the cotton gin (unless the owner bought more land), it would be field hands who were sold. The positions could also be eliminated by the natural attrition of deaths.
  3. The reaper would vacate fewer positions because those crops were grown on fewer acres, but there would be some sales.
  4. But the final emancipations would need to be slaves who paid for their own freedom but chose to stay as paid employees.

That was the only way the plantations would survive. The South was willing, but it wanted to do it its own way and in its own timing—just as Northern states were doing.

All the South wanted was the state independence already allowed to the North.

 

 

Categories
History

Compensated Emancipation Was Never Tested in the Americas

pile of currency

Well, not in the United States. And not on continental North America.

In 1833, the British Parliament passed the Abolition of Slavery Act, abolishing slavery in British colonies, such as those on Caribbean islands.

It pleased no one except some hardcore abolitionists.

1. Slave owners complained that the compensation was so low that it was a bad joke. Compensation was especially inadequate to cover mortgaged estates and did not cover the costs of owners as employers of laborers during the adjustment period. This included continued costs for food, clothing, lodging, and medicine.
2. Slaves did not like that they were not immediately emancipated. Slaves more than six years of age were to work as apprentice laborers without pay as a transition to freedom in 1838. They remained tied to estates, although they could buy their freedom even over the opposition of their employer.
3. British subjects were furious that they were responsible for compensation costs of $20 million: 40% of the national budget! The debt would not be paid off until 2015!

No wonder U.S. Southerners were leery of compensated emancipation!
By the way, Britain also began factory inspections in 1833.

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

 

Categories
History

Nat Turner’s Revolt Was of Limited Importance

Nat Turner Revolt Illustration

And so it would seem by the short time it was taught in class and the small amount of space describing it in the textbook.

What I Learned

The short version is this: The slave Nat Turner, a preacher and self-proclaimed prophet, observed signs in the sky and said he experienced visions which he interpreted as calling him to eradicate slavery.

From August 21-22 in Southampton County, Virginia, he and his men killed 55 men, women, and children. Turner’s men were killed or detained within a few days. Nineteen were hanged. Twelve had their sentences commuted by the governor because of extenuating circumstances, such as their youth. Turner was captured on October 30 and hanged November 11.

The result of Turner’s actions was psychological terrorism of the local population and, to a lesser extent, to all communities with a significant number of black inhabitants. In response to Turner’s revolt, laws were passed that severely limited Negro rights.

Reviewing the Times

Everyone knew about successful events of rebellion on shipboard and in the Caribbean, one resulting in an African-American nation.

In the early 1830s, southern states were writing laws to protect slaves from misuse.

Blacks could be called as witnesses in some cases, but not to serve on juries.

Plantation owners did not expect “our people” to revolt against, much less murder, their master’s family. They counted on the slaves’ loyalty because of kind treatment. However, whites were keenly aware of how many more blacks there were, especially on plantations.

What Were the Results of Turner’s Revolt?

  1. An immediate backlash of whites killing blacks indiscriminately (about three dozen).
  2. Laws were enacted in southern states to restrict freedom of blacks.
  3. Lincoln would have known of this revolt and its failure. He was twenty-two, starting out on his own, and just dipping his toe into politics. He was born in Kentucky, lived in Indiana which was initially settled by Kentuckians, and later resided in Illinois, which territories were sympathetic to the slave states. Yet, Lincoln employed the same strategy in the Emancipation Proclamation!

Resources Available

I found very few resources, and not all of them were good.

The Confessions of Nat Turner, the Leader of the Late Insurrection in Southampton, Virginia is a written copy of Turner’s confession to the author, Gray. It is in too much detail to summarize here. Here are some questions I had:

  1. How do I know this confession was voluntary? Nat pleaded not guilty. The booklet contains a note that it is “as fully and voluntarily made to Thomas R. Gray in this prison where he [Turner] is confined, and acknowledge by him to be such when read before the Court of Southampton.” It is sealed by the Clerk of the District as deposited and “is a true copy from the record of the District Court.”
  2. Can I read the booklet for myself, and why didn’t my teacher assign the reading of this primary source? I cannot answer the second question. The booklet can be read at https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/turner/turner.html .
  3. Is there proof that the confession was read to the court? Yes. In a statement by the six justices of the peace presiding as members of the court hearing the case of Nat Turner and verified by their seals on the document, they acknowledge that and also that he said he had no defense against the death sentence besides what he had told Mr. Gray. Furthermore, James Rochelle, Clerk of the County Court, placed his seal on the above document, testifying that these men were, indeed, members of the court trying Turner.
  4. Why did Turner plead not guilty yet also acknowledge his confession in court? Turner replied that he was pleading not guilty “because I did not feel so.”
  5. How much of the confession was edited, perhaps for clarity. In an author’s note, Gray states that he “published them, with little or no variation, from his own words.” This note was also under seal. In that case, Turner is a remarkably good speaker, quite believable from a preacher.
  6. What did Gray think of Turner? Is there a bias? In the same note as above, Gray describes Turner as a “gloomy fanatic” having a “dark, bewildered, and overwrought mind.” Could it be that Turner was mentally ill during the planning and execution of the revolt?

What did the firebrand pacifist Garrison think of the Nat Turner Revolt? According to “The Agitator” article by the National Endowment of the Arts, Garrison wrote,” I do not justify the slaves in their rebellion; yet I do not condemn them, and applaud similar conduct in white men.” https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/januaryfebruary/feature/the-agitator

A History of Racial Injustice includes a short article about Nat Turner. The trial is called “rushed.” I wonder if this source is biased.

  1. Was it? One guarantee of justice is a speedy trial. Secondly, evidence had been gathered about him from all of the trial of his co-conspirators. Thirdly, Turner had confessed in detail and acknowledged the confession in court. Fourth, there were no defense witnesses to call. Fifth, when asked why he confessed and yet pled not guilty, Turner’s answer was because he did not feel guilty. It is possible to have a rapid trial that is just.
  2. “Conditions of enslavement worsened for thousands of enslaved Black people as more cruel, barbaric, and traumatizing forms of control were implemented.” Considering that laws were going on the books in southern states to prevent actual cruelty to slaves, this is a distorted statement.

“Nat Turner’s Rebellion: Horrific or Heroic?” on America’s Black Holocaust Museum is a much better article because of its frequent references. However, the wording is very biased, as well as the refusal to consider more than one option. See what you think: https://www.abhmuseum.org/nat-turners-rebellion-horrific-or-herotic

  1. Turner was literate. Why didn’t he write his own confession? Good question. Maybe he was on suicide preventions and not allowed sharp pens and pencils. Maybe it was because Turner knew he had no connections to publishers. I don’t know. Nobody asked him.
  2. Gray transcribed and published the confession because he was in debt and knew the booklet would sell. So? That does not mean it is not reliable.

“Nat Turner’s Revolt (1831) by Encyclopedia Virginia is a very good overview of the revolt, although much is from Confessions of Nat Turner. In its words, the article is sometimes biased, such as calling Turner a “self-styled” prophet, however it’s overall good. https://encyclopediavirginia.org./entries/turners-revolt-nat-1831

  1. Was there any other reason that Turner revolted? This article suggests an interesting, although unsupported, option. “In February 1831, just days before Turner approached his future conspirators, Reese’s son John W. signed a note the put Turner’s son up as collateral for a debt that he, Reese had struggled to pay.”

So, that’s what we know. What do you think is the truth?

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.