Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

AlterNet: If You Think the Civil War Ever Ended, Think Again

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 07:21 AM
Original message
AlterNet: If You Think the Civil War Ever Ended, Think Again
AlterNet / By Adele Stan

If You Think the Civil War Ever Ended, Think Again
But the larger issue is the notion that a Confederate History Month should be celebrated at all, with or without an overt mention of slavery.

April 8, 2010 |


When I first moved to Washington, D.C., I had hardly a stick of furniture, so I boarded a bus to take me to the nearest Ikea, which was in a Virginia mall. Quite unfamiliar with the territory, I watched out the window with curiosity as the bus traveled along the chain-store lined route.

Soon I noticed we were traveling along a road called the Jefferson Davis Highway. I was stunned, and a bit sick to my stomach. How could it be that a highway was named after a man who made war against the United States, all so the citizens of his region could continue to hold human beings in chains? All so slave masters could continue to rape the women they claimed to own. The children of these unions were usually enslaved by their own fathers, often acting as servants to their white half-brothers and -sisters.

That throughout a significant swath of the nation, men who committed treason for the sake of maintaining chattel slavery are lauded as heroes speaks to a terrible illness in the American psyche -- one that continues to fester 145 years after the last shot was fired in the War Between the States.

African-Americans know that the Civil War never ended: as the descendants of the slaves freed by the war's outcome, they've been subjected to continuous stream of terrorism and discrimination, whether they live in the South or the North. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/news/146366/if_you_think_the_civil_war_ever_ended%2C_think_again



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
YOY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
1. Oh but the war wasn't really about slavery!
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Syrinx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
2. there were no slaves in the north, right?
Edited on Fri Apr-09-10 07:28 AM by Syrinx
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
d_r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. from alabama
you consider Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware to be "North." From, say, Ohio or New York or Michigan, etc., you don't. Those states were below the Mason-Dixon line and slavery was legal. But they didn't try to rebel and leave the Union over it. Well, not all of Kentucky anyway. So some consider them the "North" because they didn't leave union.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
happyslug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Except for DE, MD, MO and KY (and less then a handful in NJ) there were no slaves
Edited on Fri Apr-09-10 09:25 AM by happyslug
As to New Jersey, it was a handful (less then 10) that were of old age and under the New Jersey abolishment act of 1808 remained slaves more to make sure they did NOT become public charges then anything else (Such slow abolishment was typical of the older northern States, for example Pennsylvania abolished slavery about ten years before New Jersey but you could remain a slave till 1848 (Through no records exist of slaves remaining slaves that long in Pennsylvania). New Jersey was the last state to have ANY slaves north of the Mason Dixon line and then by 1860 where just a handful.

As to Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and the rest of the "Old Northwest" slavery had been made illegal under the Northwest ordinance of 1783, thus those states never had slaves.

As to the "Border states" i.e. those states with slaves that did NOT secede in 1861, these states were divided internally and thus no majority of the population ever wanted to secede. Legislatures would want to secede, for example Maryland (MD), but the Governor refused to leave it sit and then called it into session in Frederick instead of Annapolis for the population of Frederick opposed slavery and succession while the Population of the East Coast of Maryland (and Annapolis and Baltimore) supported succession and slavery.

Similar events occurred in Missouri (MO) and Kentucky (KY). In those two states you ended up with two sets of Legislatures, one voting to stay in the Union, the other voting to secede. Neither really had a majority of the state behind them so each action was ineffective except where troops for one side or the other appeared (The Confederate Government recognized both states as having joined the Confederacy thus the Confederate flag having 15 stars to include Missouri and Kentucky).

As to Delaware, the slave population was low and its nearest to Pennsylvania and New Jersey with their huge anti-slavery movements put to much pressure on Delaware NOT to secede that it did nothing, had slaves will the 13th amendment was passed in 1865 but stayed in the Union for the entire Civil War.

One last comment, Virginia was like Maryland, Missouri and Kentucky, had a huge internal area that was de-factor slave free, the Appalachian Mountains. The people in the Mountains also opposed succession (And this was also true in North Carolina and Tennessee). In the case of Virginia the state succeeded but then the Counties that now make up West Virginia succeeded from Virginia. Thus like Missouri and Kentucky you had two state legislature for Virginia, one in Richmond the other in Wheeling. This dual state legislature existed even after the Wheeling legislature gave permission for the Western Counties to form a New State (West Virginia). Yes, Wheeling was the capital of West Virginia AND Virginia (At least the Virginia Government recognized by the Federal Government) from 1863-1865 (After the Civil War West Virginia moved its Capital to Charleston, then Wheeling then Charleston but that is another story). Lincoln used this to had advantage, for example when the 13th amendment was proposed and sent to the States, the West Virginia Legislature Voted for it on February 3, 1865, then recessed and was called back into session as the Virginia Legislature on February 8, 1865 to vote for it. Thus Virginia approved the 13th amendment in January 1865, while Richmond was still in Rebel hands.

List of States when they Ratified the 13th amendment:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am13

Slavery was on its way out by 1783, every state in the Union had found Slaves to be an internal security hazard and the best solution was to free them, so no invader could offer them freedom to fight against the United States (Which the British did successfully). This was less true of the South then the North by 1783, but even the South was looking at abolishment. The prices of slaves hit an all time low in the 1790s do to the General Depression the US was in at that time and the cut off of trade with Europe do to the Wars of the French Revolution. Then the Cotton Gin was invented in 1795. Cotton Production took off like a wildfire throughout the South for Cotton could be exported to Britain for cash.

With the expansion of Cotton Production came the need for someone to plant and pick the Cotton and that meant Slaves. Thus after 1795 the demand for slaves expanded throughout the South (and this demand lead to importation of Slaves into the South from Africa as late as 1865, even through such trade was illegal under Federal Law after 1808). The northern most one can plant and harvest Cotton is roughly the southern border of Virgina and Kentucky (And this was the main reason these two states had a problem with succession, neither had a huge population dependent on slaves for Cotton production and thus could live without slavery much easier then the states south of them that had embraced cotton with a fever). Maryland's Slaves were tied in with the Tobacco crop along the East Coast, outside of that area Maryland had few slaves (Through my Father would always point out the old slave graveyard he learned of as a child growing up in the Mountains of Maryland and how the locals, mostly white, objected to the owner of the property slowing encroaching on the old grave yard with his plowing of his field every year).

I go into details to show that, while there were some slaves North of the North Carolina and Tennessee Borders, the vast majority of slaves were SOUTH of that boarder tending Cotton. It was these states that seceded from the Union (Virginia only did so AFTER Lincoln called for Troops to suppress the Rebellion, more to show its "Leadership" of the South AND to preserve its lucrative exporting of slaves to those Southern Cotton States then any extensive use of slaves within Virginia itself). Basically succession from the Union went in two waves, the first wave, were the state most connected to Cotton and Slavery, 12-20-1860 till 2-1-1861. The Second wave did not start till Lincoln called out for troops to suppress those states. The second wave started on 4-17-1861 and ended on 6-8-1861) with Virginia, then Arkansas, North Carolina and Tennessee. These four states that were marginally tied in with Cotton, the last two with extensive opposition to succession from the Appalachian mountain region within each state)

States in Order of Succession:
http://www.mycivilwar.com/battles/secede.htm

Yes, the further south you went the more slaves existed prior to 1865 and you can see this even in HOW the States left the union. The more slaves they had the quicker each state succeeded. As you go north, succession slowed till it died out while before you hit any free states.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Uhm, just a pet peeve, but I see it all the time, its secede, not succeed...
I know, minor quibble, sorry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. by 1860, mostly not
here are my research notes

"Of the total southern white population of 8,099,760 in 1860, only 384,000 owned slaves. Of these, 10,780 owned fifty or more. It was calculated that about 88 per cent of America's slave-owners owned twenty slaves or less." (this number does not seem to include women and children as slave owners, but still includes them as part of the total white population. Figuring 3 per family gives a total of 2,699,920, at 5 per family (one spouse and three children) it is 1,920,000 which is still only about 24%)

http://www.slavenorth.com/connecticut.htm

"Even in the early 1700s, however, direct slave imports to Connecticut were considered too few to be worth the trouble of taxing. The governor reported only 110 white and black servants in Connecticut in 1709. In 1730, the colony had a black population of 700, out of a total enumeration of 38,000.
Yet on the eve of the Revolution, Connecticut had the largest number of slaves (6,464) in New England. Jackson Turner Main, surveying Connecticut estate inventories, found that in 1700 one in 10 inventories included slaves, rising to one in 4 on the eve of the Revolution." (Note, estate inventories, would not be the entire population, only the wealthy)

"In 1784, the abolition forces in the state tried a new tactic and presented a bill for gradual emancipation as part of a general statute codifying, in great detail, race relations. Almost as an afterthought, it provided that black and mulatto children born after March 1 would become free at age 25. The strategy worked, and the bill passed without opposition. An act of 1797 reduced that age to 21, bringing slavery in line with apprenticeship, though obviously slavery was not voluntary and slaves did not receive money, clothes and professional standing at the end of their servitude.

As in other Northern states, gradual emancipation freed no slaves at once. It simply set up slavery for a long-term natural death. Connecticut finally abolished slavery entirely in 1848. The 1800 census counted 951 Connecticut slaves; the number diminished thereafter to 25 in 1830, but then inexplicably rose to 54 in the 1840 census. After that, slaves were no longer counted in censuses for the northern states."

"William Penn was granted his colony in Pennsylvania in 1681, and added Delaware to it in 1682. Though he flooded the "Holy Experiment" with Quakers whose descendants would later find their faith incompatible with slaveholding, the original Quakers had no qualms about it. Penn himself owned slaves, and used them to work his estate, Pennsbury. He wrote that he preferred them to white indentured servants, "for then a man has them while they live."

In Penn's new city of Philadelphia, African slaves were at work by 1684, and in rural Chester County by 1687. Between 1729 and 1758, Chester County had 104 slaves on 58 farms, with 70 percent of the slaveowners likely Quakers. By 1693, Africans were so numerous in the colony's capital that the Philadelphia Council complained of "the tumultuous gatherings of the Negroes in the town of Philadelphia.""

"But by 1720, a wheat-based economy had sprung up, and the good reputation of Pennsylvania in Europe was luring Scots-Irish and German immigrants, who were willing to hire on as indentured servants in exchange for passage across the Atlantic. It's estimated that half the immigrants to colonial America arrived this way, and in Pennsylvania about 58,000 Germans and 16,500 Scots-Irish sailed up the Delaware between 1727 and 1754. The Quaker farmers turned to these for work on their farms. On a relatively small farm growing grain, it was cheaper to do it this way than to own slaves.

Indentured servitude was a long-term extension of the old English one-year hire for agricultural labor. Terms ranged from 1 to 17 years (children served the longest indentures), with a typical one being 4 or 5 years. The difference between indentured servants and slaves, on a day-to-day basis, was hard to define. During that time, the worker's labor, if not the worker himself, was a commodity that could be sold or traded or inherited, on the discretion of his owner. The discipline records of the Quaker meetings cover cases of members called to account for cruelty to indentured servants, and these tales tell of servants whipped, beaten and locked up for laziness."

The surrender of slavery was a minor disruption to most Pennsylvania Quakers' lives. Slavery in Pennsylvania had died of the market economy long before Quaker morality shifted against it. Despite the spike in the 1760s, there was never enough critical mass of slaveholding in Pennsylvania to produce a slave-based agricultural economy. In 1730, about one in 11 Pennsylvanians had been slaves; by 1779 the figure was no more than one in 30. The lack of a support structure by this time prevented it from catching on, even during the peak of slave importation.

The law for gradual emancipation in Pennsylvania passed on February 1780, and that's when the Mason-Dixon line began to acquire its metaphoric meaning as the boundary between North and South. But the law was no proclamation of emancipation. It was deeply conservative. The 6,000 or so Pennsylvania slaves in 1780 stayed slaves. Even those born a few days before the passage of the act had to wait 28 years before the law set them free. This allowed their masters to recoup the cost of raising them.

The act that abolished slavery in Pennsylvania freed no slaves outright, and relics of slavery may have lingered in the state almost until the Civil War. There were 795 slaves in Pennsylvania in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 or 386 (the count was disputed) in 1830, and 64 in 1840, the last year census worksheets in the northern states included a line for "slaves." The definition of slavery seems to have blurred in the later counts. The two "slaves" counted in 1840 in Lancaster County turned out to have been freed years before, though they were still living on the properties of their former masters.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jberryhill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-09-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
4. Over? No. The South Took A 200 Year Beer Break. /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC