Understanding Slavery

[Dr. Bob]

Throughout the horrors of Reconstruction forced by the North upon their "brothers", the term "yankeescum" was ONE WORD. It described the men in blue.

They had worse single terms for the black Federals who were sent south to occupy the conquered lands.

My comments about treating slaves like we would treat horses should be self-evident. SOME would abuse the animals, underfeed them, whip them, overwork them. SOME slave holders did the same, which, of course, I condemn.

As for cost, a working man in 1850-60 would earn $12-15 a month. So $500 for a slave would be equivalent of 3 years wages. BTW, only a great race horse would cost that much.

And a reminder: 95% of the CSA soldiers never owned a slave. They were NOT fighting for slaves.

Hope that clearifies.

 

[Tazman]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Boy, talk about hard headed and totally brainwashed. No wonder we have the terrible federal bureaucracy we have today because we lost the Second War of Independence.

It's like you can teach and teach and teach and the light never comes on.


BTW, 19 out of 20 soldiers in the CSA came from families that NEVER OWNED A SLAVE.

It's not about slavery. How 'bout we move on to slavery in Somalia and China and the Gulag instead of fussing about 150 year old news.

"It's like you can teach and teach and teach and the light never comes on."

This is funny, because you can also guid towards the light and never share in it too.

You teach, but don't learn. Why move on with the present if you haven't learned from the past. Your bound to repeat it. Even the bible is based on the past, present and future. All matters.

Slavery goes far beyond race and social standings. Wars are always about freedom. The freedom to control or the freedom to be controled. In the end its all the same.

 

[rlvaughn]

In the process of looking for something else, I ran across this interesting piece of slavery/emancipation history:

The following amendment to the Constitution relating to slavery was proposed by the 2d session of the Thirty-sixth Congress on March 2, 1861, when it passed the Senate, having previously passed the House on February 28, 1861. It is interesting to note in this connection that this is the only proposed (and not ratified) amendment to the Constitution to have been signed by the President. The President's signature is considered unnecessary because of the constitutional provision that on the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress the proposal shall be submitted to the States for ratification.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

"Article Thirteen

"No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amendnotrat.html

 

[Frogman]

Thanks Brother Vaughn that was a very interesting read.

Dallas

 

[rlvaughn]

To understand how states dealt with gradual emancipation, consider Pennsylvania's Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery. For example:

That all persons, as well Negroes and Mulattoes as others, who shall be born within this state from and after the passing of this act, shall not be deemed and considered as servants for life, or slaves; and that all servitude for life, or slavery of children, in consequence of the slavery of their mothers, in the case of all children born within this state, from and after the passing of this act as aforesaid, shall be, and hereby is utterly taken away...Provided always, and be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That every Negro and Mulatto child born within this state after the passing of this act as aforesaid (who would, in case this act had not been made, have been born a servant for years, or life, or a slave) shall be deemed to be and shall be by virtue of this act the servant of such person or his or her assigns, who would in such case have been entitled to the service of such child, until such child shall attain unto the age of twenty eight years, in the manner and on the conditions whereon servants bound by indenture for four years are or may be retained and holder...

The gradual emancipation act in New Jersey was somewhat different, coming about 25 years later:

Under the terms of the "gradual emancipation act," females born of slave parents after July 4, 1804, would be free upon reaching 21 years of age, and males upon reaching 25...In 1846 the state passed its second major emancipation law, which formally outlawed slavery. While the law outlawed slavery, it didn’t protect all slaves. Under the act, all black children born after the act’s passage were free, but those blacks were to be “apprentices” for life. The act did offer former slaves greater legal protection; they could sue for their freedom if abused or mistreated and they could not be sold without written consent. This act was eventually superceded in 1865 by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which abolished slavery nationally. - www.phillyburbs.com/undergroundrailroad/NJabolition.shtml

Although the state was free of slavery by the elections of 1860, New Jersey leaned towards Southern sentiment. New Jersey supported the doctrine of state’s rights and believed the emancipation of slaves would cause freed African Americans to flood the state, competing with whites for employment. The state was firmly under Democratic control in 1860 and 1864, and Abraham Lincoln did not carry New Jersey in either election. - ibid.

I have found a discrepancy from information in my Tidbits post above (about 6 before this one), concerning emancipation in Rhode Island. While my encyclopedia gave 1774, other sources say that in 1784, the Rhode Island General Assembly passed a Negro Emancipation Act, freeing the children of slaves when the men became 21 and the women 18. But there was some type of legislation against slavery in Rhode Island passed as early as 1652, according to some sources.