Could slavery had ended without War?

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
...when the Chief Supreme court justice Roger B Taney steped in and said what he was doing was unconstitutional Lincoln threatened him with arrest.
Lincoln never threatened Roger B Taney with arrest. Taney made those non-binding legal opinions about constitutionality years before Lincoln was even nominated.

Where do these (Lost) kinds of things (Cause) even come from?
 

O' Be Joyful

ohio hillbilly
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,491
Reaction score
3,136
Lincoln never threatened Roger B Taney with arrest. Taney made those non-binding legal opinions about constitutionality years before Lincoln was even nominated.

Where do these (Lost) kinds of things (Cause) even come from?

Lost cause myth(s).

-----------------------------------------

jgg help!, I lost my link to Taney's desk drawer pre-war opinion upon the legality of secession.
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Yes because Slavery in general was dying out. Some that argue the war was over slavery try to say that if the Confederacy had won slavery would still be around. Now they need to look back a bit further and think about how stupid that really is. Slavery was in the north and was deep into the slave trade for quite some time and they didn't have slavery forever because they didn't need it. They became industrial and more progressive so they didn't need them at least not as much but the 4 states Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware still have slavery and never seceded. The south was simply slower in development but now here it is with industry everywhere so the need for slavery is gone.
Slavery wasn't dying out in the South the price of slaves was increasing until the ACW. The US outlawed the importation of slaves in 1807 so no the North was not in any way " knee deep in the slave trade". Yes there was some slave smuggling but that doesn't mean all Northeners were slave smugglers just like not all people living in South Florida were snuggling cocaine in the 1980s.
Kirk's Raiders
 

Kirk's Raider's

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
2,251
Reaction score
922
Sure as heck without feeding and sex, there would be no slaves to f
Starving slaves are useless and female slaves need to be well feed enough to bare children so not sure what your point is.
Kirk's Raiders
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Baring evidence of the supernatural gift of prophecy, the secessions could not predict the future and they could have predicted the future they'd either no seceded or won.

The rest of the alleged Lincoln actions never happened.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Starving slaves are useless and female slaves need to be well feed enough to bare children so not sure what your point is.
Kirk's Raiders
If you have no causality other than just because for your theories, I have the same right to suggest other theories with other casualties.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
All you've done is say lost cause this lost cause that and it's right there in front of you in Arizona and Arkansas so what do you have to say to both ?
I say neither amounts to anything. Arizona was a territory not a state and Arkansas was last in and as the last seceder could write anything it wanted. Like I said look at the ordinances of the deep south states that went out first - slavery is numero uno in every one. If these states hadn't seceded already, Arkansas would never have seceded on its own. All the states that seceded did so because of slavery and only slavery. No other issue was of any importance. And the lost cause is real. The first guy to write about it was a Richmond newspaper guy named Pollard and he titled his book The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates. That's how it got its name. Read more books - lots more. Educate yourself. If you're smart you'll get it eventually.
 

5fish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
10,626
Reaction score
4,544
Arkansas articles of secession and it sums up
You just beating beating the wrong bush...

Arkansas secede because Lincoln called out the troops. The state most likely would not have seceded except for that act. It is the same act that cause Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee to secede. Arizona was not a state and they just wanted to be protected form the Native Americans and the mining interest wanted slaves.

Here is a link to the summary of Arkansas secession convention the first ended with nothing done...

https://digitalheritage.arkansas.gov/finding-aids/10/
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Arkansas secede because Lincoln called out the troops. The state most likely would not have seceded except for that act. It is the same act that cause Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee to secede.
With a war coming, folks had to figure out which side to join. Arkansas joined the slavery side.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
?? The Slave South was not amenable to selling their slaves off for cash, and especially not at the behest of a recently-empowered Republican congress and President. In fact Lincoln, and certain other representatives in U.S. Congress (both parties) had several times proposed the solution of compensating slave owners for their slaves. It never went anywhere because the potential sellers were not selling.

Northerns, Lincoln included (even though born a Kentuckian) generally tended to be quite naive about white Southern culture (and black Southern culture for that matter). After all, most Northerns hadn't experienced a slavery system for decades -- it was something their g- and gg-grandparents had dabbled in, and even then nowhere near the extent of the chattel slavery system that had evolved in the Southern tier.
Good point, slavery divided the US into 2 civilizations, one based on free labor and one on slave labor, and a lot of social differences along with economic and religious existed.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Lincoln never threatened Roger B Taney with arrest. Taney made those non-binding legal opinions about constitutionality years before Lincoln was even nominated.

Where do these (Lost) kinds of things (Cause) even come from?
Taney was a staunch Unionist. He however had doubts about the constitutionality of Lincoln's wartime powers. The closest he came to supporting secession was that secession was unconstitutional, but the Federal Government had no power to interfere. I don't know anyone of the time that disagreed. It was not secession that brought on the Civil War but the attack on Fort Sumter. Once a hot war starts with an attack on the United States, hell is coming for breakfast.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Assuming that Lincoln was an undemocratic asshole, how does one account for the fact that not a single Free State joined the Confederacy? Were only Southern slaveholders, holding 4 million human beings in bondage True democrats upholding the pure concept of freedom leaving the Yankees in ignorant bondage?

Looking for answers.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
3,690
Reaction score
2,296
when the Chief Supreme court justice Roger B Taney steped in and said what he was doing was unconstitutional Lincoln threatened him with arrest
Actually he just ignored him. And what does any of that have to do with ending slavery without war?
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
Actually he just ignored him. And what does any of that have to do with ending slavery without war?
The rest of the Supreme Court ignored Taney too. Yes what in the world does it have to do with the end of slavery?
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
Yes because Slavery in general was dying out.
We're here to help you, buddy, get you on board with actual Southern states history. By the time of the Civil War slavery was not yet dying out. It was reaching its peak at that time. The Southern slave states knew that if they were stopped from expanding slavery into the territories that slavery would die out, and that's what they would fight for. (did you think it was Yankee invasion? pfft).

...Slavery was in the north and was deep into the slave trade for quite some time...
But no longer. Slavery remained legal only in the middle and lower South, no free Northern states whatsoever for quite some time. The Northern states, including the original colonies, had all criminalized slavery decades before secession. Not only that, but the extent of slavery in the Northern states was never comparable to the massive extent of chattel slavery in the middle and lower South. From the very first census taken (1790) it's obvious there was only a small mioirty of black residents in the North to begin with, let alone slaves ("servants" in the census lingo of some states).

...The south was simply slower in development but now here it is with industry everywhere so the need for slavery is gone.
Again, get on board with Southern states history. The South, because of chattel slavery, had the most successfully profitable export business in the Country (maybe the world) at that time. The middle and lower South was not "simply slower" in industrial development, they were "simply more engaged" in the more profitable enterprise at the time. The Southern oligarchy was not about to give up "King Cotton" to build factories and pay their workers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The biggest enemy of "Lost Cause;" the thing that has reduced it to the the point of "Lost Cause Lite" anymore (LCL an attempt to distract from what original Lost Causers had believed) is educational resource -- free and easy democratic access to the official records and un-edited accounts of those who lived in the Antebellum and Civil War years. No grey-tinted glasses. Few corners in which to hide anymore.
 
Last edited:

General Lee

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
680
Reaction score
211
We're here to help you, buddy, get you on board with actual Southern states history. By the time of the Civil War slavery was not yet dying out. It was reaching its peak at that time. The Southern slave states knew that if they were stopped from expanding slavery into the territories that slavery would die out, and that's what they would fight for. (did you think it was Yankee invasion? pfft).



But no longer. Slavery remained legal only in the middle and lower South, no free Northern states whatsoever for quite some time. The Northern states, including the original colonies, had all criminalized slavery decades before secession. Not only that, but the extent of slavery in the Northern states was never comparable to the massive extent of chattel slavery in the middle and lower South. From the very first census taken (1790) it's obvious there was only a small mioirty of black residents in the North to begin with, let alone slaves ("servants" in the census lingo of some states).



Again, get on board with Southern states history. The South, because of chattel slavery, had the most successfully profitable export business in the Country (maybe the world) at that time. The middle and lower South was not "simply slower" in industrial development, they were "simply more engaged" in the more profitable enterprise at the time. The Southern oligarchy was not about to give up "King Cotton" to make machines.

The biggest enemy of "Lost Cause;" the thing that has reduced it to the the point of "Lost Cause Lite" anymore (in an attempt to distract from what original Lost Causers had believed) is educational resource -- free and easy democratic access to the official records and un-edited accounts of those who lived in the Antebellum and Civil War years. There are so few corners in which to hide anymore.
When is said it was dying out I meant world wide because the whole world participated, many want to pretend it was all the south and the Confederacy when no Confederate flag flew on a slave ship, No flag flew in the hands of men pushing the natives further west, No flag flew during the slave revolt of 1811 which was put down but not by the oppressive Confederacy the most on here want to say it was. There were even laws up north in some states on how long a slave or black people could stay in the state without facing a punishment. Lincoln himself said that he didn't believe in the political and social equality of the white and black races so why would he send thousands to die for a group he thought so inferier ? Also why would he say this “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and for a new one that suits them better. (Lincoln).
 

byron ed

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
873
Reaction score
296
(correction: "Slavery remained legal only in the middle and lower South, no free Northern states whatsoever for quite some time. The Northern states, including the some original colonies)
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
7,116
Reaction score
4,148
when no Confederate flag flew on a slave ship
So what? The Confederate Battle Flag flew never flew on a naval vessel, the Confederate naval ensign never flew over a commercial ship. There simply was no opportunity for a Confederate flag to fly over a ship.

Since 1808 no US-flagged ship could import slaves. During the time the US colonies were part of Great Britain, no US flag vessels existed. During the Revolution, the slave trade was halted. So what exactly is your point?

I do have this incident report. It sounds like Southern slave owners were willing to break US and International laws to bring slaves in. It is not a long stretch to see them going to war to keep slaves.


As the slaves were being loaded, Foster saw two steamers off the port and, fearing capture, ordered the crew to leave immediately, although only 110 slaves had been secured on board, leaving behind the last 15. They saw a man o' war during the ocean passage, but were saved when a squall came up and they outran the ship,[8] reaching Abaco lighthouse at the Bahama banks by June 30.[9] As they neared the United States, they disguised the schooner by taking down the "squaresail yards and the fore topmast", hoping to pass as a "coaster" carrying slaves within the US in the domestic coastal trade.[8]
Foster anchored Clotilda on July 9 off Point of Pines in Grand Bay, Mississippi, near the Alabama border. He traveled overland by horse and buggy to Mobile to meet with Meaher. Fearful of criminal charges, Captain Foster brought the schooner into the Port of Mobile at night and had it towed up the Spanish River to the Alabama River at Twelve Mile Island. He transferred the slaves to a river steamboat, then burned Clotilda "to the water's edge" before sinking it.[8] He paid off the crew and told them to return North.[8]
The African slaves were mostly distributed to the financial backers of the Clotilda venture, with Timothy Meaher retaining 30 slaves on his property north of Mobile,[1] including Cudjo (aka Cudjoe) Lewis, known as Kossoula or Kazoola. Despite the racial hierarchy of the Deep South, the Africans from Clotilda could not be legally registered as slaves because they were smuggled in; however, they were treated as chattel.[1] Some of the captives were sold farther away, including Redoshi (later known also as Sally Smith) and a man later known as William or Billy, who were sold to Washington Smith, a planter in Dallas County, Alabama. They later married and had a daughter.[4]
In 1861, the federal government prosecuted Meaher and Foster in Mobile for illegal slave importation, but the case was dismissed for lack of evidence from the ship or its manifest, and perhaps because of the outbreak of the Civil War.
 
Top