Free Blacks taken in Pennsylvania

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
Indeed. But that doesn't make ANV's activities NOT kidnapping. It's an old, old tactic to say, "Oh yeah! Well so and so did that too." It doesn't negate the facts and we both know that, to quote John Adams, "Facts are stubborn things."
So you want me to listen to John Adams while you get to ignore him.
Come one now, you gave me a definition and I pointed out the fallacy in it. Hell, Even Al knows better than get into debate fallacies with me.

You claimed that only the CSA can kidnap people.
Which is False Dilemma/False Dichotomy
This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.

Also

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard.

and

The definist fallacy (sometimes Socratic fallacy)[1] is a logical fallacy, identified by William Frankena in 1939, that involves the definition of one property in terms of another.[2]
 

byron ed

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
108
Reaction score
70
...What we know is some number of free African American individuals were taken by the ANV. This taking was legal in the eyes of the Confederates and no US court every ruled different...
On the face of it, this makes no sense at all. That a declared foreign nation, i.e. the Confederacy, considered all aspects of its invasion to be legal goes without saying.

Yet, obviously the United States considered everything the invaders were doing in Pennsylvania to be illegal, so of course "no US court ever ruled different" because that would be unnecessary. There was never any call for a special ruling regarding merely one aspect of the Confederate invasion, kidnapping (by any other name we attempt to gin up for it).

And though I can't believe I'm having to point it out; we all know the U.S. didn't recognize the Confederacy as a nation to begin with -- let alone recognizing the Confederate legal system.

At this point I'm realizing that you were kidding, pulling our leg a little to stir up some conversation. Well, it worked. I've been had.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
On the face of it, this makes no sense at all. That a declared foreign nation, i.e. the Confederacy, considered all aspects of its invasion to be legal goes without saying.

Yet, obviously the United States considered everything the invaders were doing in Pennsylvania to be illegal, so of course "no US court ever ruled different" because that would be unnecessary. There was never any call for a special ruling regarding merely one aspect of the Confederate invasion, kidnapping (by any other name we attempt to gin up for it).

And though I can't believe I'm having to point it out; we all know the U.S. didn't recognize the Confederacy as a nation to begin with -- let alone recognizing the Confederate legal system.

At this point I'm realizing that you were kidding, pulling our leg a little to stir up some conversation. Well, it worked. I've been had.
I look forward to a list of court cases regarding the PN invasion event from you. Thanks for the heads up.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
993
Reaction score
963
Augh! There's a whole bunch of wild hares running around here now! :eek:

As has been noted previously, the CSA did order the armies to pick up runaways - certainly they weren't particular about checking to see if somebody really was a runaway. One big reason Davis caved to the planters was the Union enlisting the former slaves - nothing made a master madder than his slave shooting at him! For cavalry units and irregulars it was not a problem to do this because they shoved them on down the line as soon as they got them - too much burden otherwise. (Forrest, after Ft Pillow, got rid of them faster than if they had the plague.) And Jeb brought back some people as part of his booty from his ride at Gettysburg.

The bifurcation fallacy is really the most used argument on this subject, and subjects related to it - it's easy to fall into it. But, nothing is either/or, this/that - too many variables. For instance, many of the people presumed kidnapped at Gettysburg actually took a hike and kept on going, never to return. They were not taken by the Confederates and lost to slavery in the South, but left of their own accord. I would! The substantial black community of Gettysburg was destroyed and never regained its health, but it was not entirely because some irregular elements of the ANV decided to make a few bucks by stealing some people. The same thing happened with the Trail of Tears. Did Andy clean out the South of all the Indians? (Now there's an example of kidnapping by the US army!) Nope! He never did catch the people who went East and North instead of West. When somebody is coming for you, there's a real tendency to scatter.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
Augh! There's a whole bunch of wild hares running around here now! :eek:

As has been noted previously, the CSA did order the armies to pick up runaways - certainly they weren't particular about checking to see if somebody really was a runaway. One big reason Davis caved to the planters was the Union enlisting the former slaves - nothing made a master madder than his slave shooting at him! For cavalry units and irregulars it was not a problem to do this because they shoved them on down the line as soon as they got them - too much burden otherwise. (Forrest, after Ft Pillow, got rid of them faster than if they had the plague.) And Jeb brought back some people as part of his booty from his ride at Gettysburg.

The bifurcation fallacy is really the most used argument on this subject, and subjects related to it - it's easy to fall into it. But, nothing is either/or, this/that - too many variables. For instance, many of the people presumed kidnapped at Gettysburg actually took a hike and kept on going, never to return. They were not taken by the Confederates and lost to slavery in the South, but left of their own accord. I would! The substantial black community of Gettysburg was destroyed and never regained its health, but it was not entirely because some irregular elements of the ANV decided to make a few bucks by stealing some people. The same thing happened with the Trail of Tears. Did Andy clean out the South of all the Indians? (Now there's an example of kidnapping by the US army!) Nope! He never did catch the people who went East and North instead of West. When somebody is coming for you, there's a real tendency to scatter.
Very good points! I'll wager I can find CSA speeches and newspaper accounts about the US army kidnapping slaves loyal to their masters and carrying them away to freedom. The smart one scattered, but like slaves, they had no legal status and had to have special dispensation to own land(the story of the Poarch Band of Creek Indians who missed the trip west and who were on land no one wanted for cotton and when the Civil War happened, there was plenty of excotton lands vacant.)
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
765
So you want me to listen to John Adams while you get to ignore him.
Come one now, you gave me a definition and I pointed out the fallacy in it. Hell, Even Al knows better than get into debate fallacies with me.

You claimed that only the CSA can kidnap people.
Which is False Dilemma/False Dichotomy
This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.

Also

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard.

and

The definist fallacy (sometimes Socratic fallacy)[1] is a logical fallacy, identified by William Frankena in 1939, that involves the definition of one property in terms of another.[2]
Bullshit piled on bullshit. A bullshit fallacy.
 

Jim Klag

Ike the moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
765
So you want me to listen to John Adams while you get to ignore him.
Come one now, you gave me a definition and I pointed out the fallacy in it. Hell, Even Al knows better than get into debate fallacies with me.

You claimed that only the CSA can kidnap people.
Which is False Dilemma/False Dichotomy
This fallacy has a few other names: “black-and-white fallacy,” “either-or fallacy,” “false dichotomy,” and “bifurcation fallacy.” This line of reasoning fails by limiting the options to two when there are in fact more options to choose from. Sometimes the choices are between one thing, the other thing, or both things together (they don’t exclude each other). Sometimes there is a whole range of options, three, four, five, or a hundred and forty-five. However it may happen, the false dichotomy fallacy errs by oversimplifying the range of options.

Also

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle (without justifying the special exception). This is the application of a double standard.

and

The definist fallacy (sometimes Socratic fallacy)[1] is a logical fallacy, identified by William Frankena in 1939, that involves the definition of one property in terms of another.[2]
Silly boy. Your fallacy is you missed the point entirely - a point, incidentally that I learned from you on a different site. Always post the broadest possible definition in a debate in order to guarantee that your scenario always fits the definition.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
Silly boy. Your fallacy is you missed the point entirely - a point, incidentally that I learned from you on a different site. Always post the broadest possible definition in a debate in order to guarantee that your scenario always fits the definition.
OK broadest definition of kidnapping. Andy Jackson kidnapped Indians, the US Army kidnapped loyal slaves and the ANV kidnapped 60 or so Pennsylvania blacks. Hell both Davis and Lincoln kidnapped folks to be soldiers by draft and conscription.

BTW please quote where I said to use the broadest possible definition. I would like to see my words.
I remember that a too broad of definition proves nothing.
 

byron ed

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
108
Reaction score
70
I look forward to a list of court cases regarding the PN invasion event from you. Thanks for the heads up.
A long wait then. Again I suspect you're kind of pulling our legs on this one, but ok I'll bite:

There were no Confederate rights the U.S. was bound to respect, let alone litigate, because the Confederacy was not legally recognized by the U.S.

As you likely full-well know that literally means that "The Confederacy was not legally recognized by the U.S." so let's leave that one where it is.

More to the point here is that U.S. legal responsibilities to southern slaveowners had become moot by the middle of 1863 anyway, because by then the Federal government itself was in the process of adapting it's policy on the requirement to return fugitive slaves per the Fugitive Slave Bill. Runaways in the Gettysburg area now were instead being legally-protected as "contraband" of war, per a war measure that suspended the return requirement of the FSL in war zones. In addition, runaways and other blacks were as well protected under civic law of the state of Pennsylvania, per that state's freedom legislation that had been enacted in response to the Fugitive Slave Bill a decade or so earlier. Any attempt to remove a runaway was required to pass local and state court review. The Federally-appointed FSL commissioners well understood this. The Confederates had no access to these courts.

Before going any further (and it seems silly to have to even point this out) you certainly know that neither Slavery or kidnapping of any person was legal in Pennsylvania. That literally means that "that neither Slavery or kidnapping of any person was legal in Pennsylvania" so let's leave that one where it is as well.

Will you yet persist with the idea that somehow the U.S. Courts willfully neglected to uphold a policy that was no longer in place? -- as if they ever had a legal duty to hear Confederate slaveowner claims to begin with. By mid-1863 the only legal duty Northern Courts had in regards to fugitives was to hear Union state slaveowner claims -- which is beyond the scope of this Gettysburg setting.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
A long wait then. Again I suspect you're kind of pulling our legs on this one, but ok I'll bite:

There were no Confederate rights the U.S. was bound to respect, let alone litigate, because the Confederacy was not legally recognized by the U.S.

As you likely full-well know that literally means that "The Confederacy was not legally recognized by the U.S." so let's leave that one where it is.

More to the point here is that U.S. legal responsibilities to southern slaveowners had become moot by the middle of 1863 anyway, because by then the Federal government itself was in the process of adapting it's policy on the requirement to return fugitive slaves per the Fugitive Slave Bill. Runaways in the Gettysburg area now were instead being legally-protected as "contraband" of war, per a war measure that suspended the return requirement of the FSL in war zones. In addition, runaways and other blacks were as well protected under civic law of the state of Pennsylvania, per that state's freedom legislation that had been enacted in response to the Fugitive Slave Bill a decade or so earlier. Any attempt to remove a runaway was required to pass local and state court review. The Federally-appointed FSL commissioners well understood this. The Confederates had no access to these courts.

Before going any further (and it seems silly to have to even point this out) you certainly know that neither Slavery or kidnapping of any person was legal in Pennsylvania. That literally means that "that neither Slavery or kidnapping of any person was legal in Pennsylvania" so let's leave that one where it is as well.

Will you yet persist with the idea that somehow the U.S. Courts willfully neglected to uphold a policy that was no longer in place? -- as if they ever had a legal duty to hear Confederate slaveowner claims to begin with. By mid-1863 the only legal duty Northern Courts had in regards to fugitives was to hear Union state slaveowner claims -- which is beyond the scope of this Gettysburg setting.
Thanks for your response. Please keep in mind I drove Al Mackey to distraction by ignoring his insults.
 

byron ed

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2020
Messages
108
Reaction score
70
Thanks for your response. Please keep in mind I drove Al Mackey to distraction by ignoring his insults.
? I'm not seeing that an Al Macky has even posted in this thread, let alone insulted you here.

Explain.
 
Last edited:

dedej

Active Member
Joined
May 25, 2019
Messages
91
Reaction score
163
I read Stolen: Five Free Boys Kidnapped into Slavery and Their Astonishing Odyssey Home last year -- and it has many accounts about this happening.

Philadelphia, 1825: five young, free black boys fall into the clutches of the most fearsome gang of kidnappers and slavers in the United States. Lured onto a small ship with the promise of food and pay, they are instead met with blindfolds, ropes, and knives. Over four long months, their kidnappers drive them overland into the Cotton Kingdom to be sold as slaves. Determined to resist, the boys form a tight brotherhood as they struggle to free themselves and find their way home.

Their ordeal—an odyssey that takes them from the Philadelphia waterfront to the marshes of Mississippi and then onward still—shines a glaring spotlight on the Reverse Underground Railroad, a black market network of human traffickers and slave traders who stole away thousands of legally free African Americans from their families in order to fuel slavery’s rapid expansion in the decades before the Civil War.

Impeccably researched and breathlessly paced, Stolen tells the incredible story of five boys whose courage forever changed the fight against slavery in America.



In addition to:


--------


I also noticed while doing my genealogy research a few people on the Alabama 1870 Census from Minnesota. Both Black and born in the early 1800's. Slavery was not legal there until 1858. Therefore, the must have been sold into slavery -- as they were born free. I'll find it again and post it. That's really sad too.
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
I read Stolen: Five Free Boys Kidnapped into Slavery and Their Astonishing Odyssey Home last year -- and it has many accounts about this happening.

Philadelphia, 1825: five young, free black boys fall into the clutches of the most fearsome gang of kidnappers and slavers in the United States. Lured onto a small ship with the promise of food and pay, they are instead met with blindfolds, ropes, and knives. Over four long months, their kidnappers drive them overland into the Cotton Kingdom to be sold as slaves. Determined to resist, the boys form a tight brotherhood as they struggle to free themselves and find their way home.

Their ordeal—an odyssey that takes them from the Philadelphia waterfront to the marshes of Mississippi and then onward still—shines a glaring spotlight on the Reverse Underground Railroad, a black market network of human traffickers and slave traders who stole away thousands of legally free African Americans from their families in order to fuel slavery’s rapid expansion in the decades before the Civil War.

Impeccably researched and breathlessly paced, Stolen tells the incredible story of five boys whose courage forever changed the fight against slavery in America.



In addition to:


--------


I also noticed while doing my genealogy research a few people on the Alabama 1870 Census from Minnesota. Both Black and born in the early 1800's. Slavery was not legal there until 1858. Therefore, the must have been sold into slavery -- as they were born free. I'll find it again and post it. That's really sad too.
There are several works about the kidnapping of free Northern blacks into Southern slavery. There were organized gangs that did it.
Freedom at Risk: The Kidnapping of Free Blacks in America is one I remember off the top of my head.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
993
Reaction score
963
There was certainly a profit motive to doing this stealing. The bounty for runaways was triple or quadruple if taken in a free state. Posses, usually deputized for the job, could come freely in and out of any state they wanted to collect people and make a very good living, too. Some states did have restrictions on the dogs though - the posse they might have to let in but the vicious dogs, no. (There's a whole 'nother story about these dogs, by the way, and a reason why Union troops shot all the dogs as they went through the South. We're not talking bird dogs here.)
 

jgoodguy

Webmaster
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
2,100
There was certainly a profit motive to doing this stealing. The bounty for runaways was triple or quadruple if taken in a free state. Posses, usually deputized for the job, could come freely in and out of any state they wanted to collect people and make a very good living, too. Some states did have restrictions on the dogs though - the posse they might have to let in but the vicious dogs, no. (There's a whole 'nother story about these dogs, by the way, and a reason why Union troops shot all the dogs as they went through the South. We're not talking bird dogs here.)
Do it yourself slave retention was risky. Some ended up dead or attacked by mobs. Heck even the 'legit' slave retention was subject to mob interference or attacking jails.
Anthony Burns
Following the decision against Burns, the government effectively held Boston under martial law for the afternoon. The streets between the courthouse and the harbor were lined with federal troops to hold back the waves of protesters as Burns was escorted to the ship for return to his Virginia master. On June 2, throngs in the city witnessed Burns' being taken to the ship that would carry him back to slavery in Virginia.

On May 24, 1854, he was discovered "while walking in Court Street" and arrested.[1] As a hub of resistance to the "slave power" of the South, Boston had numerous residents who tried to free Burns. President Franklin Pierce made an example of the case to show he was willing to strongly enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. The show of force turned many New Englanders against slavery who had passively accepted its existence before.

On May 26, before Burns' court case, a crowd of both black and white abolitionists, including Thomas Wentworth Higginson and other Bostonians outraged at Burns' arrest, stormed the courthouse to free the man.[2] In the melee, Deputy U.S. Marshal James Batchelder was fatally stabbed,[3] the fourth U.S. Marshal to be killed in the line of duty.[4] The police kept control of Burns, but the crowds of opponents, including such black abolitionists as Thomas James and Lewis Hayden, grew large.[5] While the federal government sent US troops in support, numerous anti-slavery activists arrived in Boston to join the protest and continue the faceoff. It has been estimated the government's cost of capturing and conducting Burns through the trial was upwards of $40,000 (equivalent to $1,138,000 in 2019).[6] (2000 troops were employed.)

Fugitive Slave Anthony Burns Arrested

in 1854, Anthony Burns, a fugitive slave from Virginia, was arrested in Boston. His capture enraged black and white abolitionists. Two days after the arrest, a number of them attacked the federal courthouse with a battering ram, hoping to free Burns. Their attempt failed. Burns's defense lawyers were no more successful. After a brief trial, he was ordered returned to slavery. On June 2nd, thousands of people lined the streets of Boston. They hissed and shouted, "Shame! Shame!" as federal authorities escorted Anthony Burns to a ship waiting in the harbor. It took approximately 2,000 troops and cost $40,000 to maintain order and return the black man to bondage. No fugitive slave was ever captured in Massachusetts again.
 

diane

that gal
Joined
Mar 18, 2020
Messages
993
Reaction score
963
It also caused some interesting interpretations of the posse comitatus doctrine, which wasn't clearly defined until 1878. Pre-war, sheriffs could deputize anybody to go hunt down slaves and you'd better be doing it! (For free, to boot...) Pre-war...a lot of these slave hunters wanted hazard pay because a lot of people wanted them for target practice. Lee's army was the perfect slave posse!
 
Top