It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
again, not supporting slavery in the least but what was in the South, was moreso in the North and in less territory.
The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.
The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).
According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.
To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.
I say good for those men and women back in those times who risked their lives, their livelyhoods, to help run away slaves start a new life. There were folks, not just northerners but a minority of southern white men and women, who made efforts, who took risks, in order to free black slaves. In the end the slave owners, and their southern political sympathizers, decided to try their luck with secession, and they lost dearly for it.
hard core abolitionists did not make their "agenda" publicly known or they likely wouldn't have attained the level of assistance that they did.
why won't you address the fact that the greater majority of southern slave owners were black, not white.
from the same link previously posted
I can't say this enough... if you are looking to debate the ethics of slavery then you are creating an argument that does not exist.
I stick to my initial point. The South did not have the right to "secede" anymore than the United States as a whole having the "right" to invade Northern Mexican territory in the 1840's, or the "right" to Spain over North America because they were the first to discover it. With the exception of Texas and Vermont, from what I understand, the Union created the States, the States did not form the Union.
Seeking independence from England and the British Crown, thirteen American colonies declared themselves sovereign and independent states.
Southern Heritage 411 Inc. is a corporation founded to inform the public about Southern Heritage from the perspective of the hundreds of thousands of black people who love and support the South, its people, its customs, and its history.
The President of "Southern Heritage 411" is H.K. Edgerton, a black Confederate activist who works tirelessly to bring the real truth of our heritage to people of all races. H.K. Edgerton has walked thousands of miles carrying his large Confederate Battle Flag through cities and towns and down country roads. He speaks at venues all over the South exposing the many myths of Yankee history and setting the record straight regarding blacks role in the history of the South.
...see a perspective of Southern Heritage not taught in our public schools or seen in our politically correct media. Some of the facts will shock and surprise you.
Black Confederates? Why haven’t we heard more about them? National Park Service historian, Ed Bearrs, stated, “I don’t want to call it a conspiracy to ignore the role of Blacks both above and below the Mason-Dixon line, but it was definitely a tendency that began around 1910” Historian, Erwin L. Jordan, Jr., calls it a “cover-up” which started back in 1865.
It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks. Over 13,000 of these, “saw the elephant” also known as meeting the enemy in combat. These Black Confederates included both slave and free. The Confederate Congress did not approve blacks to be officially enlisted as soldiers (except as musicians), until late in the war. But in the ranks it was a different story. Many Confederate officers did not obey the mandates of politicians, they frequently enlisted blacks with the simple criteria, “Will you fight?”.
Sherman's March was an invasion of both geographic and psychological space. The Union army constructed a vision of the Southern landscape as military terrain. When they brought war into Southern households, however, soldiers were frequently astounded at the fierceness with which many white Southern women defended their homes.
But in the rural South, where the household remained the political center, white women could see themselves as both mothers and warriors, giving them material and ideological reasons to resist. African Americans' reactions to Union soldiers were even more complex. Their initial delight at the coming of the "army of emancipation" was often replaced with terror as Yankees plundered black homes and assaulted black women.
The fact is, the Lincoln government intentionally targeted civilians from the very beginning of the war. The administration's battle plan was known as the "Anaconda Plan" because it sought to blockade all Southern ports and inland waterways and starving the Southern civilian economy. Even drugs and medicines were on the government's list of items that were to be kept out of the hands of Southerners, as far as possible.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
The original 13 states that formed the union were independent colonies.
You are basing your belief on the view that might makes right,
The belief that might makes right drives a tyrannical central government.
"independent" colonies were as much sovereign as our independence states are today. Atleast you admitted that they were governed by a central government.
The Union formed for the most part through force and war, it did not form through fully sovereign states voluntarily joining (with the exception of Texas and Vermont).
The ruling legally established the principle that the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, apply to and restrain the federal government's powers but do not apply to state governments. This legal doctrine was not reversed until the twentieth century when the Supreme Court gradually included the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.
it was common knowledge of the day that the Bill of Rights was added because people feared the federal government and not because they dreaded abuses of power by their state governments.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
I don't know how else to say it.
I have displayed numerous historical documents that prove this.
With the exception of Vermont's brief indepedence for 3 years, the 13 colonies were not sovereign independent States.
Acknowledging the United States to be free, sovereign and independent states
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states,
That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States...
link from the government archives.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States
The Union was not formed by the States, the States were not all sovereign entities that joined the Union voluntarily, they were created within the Union, some in part under British rule, they were not sovereign States at any point.
You still don't get it, do you?
Whether these states were referred to as sovereign and independent prior did not mean necessarily that they were sovereign states who voluntarily joined the union, and whom could voluntarily leave.
Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.
1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government...
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Originally posted by Threadfall
That the South stood for the propagation of slavery at all is enough to make whatever else they stood for "moot." Slavery is a heinous institution and any person, state or philosophy that supports it is inherently not good.
Originally posted by kyviecaldges
For those who see the war between the states as a racial issue, I have decided to include some widely known information down here in the South.
You see, these great emancipators... You know... The abolitionist party of whom I have been accusing of promoting sectional superiority through the formation of a strong central government that is now being used to deprive us of our freedoms and liberties (Thank you quote from the OP).
These folks were anything but emancipators.