What if we had never had the slave problem?

[Ga.windbreak]

I found this to be an eye opener for me. As a youth I was taught that when the Constitution was being written slavery in the South was the back breaker to the passage of the same. Georgia was given as one example as a state who "forced" slavery into the constitution. After reading this link it blows a hole into everything that I was taught.

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

South Carolina and Georgia vigorously defend their slavery, and denied the federal government's right to interfere in the institution. But Georgia was locked in a precarious war with the Creek Indians, and it needed a strong federal presence. It would have likely gone along with a compensated, gradual abolition. Georgia's case, in terms of "federal interference,” was summed up nicely by George Washington: “If a weak State, with powerful tribes of Indians in its rear and the Spanish on its flank, do not incline to embrace a strong general Government there must, I should think, be either wickedness, or insanity in their conduct.” There was no insanity: Georgia rushed to ratify the Constitution, with very little debate, and was the third state in.
South Carolina alone would have kicked up a fuss; but even with Georgia thrown in, the two states had only 5 percent of the population. Where would they have gone? Back to Britain? To Catholic Spain? Was there really enough tail there to wag the dog?

“Slavery would remain a national problem, not a southern problem,” historian Gary Nash wrote, “but northerners, with few exceptions, acknowledged no responsibility for solving the problem.” In such a nation, disunion or civil war was inevitable. Jefferson, by the end, realized it. He wrote that, “if something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.” But they rested, and hoped for the long-term death of American slavery by natural causes, and did nothing. It was a grand missed opportunity.

The classic example of good men doing nothing and evil winning!

[Gary G]

I found this to be an eye opener for me. As a youth I was taught that when the Constitution was being written slavery in the South was the back breaker to the passage of the same. Georgia was given as one example as a state who "forced" slavery into the constitution. After reading this link it blows a hole into everything that I was taught.

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

South Carolina and Georgia vigorously defend their slavery, and denied the federal government's right to interfere in the institution. But Georgia was locked in a precarious war with the Creek Indians, and it needed a strong federal presence. It would have likely gone along with a compensated, gradual abolition. Georgia's case, in terms of "federal interference,” was summed up nicely by George Washington: “If a weak State, with powerful tribes of Indians in its rear and the Spanish on its flank, do not incline to embrace a strong general Government there must, I should think, be either wickedness, or insanity in their conduct.” There was no insanity: Georgia rushed to ratify the Constitution, with very little debate, and was the third state in.
South Carolina alone would have kicked up a fuss; but even with Georgia thrown in, the two states had only 5 percent of the population. Where would they have gone? Back to Britain? To Catholic Spain? Was there really enough tail there to wag the dog?

“Slavery would remain a national problem, not a southern problem,” historian Gary Nash wrote, “but northerners, with few exceptions, acknowledged no responsibility for solving the problem.” In such a nation, disunion or civil war was inevitable. Jefferson, by the end, realized it. He wrote that, “if something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.” But they rested, and hoped for the long-term death of American slavery by natural causes, and did nothing. It was a grand missed opportunity.

The classic example of good men doing nothing and evil winning!

Well, it would have ended by "natural causes" had Lincoln not interfered. It was not an economically viable system. Why do more work than is minimally required if you receive no economic advantage. That is the same reason socialism failed. Advanced farm implements and public opinion would have put an end to slavery shortly, if there had been no war. Gary Nash and Jefferson missed on that point. Lincoln cared nothing about slavery. Proof: the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the rebellious states. Lincoln was hoping for a slave uprising. To Lincoln, the war was about power and central government control of everything (kind of like we see now). He was a Whig.

[Ga.windbreak]

I found this to be an eye opener for me. As a youth I was taught that when the Constitution was being written slavery in the South was the back breaker to the passage of the same. Georgia was given as one example as a state who "forced" slavery into the constitution. After reading this link it blows a hole into everything that I was taught.

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

South Carolina and Georgia vigorously defend their slavery, and denied the federal government's right to interfere in the institution. But Georgia was locked in a precarious war with the Creek Indians, and it needed a strong federal presence. It would have likely gone along with a compensated, gradual abolition. Georgia's case, in terms of "federal interference,” was summed up nicely by George Washington: “If a weak State, with powerful tribes of Indians in its rear and the Spanish on its flank, do not incline to embrace a strong general Government there must, I should think, be either wickedness, or insanity in their conduct.” There was no insanity: Georgia rushed to ratify the Constitution, with very little debate, and was the third state in.
South Carolina alone would have kicked up a fuss; but even with Georgia thrown in, the two states had only 5 percent of the population. Where would they have gone? Back to Britain? To Catholic Spain? Was there really enough tail there to wag the dog?

“Slavery would remain a national problem, not a southern problem,” historian Gary Nash wrote, “but northerners, with few exceptions, acknowledged no responsibility for solving the problem.” In such a nation, disunion or civil war was inevitable. Jefferson, by the end, realized it. He wrote that, “if something is not done, and done soon, we shall be the murderers of our own children.” But they rested, and hoped for the long-term death of American slavery by natural causes, and did nothing. It was a grand missed opportunity.

The classic example of good men doing nothing and evil winning!

Well, it would have ended by "natural causes" had Lincoln not interfered. It was not an economically viable system. Why do more work than is minimally required if you receive no economic advantage. That is the same reason socialism failed. Advanced farm implements and public opinion would have put an end to slavery shortly, if there had been no war. Gary Nash and Jefferson missed on that point. Lincoln cared nothing about slavery. Proof: the emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in the rebellious states. Lincoln was hoping for a slave uprising. To Lincoln, the war was about power and central government control of everything (kind of like we see now). He was a Whig.

Oh, I agree with all you've said but my point really was that shouldn't have ever made it to lincoln if our founding fathers had truly lived up to their own standards and killed it when they had the chance.

Its kinda like todays mess with what Obama is pulling; it is killing our childrens/grandchildrens futures because they will be the ones stuck with paying the bill.

[Gary G]

This is true GW.  It would have been good had they done what you suggest. Do you think the civil war would still have occurred?

[Ga.windbreak]

Wow, now thats the real question isn't it. Yes I do, because the reality of it is that its all about a power struggle between the Northern industral base versus the Southern Augra base. If, by killing slavery, we in the south had been able to grow our own industral base then I feel that the tariff's that were inacted would have been more equally distributed or if we had at least had southern shipping to compete with the north then power would have been alittle more equal. The minute we, the South had Cotton, Sugar, and Rice and the North had no way to generate an equal wealth base there was going to be trouble because we had no way to move that wealth save thru northern shipping

"Slavery" and "Save the Union" was the "Moral" excuse or fear factor, if you will. The real reason was big government versus little government, indivual and states rights versus majority rule and a large central Government. Big Government, with a large standing Army, won and look at where we are today.

[SHOOTALL]

the slaves were freeded to keep England and France from siding with the South in some opinions . why were the slaves freededso late in the war if that was the reason for war ?
The reason for the war was ecnomics . The South had been taxed to the point of breaking to pay for the war of 1812 . Thru export taxes on raw material the forced to pay for over priced goods from the north . Lincon was preventing  the cash cow from leaving not preserving  the union .

[Gary G]

I agree with you both. It was the Merchantilism of Hamilton verses the Libertarianism of Jefferson come to a head. Oh, how I wish the south had won. We likely would not have such loss of liberty as we presently experience. Both the peoples of the north and those of the south would be better off.

[SouthernByGrace]

Y'all are missing one point...

The slaves WERE NOT freed by the emancipation proclamation! Not ONE of them! The South had been a separate country, with its own fully functional government, for a year and a half when Lincoln issued the proclamation. It had no more legality in the CSA than it did in Spain or Russia. 

If such power ever actually rested in the hands of the President, which it DID NOT, why didn't he set the slaves free in his own jurisdiction? Because he DID NOT posses that kind of power! If the president had such power as to just simply write down an idea and have it become law at his whim, we would be in a hell of a lot more trouble than we currently are! The emancipation proclamation WAS NOT a Law, NOR a Proposal for one! The document was not worth the paper it was written on. Lincoln's own Secretary of War, Stanton, actually told him as much, citing the irony of him trying to set free those slaves over whom he had absolutely NO legal jurisdiction, while leaving those slaves directly under his jurisdiction "Precisely as if this proclamation were not issued."

The slaves U.S. Grant personally held DURING the War were not freed by the emancipation proclamation, which was to have become effective on January 1, 1863, and were not set free until 1866, three years later, when the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was passed! Abraham Lincoln was already dead, so he had NOTHING to do with it!

But then the question of the legality of the 13th Amendment falls right along side that of the 14th Amendment, which I have already proven here on GBO to be illegal... Tennessee was the ONLY Confederate state to have rejoined the Union by 1866, which was done strictly by coercion. Tennessee, along with every other Confederate State was denied her own Legally elected officials, therefor, her "rejoining" the Union was not legal either...
Georgia didn't rejoin the Union until July of 1870 ! 

Was there ever actually a slave "problem?" If so, why does the North not share the blame equally with the South, because slaves existed in the North at the same time and for as long as they did in the South. Maybe not in the same numbers, but is not one "evil" still just as evil as 4 million?

How can you argue or complain about the fox being in your neighbor's hen house, when you are in there at the same time and you're only mad because the fruits of the fox's labor were more plentiful than your own?

Yes, slavery would have died a natural death, just as it did in every other part of the world, and without a single shot ever being fired. Had the war been over slavery, which it was not, and the South had been fighting to perpetuate slavery, which it did not, the South only needed to stay in the Union and slavery would have continued for many, many more years. The North NEVER had the votes in Congress to Legally abolish slavery, With OR Without The Southern States! 

So, Gw, to answer your question:

I don't believe there ever WAS a slave "problem" in the South. If a "problem" existed at all, it was that of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA allowing slavery to EVER exist within her borders. The Northern HYPOCRITES cried foul, while at the same time, they were just as guilty, if not More So!

Had slavery never been allowed in the U.S., the war would have still been fought because of the cultural differences between the two sections. The North was literally a money grubbing society, with their every purpose to make more of it. The South was more leisure oriented and didn't put such emphasis on wealth being constituted by the amount of money you had; i.e. wealth meant more than just having a lot of money...


SBG

[Ga.windbreak]

SBG thats a 2 thumbs up my friend!

[SouthernByGrace]

Further confirmation of the ILLEGALITY of the 13 Amendment;

   The Reconstruction Act of 1867 declared that the Southern States were NOT part of the Union. Remember, this was the Same Union from which the North had previously said that these States could not withdraw! From 1866 to March 2, 1867, The Southern States were accorded the rights of Statehood. They participated in the ratification of the 13th Amendment AND in the Rejection of the 14th Amendment. The rejection of the 14th Amendment posed a MAJOR roadblock to the revolutionary schemes of the radicals in Congress. They knew that, even after their successful military conquest of the Southern people, they could not complete their evil designs as long as the South retained even this slight amount of political power. To further their evil schemes the radicals decided to eject their conquered foe from Congress (directly violating the Constitution) and then complete their revolution. To further their evil goals, The Northern element treated the Southern States as States when it suited them, and as conquered territories when it didn't.
   When Congress enacted the first so-called Reconstruction Act, it was promptly vetoed by (U.S.) President Andrew Johnson. Congress voted to override the veto that very same day! The fact that Congress so quickly voted to override a presidential veto demonstrates just how committed the Northern element was to its evil scheme. With the Southern people completely expelled from Congress, the Northern radicals set about completing their work of destroying the original constitutional republic and of legalizing their efforts to rob the Southern people of their liberties and of what wealth remained after the war.

   In his veto message to Congress, President Johnson made the following statement about his veto of the Reconstruction Act:

"The bill denies the legality of the governments of ten of the States which participated in the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Federal Constitution abolishing slavery forever within the jurisdiction of the United States and practically excludes them from the Union. If this assumption of the bill be correct, their concurrence cannot be considered as having been legally given, and the important fact is made to appear that the consent of the three-fourths of the States-- the required number-- has not been obtained to the ratification of that amendment, thus leaving the question of slavery where it stood before the amendment."
 
   Thus the Northern Congress recognized the legality of the Southern States as long as their actions did not conflict with their radical plans. Even the President of the United States recognized the ILLEGALITY of the 13th Amendment, and even EXPLAINED WHY it was (and IS) ILLEGAL!

   The 13th and 14th Amendments were radical departures from the Original letter and spirit of the Constitution. The actions of the Northern dominated Congress, in conjunction with the acts of the Northern armies, DESTROYED the concept of the State as an equal partner in a co-ordinate state/federal government arrangement. GONE were the concepts of delegated and reserved powers. GONE were the concepts of a government in which authority arose voluntarily from the people and extended to their agent, the State. And for the Southern people - what happent to the concept of "government by the consent of the governed"?
One might say that it too is GONE WITH THE WIND !

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[Ga.windbreak]

Money, greed, and power thats the name of the game for those who would make slaves of us all. All of the high moral yapping is nothing more than the lies of those who made all their blood money off the rest of us. Its the stand of those who put on this cloak of sainthood with denial of the truth and their casting of stones at their brothers for the sake of moral superority. That way they can kid themselves that the've had no hand in killing our very freedoms from us all with their love of big government and socialism.

[SHOOTALL]

the slave at the time of the war of northern aggression was like the child in a divorce USED LIKE A BAR OF SOAP !

[Ga.windbreak]

Great analogy SHOOTALL with Lincoln (the north) being the Dad and Davis (the south) the Mom, if you will.

[subdjoe]

The emancipation proclamation not only didn't free any slaves in the south, it didn't free any in areas under Federal control - areas in the south that the Federals held were excluded, as were the northern slave states, and the border states.

Also, since the bulk of CS forces were made up of state militia, and most southern states allowed free men of color in the militia, the army of the CSA was integrated right from the start. Frederick Douglas reported, "There are at the present moment many Colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but real soldiers, having musket on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down any loyal troops and do all that soldiers may do to destroy the Federal government and build up that of the rebels."

Battery 2,  Richmond Howitzers was manned by black militiamen. They saw action at 1st Manassas, and several other places.   To be a cannoneer, one needed basic reading and math skills, at the very least.  So not only were they fighting side by side with whites, they were educated.  In addition two black "regiments", one free and one slave, participated at 1st Manassas on behalf of the South. "Many colored people were killed in the action", recorded John Parker, a former slave.

But, to the question of the thread - likely there would still have been the Civil War.  But it would have been different in character.  And, might could be that since the Federals would not have had the moral high ground of ending slavery (which was a weak reason given from the very start), it might have ended after 1st Manassas.  It was close anyway.  If it had been seen as being mostly about banking, industry, and tariffs, I kind of doubt that the average northerner would have been willing to fight.

[SouthernByGrace]

Kudos Joe.

I'm glad to see somebody new come along that "GETS IT".
Glad to have you in the forum. Hope you'll stick around.

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[subdjoe]

Kudos Joe.

I'm glad to see somebody new come along that "GETS IT".
Glad to have you in the forum. Hope you'll stick around.

SBG

DEO VINDICE

Thank you, SBG.  It is amazing the wealth of information out there that is available with just a little digging. I would love to see some of it, like that quote I gave from Mr. Douglas, make it into the history books.  Wouldn't that shake up the prevailing myth of the south?   Or, the northern states, before they abolished slavery, gave plenty of warning so their slave owners could sell slaves south and not lose money.  I've tried to find records of owners just freeing all their slaves, but it doesn't seem to exist.

Also, the history books show US flagged slavers going to Africa, cramming the ships full of slaves, and selling them in South Carolina, or other southern state.  What doesn't get mentioned is that someone had to first capture them, then sell them to the middle men, who then sold them to New England, or maybe New York slavers.  It usually went blacks selling other blacks to arabs who then sold them to Europeans or Americans who then brought them to the Americas.  Or that it was for the most part northern money that financed the slave ships.  Ah!  So much education to do. 

I do think you are stuck with me for a while, SBG.  I kind of like the atmosphere in this place.

Your ob't & etc.

Joe

SIC SEMPER!

[Rustyinfla]

  I believe I also remember reading that the state of Virginia in the late 1840's or early 50's tried to pass a law to outlaw slavery but the law was declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS because Mass. Slave traders would no longer be able to sell their slaves in Virginia thus it was a hindrance to interstate commerce.

[SouthernByGrace]

Joe, you remind me of myself, when I was learning all the things you're talking about. Believe me, it is definitely out there.
Some things folks need to keep in mind is this...

1. Slavery in the North was abolished at the exact same time it was in the South. Not by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, but by the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1866. If the North had been allowed to maintain their system of gradual emancipation, the last person that could have died as a slave in the North died in 1929, at the age of 91. That's when slavery would have ended in America, had they kept that system in place.

2. General Grant personally held 5 slaves DURING the war. They were not freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, but were Excluded from freedom by it!

3. Not one slave ship EVER flew a Confederate flag. Not One!

4. President Davis pleaded with Lincoln to allow the South the same form of gradual emancipation that was afforded the North. He REFUSED!

5. The 3 largest slaveholders (as far as numbers of slaves being held) in North America were ALL BLACK THEMSELVES!

6. Abraham Lincoln's FIRST proposed 13th Amendment would have made slavery PERMANENT and unchangeable in the Constitution! Knowing the war was NEVER over slavery, he actually sided with the South and believed they should either be allowed to keep their slave property or, at the very least, be compensated by the federal government for their freedom, in the sum of $400,000,000 (that's $400 million). That would have come to about $400 per slave in the South. Slave owners in the North would not have been compensated because they already had a system of gradual emancipation in place. Congress refused to even hear the proposal. You can see Lincoln's hand written proposal at www.loc.gov . It was written during the ONLY meeting (and very TOP SECRET) between leaders of the U.S. and C.S., just 2 months before General Lee surrendered.

I could go on and on, but then Joe wouldn't have anything he could look up and learn for himself...

SBG

DEO VINDICE

[SouthernByGrace]

You are correct Rusty. The only Southern port to ever have a slave ship docked to it was in Virginia, but was indeed being run by the state of Mass., because the larger ships could not dock in their smaller ports. The state of Virginia, nor any other Southern state, NEVER operated slave port.


I have a couple of trivia questions for you guys...

1. What is the only state to have 4 admission dates to the United States, and why? When were those admissions. You don't need to know the actual dates, just the events. But see if you can find the actual date of the final admission.
This state went longer without representative government than any other...

2. Here on GBO, I have already proven the 14th Amendment to be illegal. Among the things it did, it punished the Confederacy for secession by stripping away the guaranteed Constitutional rights of the seceding states, and removing them from statehood until they voted in favor of this radical amendment. What was the last state to pass this amendment, and on what date did they pass it? You might be surprised at the answer. I was.

SBG

[subdjoe]

And let's not forget about the WHITE slaves.  Not indentured servents, but slaves.  Some owned by blacks.  Don't THAT put a hitch in yer git-along!  

It was my understanding that some of the northern states had outlawed slavery within their bounderies.  Of course, some of them then passed laws that prohibited any more blacks from settleing in them.  IL and OR come to mind on those laws.  And I think MA, but I may be misremembering.  

I do some reenacting as part of a CS artillery unit out here in Calif.  Some of the questions I get asked are amazing.  And the looks on people faces when I put some of this stuff out to them is priceless.  Some just plain don't believe it.

And the few blacks we have who do a black confederate impression catch hell.  People just can't accept that free blacks, and slaves too, put on the grey or butternut and fought for their beloved country.  

[SouthernByGrace]

Yes, some good points. Did you know that Stonewall Jackson's grandparents were slaves?
Joe, slavery is slavery. I don't care if they are black, white, green or purple. Indentured servants were just as much a slave as any other kind. Northerners want you to believe otherwise, because it makes them out to be the saints and it makes the South out to be the villain. A slave is a slave. The form of his servitude is irrelevant in every aspect.

SBG

[subdjoe]

You are correct Rusty. The only Southern port to ever have a slave ship docked to it was in Virginia, but was indeed being run by the state of Mass., because the larger ships could not dock in their smaller ports. The state of Virginia, nor any other Southern state, NEVER operated slave port.


I have a couple of trivia questions for you guys...

1. What is the only state to have 4 admission dates to the United States, and why? When were those admissions. You don't need to know the actual dates, just the events. But see if you can find the actual date of the final admission.
This state went longer without representative government than any other...

Well, OH wasn't officially in the Union until 1953.  Seems they hadn't touched 2nd or something back in the early 1800s.   CA I could argue for 3 dates, but those were pretty close together.   

2. Here on GBO, I have already proven the 14th Amendment to be illegal. Among the things it did, it punished the Confederacy for secession by stripping away the guaranteed Constitutional rights of the seceding states, and removing them from statehood until they voted in favor of this radical amendment. What was the last state to pass this amendment, and on what date did they pass it? You might be surprised at the answer. I was.

WEll, both OH & NJ in 2002.  ANd they had recinded it in 1868.  CA didnt ratify until 1959.

SBG

[SouthernByGrace]

Pretty close Joe. I'll give Rusty a chance at it before I give the answers.

SBG

[SouthernByGrace]

New Jersey initially voted in favor of the 14th Amendment then, after studying it, rescinded her vote, which the Northern Congress ignored. New Jersey didn't believe the South had done anything to be punished For. New jersey then voted Against the 14th. The people of New Jersey finally got around to ratifying it on November 17, 1980! California was the next closest, ratifying it in 1959.

The Only sate to have 4 admission dates is Georgia.

1. When she joined the United States Union under the Articles of Confederation.

2. When she withdrew (SECEDED) from the AOC, and joined the Union under the Constitution. Three states remained a separate nation under the AOC, until over a year later.

3. She withdrew (SECEDED) from the U.S. Constitution in 1861, joined under the CSA Constitution, was readmitted to the U.S. Union in 1868. She never withdrew from the CSA. None of the Southern states ever did.

4. Georgia was removed from statehood, by Congress, one month after her readmission to the Union in 1868, due to the Governor (which was the North's appointee) not conforming to their wishes. i.e., he wouldn't run things the way they wanted him to.
Georgia was not readmitted to the Union (the 4th time) until July, 1870! 

[Rustyinfla]

  Dang it man, y'all got me when it comes to Georgia history.


 Wanna talk about Florida?  The only Confederate state to not have it's capitol fall into Yankee hands during the war.

[subdjoe]

Got me on GAs double admission after the WONA. 

I'll dispute your date for NJ ratifiying the 14th thought:

Maryland (1959)
California (1959)
Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)

Somewhat later than 1980.

[SouthernByGrace]

You got me on Ohio. After looking a little deeper, I see that New Jersey never properly recorded their passage in 1980, requiring the new vote it 2003. It's sort of like Robert E. Lee's citizenship being restored by President Gerald Ford; It sounded good, but was totally unnecessary.
Great discussion though. It just helps to further prove that the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified (according to the Constitution). 

SBG

[SouthernByGrace]

Rusty, do not dispair.

Although Florida had the smallest population of any Confederate State (140,000), its per-capita enlistment was the highest among all of them. Pretty good record to have.

Florida units fought in every major battle of the war, with the exception of 1st Manassas and Fort Donelson.

The largest battle in Florida during the war took place February 20, 1864 at Olustee.  The battle followed the fourth and final Union occupation of Jacksonville, which had occurred on February 7.

Florida's numerous cattle ranches provided most of the beef consumed by the Confederate army.

Looks like she did her fair share to aid the cause...

SBG

[Ga.windbreak]

Hi Rustyinfla, good to see you are still with us. subdjoe, Hi and welcome, I want to apologize for not taking part in some time and will correct that as of now.

SBG thanks for holding down the fort while I've been off in space, so to speak. I'm truly sorry guys and promise to be better.

[subdjoe]

Hi Rustyinfla, good to see you are still with us. subdjoe, Hi and welcome, I want to apologize for not taking part in some time and will correct that as of now.

SBG thanks for holding down the fort while I've been off in space, so to speak. I'm truly sorry guys and promise to be better.

You mean you have a life away from the keyboard?!?!?!  I'm SHOCKED!   

Thanks for the welcome, Ga.  I think I like this place.