SLAVERY: NOT JUST SOMETHING FOR THE SOUTH

[Piewacket1861]

It appears from that thread that very few slaves were imported to the US after 1808.

Just perhaps, Southron, you might reread that thread. The way I read it is that we were trying to figure out how many more tnan 250,000 were run across the borders after the 1808 restriction. That there were considerably more than a "very few" just jumps out.

However, I do appreciate that you cared enough to look into it. Thank you.
__________________________________________

Flying the "American Flag" was no more evidence of an American-owned ship than it is now. Ships of many nations flew that flag because the Royal Navy tended to let such ships pass (partly due to the smarting over 1812).

Were northern-owned ships still transporting slaves to Cuba and other islands after 1808? Of course they were; there were very few southern-owned ships of a size necessary to transport slaves. But those weren't the barks and schooners and yawls and smacks that were picking slaves up from those islands and sneaking them into the many inlets along the coasts.

Lost your post somewhere in here, Southron. Excellent points. The money involved in slaverunning was analogous to our current difficulties with interdicting the drug traffic: when there's a LOT of money involved, there's a LOT of people involved.

quote]The Biltmores, Astors, etc. still have beautiful monuments to their "supposed generosity".  Names of the rich and famous of that era were kept out as best they could, but are coming to light now.  And we still have Churchill Downs, the Belmont Stakes, etc., these playthings for the "rich and famous" are still with us all these years later.

I'll assume you can link those fortunes to slaverunners? Or were you comparing the fortunes made by a few of 30,000,000 northerners with those made by a few of 9,000,000 southerners. The antebellum south claimed to have more than half of the richest men in all the states.

ole

Ole,
I hope that you have been reading this thread so far.  In one quote alone from COMPLICITY I believe I paraphrased or said directly (because the three writers here are so eloquent that it's fascinating) : (paraphrasing here)
In Dec. 1848, Solon Robinson, a farmer and writer from Connecticut who became agriculture editor for the New York Tribune visited the nation's largest cotton port, New Orleans.

The boats are constantly arriving, so piled up with cotton, that the lower tier of bales on deck are in the water; and as the boat is approaching, it looks like a huge raft of cotton bales, with the chimneys and steam pipe of an engine sticking up out of the centre.

And from New Orleans and the other major cotton ports--Savannah, Charleston, Mobile--most of the cotton was shipped to Liverpool.  If it didn't go directly to Liverpool, it was sent to the North: to Boston for use in the domestic textile industry, or to New York City.  From New York City, it generally went to Liverpool, or elsewhere in Europe.

"But this gives only the slighest hint of the role New York City and the rest of the North played in the cotton trade , or of the lengths the  New York business community was forced to go to protect its franchise." (How the NORTH Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery....COMPLICITY, Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank of the Hartford Courant Ballantine Books, New York, pg. 10.

Just to name a few of the illustrious names involved, all of which I have named before, but will add more information since you need it apparently.  I will also give you more bibliography so that you can read these things for yourself.  By the way, if not mentioned before, this book, COMPLICITY, is now required reading, I believe mentioned in Amazon.com as a freshman history course so apparently it is viewed quite highly.

I've mentioned the "merchant princes" before but will give those names again, along with others so that you won't get the impression that this was just a "few" errant Northerners.  (By the way, the way in which you termed the 9,000,000 Southerners as wealthy indeed, made your impression that  few of 30,000,000 northerners  seem a little strange.  Are we now including every single Southern poor white farmer as a slave owner?

But let me get back to my answering your statement.  Here are some more names, although if you'd read the thread you'd already see some of these:

A.T. Stewart, cotton merchant, he opened the nation's first department store, often called "the marble palace" on Broadway and was thought to be the wealthiest man in New York.

Moses Taylor, sugar importer, banker, coal and railroad magnate; his extensive enterprises for nearly half a century made him  one of the most influential men in  New York City.

Abiel Low: his firm, A.A. Low & Brothers was the most important firm in the new booming China trade.

William Astor: son of fur/real estate mogul John Jacob Astor, the nation's first millionaire.

August Belmont, Wall Street Banker: American agent for the Rothchilds of Germany; married daugher of Commodore Perry and whose absolute adoration of horse racing led to the creation of the Belmont Stakes.

Also invited to that Union Committee at the offices of Richard Lathers, prominent cotton merchant were these others.  Might I remind you this meeting was called because of these peoples' worry over strategies to smooth relations between North and South, 12-15-1860.  The group was panicky over South Carolina's probable secession vote days away , with talk of Alabama following.  The South had to be persuaded to stay in the Union until some kind of compromise in the slavery controversy must be found.  The very "spine" of 19th century money and power attended the meeting.

Other "bigwigs" invited were shipping magnates Wm. Aspinwall & his partners: Robt. Minturn  & Henry Grinnell:  editors of the Journal of Commerce and future mayors, future presidential candidates, Samuel J.  Tilden, & former president Millard Fillmore.

Lathers even directed his opening comments to Southern planters, urging them to "consider their duties to that part of their Northern brethren whose sympathies have always been with Southern rights and against Northern aggression." (from the book, COMPLICITY, pg. 11

The lawyer Chas. O'Conor, a longtime defendent of slavery, argued that in considering whether to leave the Union, the South was just struggling "to keep its head above the rapidly advancing waters of this black sea of abolitionism, which threatens to drown it."
(from COMPLITICY, pg. 12).

This lawyer O'Conor , although paused by eruptions of applause, continued, "There is no source of evil whever in the North except the honest, consciencious mistake of the honest conscientious people of the North, who have drank into their bosoms this dreadful error--that it is their duty...to crush out and trample upton the system of Slavery upon which the prosperity of the South and the permanency of this Union in its present form depend."  (COMPLICITY pg. 13.

As the day lengthend, pleas to the South grew more emotional and John A. Dix, a New Hampshire native, former New York senator, and future New York governor, summed up the sentiments of the day:
"We will not review the dark history of the aggression and insult visited upon you by Abolitionists and their abettors during the last 35 years.  Our detestation of these acts of hostility is not inferior to your own." (COMPLICITY,   

How the North Promited Promoted Slavery:  COMPLICITY, by  Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and  Jenifer Frank of the the Hartford Courant

Some other bibliographical material used:
First U.S. Census of Connecticut
First U.S. Census of Rhode Island
World of Sorrow, R. E. Conrad
Slave Catchers, Margaret Garner; S.W. Campbell,pp.144-145[/size]

Books, Articles and Unpublished Manuscripts

Foner, Philip S. Business and Slavery: The New Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1941.

Farrow, Anne. "Beyond Complicity: The Forgotten Story of Connecticut Slaveships."  Northeast, April 3, 2005.

And with that, I bid good evening to all.

PIE[/size]

[unionblue]

Piewacket1861,

While I appreciate all the information you have given up to this point concerning the national (US) aspect involvement in the institution of slavery, how does this in any way excuse the South of 1861 leaving the Union in order to protect and expand slavery?

As for the idea that slavery was a national sin, no serious student of history can deny this, and the idea that this fact is somehow hidden from the history books or on other forums seems a bit desperate.

As for starting in the "middle" of the slavery story by beginning with the South's secession over the institution, maybe that's when two divergent ideas were finally beginning to collide.  One that based it's entire economy on believing human beings were property and the rest of the planet beginning to acknowledge this should not be the case.

I would also request that a thread be begun that talks about former slaves and their struggles in the South after Reconstruction was begun until the present time.  We could list the various restrictions placed upon blacks concerning voting, owning firearms, assembly, job restrictions, being forced to live in only certain areas and parts of towns and cities.  Being forced to segragate in movie theaters, buses, lunch counters, etc.  Being killed when trying to initiate change, lynchings and jail when not able to do so.  Fighting for one's country and being forced to do so in segragated units and still being treated as second-class citizens upon returning home.  How none of the above was seriously addressed until Lyndon Johnston, the US Supreme Court and the Federal Government had to intervene at the State level with Civil Rights legislation, Brown, and National Guard & Federal troops being sent into schools and cities to insure the enforcement of the already established 14th, 15th and other Constitutional amendments.

I would further suggest we examine the entire nation in this proposed thread, for no state in the Federal Union can claim complete innocence during this period either, in my own opinion.

As an article stated in another post of mine, until we understand slavery as it was in this nation, we cannot understand America as it is.

Unionblue

[ole]

I'll just note that the fortunes amassed were in the shipping business with no apparent connection with the slave trade.

There can be no doubt that dealers in and manufacurer's of cotton goods (we can throw sugar and rice and tobacco in there) were, in effect, subsidizing slavery. They would have been just as happy if the products had been grown with paid labor.

Without knowing the personal philosophies of the greedy northern nabobs, I'll venture that a good many of them would have preferred that slavery were gone. The cotton wasn't going to go away simply because field hands got wages.

There is no real connection here.

ole

[Piewacket1861]

Piewacket1861,
 
While I appreciate all the information you have given up to this point concerning the national (US) aspect involvement in the institution of slavery, how does this in any way excuse the South of 1861 leaving the Union in order to protect and expand slavery?
__________________________________
Welcome, Unionblue.  This thread is not supposed to excuse the South of 1861, but rather show how Northerners used ships to transport blacks to this country and to other countries to "become" slaves.  We don't read about this aspect of the "noble" North. In fact I've been told several times that this is "old news".  Odd to me that as much as I have read on forums I have not seen a single Northerner ever bring up this topic.

 I thought it would be nice for this forum to have such a thread that exposes the North's part and how they played it, made money out of it, and yet, with enough guilty conscience, managed to keep it out of school books so that only the South comes out looking bad. 
 
Those slaves didn't swim over here or arrive on Southern ships.    ...Pie...
___________________________________
 
As for the idea that slavery was a national sin, no serious student of history can deny this, and the idea that this fact is somehow hidden from the history books or on other forums seems a bit desperate.
_____________________________________
This word "desperate" seems to be coming more frequently here and frankly, that  sounds a bit desperate to me. Please name for me at least 4 junior high or high school level books that detail the Rhode Island, Connecticut, N.Y. ships: give some names of these ships and how many slaves they were running into this country per month.  After all with the textile mills, etc. the North was in great need of the cotton the South was producing too.  The reason I ask for this is because I have never seen it before when I was growing up.  What I saw was slavery: the South was completely at fault, the North had nothing to do with it, just wanted to stop it, etc. ....Pie...
_________________________________________________
 
As for starting in the "middle" of the slavery story by beginning with the South's secession over the institution, maybe that's when two divergent ideas were finally beginning to collide.  One that based it's entire economy on believing human beings were property and the rest of the planet beginning to acknowledge this should not be the case.
___________________________________________________
 
As for starting, as you say, in the middle of the slavery story, I disagree.  (Did you really think I wouldn't? )  As far as what I have read lately the start of the WBTS as a political war over slavery this boils down to two  events in 1831.  First off, Wm.Lloyd Garrison  began (January 1, in Boston) began publishing the Liberator , the newspaper  that would begin the radical abolitionist movement.
 
Up until this point the only type of abolitionism with any popular support was the kind promoted by the American Colonization Society, and it had chapters in both the North and the South.  This society's aim was to send freed blacks back to Africa.  And let's face it, few people in this country, no matter how strongly they felt about slavery, thought that blacks and whites could or should ever coexist in the same society.
 
A backlash was created by radical abolitionism, and it created martyrs.   A couple of them were: Elijah Lovejoy, a Maine schoolteacher , who became a minister and the editor of an abolitionist newspaper.  He'd die at the hands of an antiabolitionist mob in Akron, in the free state of Illinois.
 
John Brown, 31,(from Connecticut) ran a tannery in New Richmond, Pennsylvania.  The huge news of of Lovejoy's murder would affect him deeply; he annointed himself as slavery's avenger, and by attacking a federal arsenal, he made himself a white Nat Turner and met the same fate.
 
And secondly Nat Turner, in Southampton County, Virginia, in August, same year, led rebel slaves who killled 60 whites....
 
As far as the rest of your post, Unionblue, your request for another thread, etc., why don't you start such a thread?  I have had this one going for quite a while before anyone decided to step in and utter a word.  I'm quite sure since you're of the Northern persuasion your cheerleaders will be out in full force.  Good luck with that.  No kidding.  ....Pie....
_____________________________________________
 
I would also request that a thread be begun that talks about former slaves and their struggles in the South after Reconstruction was begun until the present time.  We could list the various restrictions placed upon blacks concerning voting, owning firearms, assembly, job restrictions, being forced to live in only certain areas and parts of towns and cities.  Being forced to segragate in movie theaters, buses, lunch counters, etc.  Being killed when trying to initiate change, lynchings and jail when not able to do so.  Fighting for one's country and being forced to do so in segragated units and still being treated as second-class citizens upon returning home.  How none of the above was seriously addressed until Lyndon Johnston, the US Supreme Court and the Federal Government had to intervene at the State level with Civil Rights legislation, Brown, and National Guard & Federal troops being sent into schools and cities to insure the enforcement of the already established 14th, 15th and other Constitutional amendments.
 
I would further suggest we examine the entire nation in this proposed thread, for no state in the Federal Union can claim complete innocence during this period either, in my own opinion.
 
As an article stated in another post of mine, until we understand slavery as it was in this nation, we cannot understand America as it is.
 

Unionblue

____________________________________
 
Again, I would suggest that you start another thread. My thread is devoted to getting out some well-hidden facts about the North.   I'm sure you can repeat a lot of things that you already know about the South and how we're the only "bad guys" in town.  Then I'll be able to sell you some real estate in New Orleans.
Again, welcome to the board.   ...Pie...[/size]

Oh, and Ole, sorry, but I am tired now and still have not eaten.
Frankly, I think you and I have reached a stalemate anyway.  I will never agree with your repitious remarks.  Why don't you start a
thread of your own and maybe we can go a round or two.

I'll be back as soon as time permits.  I have a job and have to work.
Not to be presumptuous, but do any of you guys work?

Take care and sleep well tonight.  ....Pie...[/size]

[unionblue]

Piewacket1861,

To address a few points from your reply above.

"This thread is not to excuse the South of 1861,"

No, it is what I consider a 'reverse' cheerleading thread that the South of 1861 wasn't that "bad" becaused it practiced slavery because the evil North was involved in slavetrading too.

"Those slaves didn't swim over here or arrive on Southern ships."

No, they arrived here because of the huge demand of those in the South needing cheap labor.  But I do agree with your implied concept that the carrier is just as bad and evil as the reciptant.

"Please name for me at least four junior high or high school level books..."

I can't.  But by the same token, I can't name four junior high or high school level books that go into any detail of the history of that period.  High school curriculums are not designed to go into such depth and detail on ANY subject.  So the idea that there is some sort of "Northern" conspiracy to deny these historical events seems to be a bit of a strawman argument by yourself in my view.

"As far as I have read lately the start of the WBTS as a political war over slavery..."

Guess it depends on what you read, but I get the impression from what I read in the declarations of secession that it really was a war over slavery, it's protection and expansion.  But no problem, you say political, I say actual, but what's important is that the word "slavery" is in there somewhere.

"Again, I would ask that you start another thread.  My thread is devoted to getting out some well-hidden facts about the North."

The "My thread" angle doesn't cut it here, in my own humble opinion, for as long as there is a "reply" button at the bottom of every reply you make, as you do not "own" this thread or have exclusive control over it's content or input. 

This is a Civil War forum and as I read it in the dictionary, a forum is: 1. The public square of an ancient Roman city that was the place of assembly for judicial and other public activity.  2a. A public meeting place for open discussion.  b. A medium for open discussion, as a radio or television program.  3.  A court of law: TRIBUNAL.  4.  A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

I suggest "your" thread comes under sections 2 - 4.  If all you want is a quiet place to preach without anyone objecting, I suggest that this is not going to be the place that will meet that hoped-for requirement.

As for the idea that there is such a thing as "well-hidden facts about the North" and a concentrated effort to conceal it's involvement in slavery and slave trading, isn't it amazing how many books and web sites on that very subject are available to anyone who has the ability to type those words into a search engine or has the energy to go to a local library and do a subject search?  I am sorry if I take the phrase "well-hidden" to imply some major effort to hide facts of history by some mysterious and sinister organization with the means and resources to do so.  If there is such an effort or organization attempting to do so, they surely are sorely lacking in trained and dedicated personnel.

However, I do not wish to stop you from posting historical documentation that there were those in the North that were engaged in the buying, selling, transporting, and shipping of slaves or the historical truth that there were those in the North who profited from such despicable practices. 

In fact, I wish to state here and now that I fully acknowledge the information you have presented is accurate and true and that those men in the North who engaged in such evil activities were guilty of conducting an inhuman practice and deserved to be named as criminals and as such committed crimes against humanity.  Anyone in the North who participated in slavery, no matter how minor the connection, was guilty of a crime.  Anyone who profited off of this despicable traffic and trade, from those who financed the slave ships, who turned a blind eye to their purpose, who sailed in the ships, who commanded them, who crammed hundreds of helpless human beings into crowded, dank, dark holds, to those who recieved them and sold them or delivered these poor souls into bondage should recieve our deepest scorn, contempt, and comdemnation.

All I ask is you do is join me in the same comdemnation of every Southern slaveholder who bought, sold, transported, recieved, worked, drove, or beat a slave.

I will then be convinced that you are not merely holding up Northern examples of such evil practices to reduce the guilt of the Southern examples of the same evil.

As it has been said on another forum, there were NO CLEAN HANDS REGARDING SLAVERY.  Whether they be Southern or Northern ones.

Don't you agree?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[unionblue]

Ole,

I managed to find some of those "well-hidden" facts about the number of Northern ships engaged in possible slave activities/trading.

If you get the chance, check out the book, The American Slave Trade: Its Origin, Growth and Suppression, by John R. Spears.  It was first published in 1900, then reprinted in 1970, 1978 and 1998.  Those guys trying to hide this stuff have got to get their act together!

The book lists in the back an appendex A and B, both documents from, and I quote, "From Sen. Ex. Doc. 53, 37th Cong., 2d Sess."

Appendix A lists the "Names and number of vessels arrested and bonded from the first day of May, 1852, to the first day of May, 1862, in the Southern District of New York, charged with being engaged in the slave-trade, together with the names of bondsmen, the amounts they were bonded for, and the amounts realized by the Government."  It lists 26 ships in all.

Appendix B lists "Names of all persons arrested who have been bailed from the first day of May, 1852, to the first day of May, 1862, in the Southern District of New York, charged with being engaged in the slave-trade, together with the names of bondsmen, the amounts of the bonds, and the amounts the Government has realized from the forfeiture thereof."  It lists 61 persons in this appendix.

I submit that these numbers indicate that there were more than a double handful of northern ship owners involved in the slave-trade.

I agree, that unless Piewacket1861 answers a question of mine, this entire thread seems to be devoted to somehow get the South "off" or provide the South of 1861-1865 with some sort of historical alibi that it did not secede over slavery.  I love Piewacket1861's comment that the slaves did not "swim" here, that they had to be carried in ships.  Yet if we continue to follow that logic, who was paying to have those slaves shipped?  Where were these ships expecting to sell their cargo to?  If there was no market in slaves, would greedy, evil northern captains and their ships go to Africa, load up on slaves for just something to do?

Kinda goes along with that buyer theory of yours, doesn't it?

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[Piewacket1861]

Piewacket1861,

To address a few points from your reply above.

"This thread is not to excuse the South of 1861,"

No, it is what I consider a 'reverse' cheerleading thread that the South of 1861 wasn't that "bad" becaused it practiced slavery because the evil North was involved in slavetrading too.

"Those slaves didn't swim over here or arrive on Southern ships."

No, they arrived here because of the huge demand of those in the South needing cheap labor.  But I do agree with your implied concept that the carrier is just as bad and evil as the reciptant.
__________________________________________________________
Mr. Unionblue,
You seem to leave out the fact that the Northern textile factories were clammering for Southern cotton so it wasn't just a matter of the South needing more slaves.  And since you have brought up the NO CLEAN HANDS REGARDING SLAVERY THREAD  on Tom's thread, you will notice that the materials are the same and the idea is to bring out the information about slave-running.[/u
...Pie...
_______________________________________________

"Please name for me at least four junior high or high school level books..."

I can't.  But by the same token, I can't name four junior high or high school level books that go into any detail of the history of that period.  High school curriculums are not designed to go into such depth and detail on ANY subject.  So the idea that there is some sort of "Northern" conspiracy to deny these historical events seems to be a bit of a strawman argument by yourself in my view.
_________________________________________________
Since you can't find them then it would seem that it is lucky that this information is coming to light for all the rest of us who didn't know about slave-running and who those ships belonged to.   It's quite apparent that no Northerner was going to venture to tell the rest of us.  It's also apparent that you knew this information and I suppose considered it irrelevant because it didn't justify the cause which you pursue with such zeal: laying all the blame on slavery on the South and not thinking about the years that led up to the situation or the correlation between the need for cotton by both North and South.....Pie....
_______________________________________________

"As far as I have read lately the start of the WBTS as a political war over slavery..."

? (Please finish my sentence, otherwise I cannot debate it with you  It's unintelligible this way....Pie....
____________________________________________________

Guess it depends on what you read, but I get the impression from what I read in the declarations of secession that it really was a war over slavery, it's protection and expansion.  But no problem, you say political, I say actual, but what's important is that the word "slavery" is in there somewhere.

"Again, I would ask that you start another thread.  My thread is devoted to getting out some well-hidden facts about the North."

The "My thread" angle doesn't cut it here, in my own humble opinion, for as long as there is a "reply" button at the bottom of every reply you make, as you do not "own" this thread or have exclusive control over it's content or input. 
___________________________________________________
You're absolutely right that I don't own the thread.  I would just like to see it run the course of slave-running before we drown in the same stale material that other forums that used to be great have now dwindled to one topic: slavery.   The war, in my opinion, was about much more than slavery.  The South wanted a separate nation, one not dictated to by Northern industrialists who put railroad lines where they wanted, used monies where they felt they were most needed (and that wouldn't be in the South, etc.)...Pie...
______________________________________________

This is a Civil War forum and as I read it in the dictionary, a forum is: 1. The public square of an ancient Roman city that was the place of assembly for judicial and other public activity.  2a. A public meeting place for open discussion.  b. A medium for open discussion, as a radio or television program.  3.  A court of law: TRIBUNAL.  4.  A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

I suggest "your" thread comes under sections 2 - 4.  If all you want is a quiet place to preach without anyone objecting, I suggest that this is not going to be the place that will meet that hoped-for requirement.
___________________________________________
You are absolutely correct about the definition of debate and about my ill-usage of the term "my thread", Mr.Unionblue.  I am, however, determined, to get this information out about slave-running and not get bogged down in your version of the war: slavery and nothing but.
I see others are willing to go down the primrose path with you.  At this point, I am not.  I want to finish this slave-running business to show how far it went, how it made people wealthy, and it continued even into the early war years!  I am just as determined to do that as you are to side-track me. 

I don't know much about debate but I do know how to get my point across and it is to continue on the course I've set.  I really believe there are others such as Southron and Wild Rose who are chock full of the census figures, etc. but my mission, on this thread is slave-running....Pie...
__________________________________________

As for the idea that there is such a thing as "well-hidden facts about the North" and a concentrated effort to conceal it's involvement in slavery and slave trading, isn't it amazing how many books and web sites on that very subject are available to anyone who has the ability to type those words into a search engine or has the energy to go to a local library and do a subject search?  I am sorry if I take the phrase "well-hidden" to imply some major effort to hide facts of history by some mysterious and sinister organization with the means and resources to do so.  If there is such an effort or organization attempting to do so, they surely are sorely lacking in trained and dedicated personnel.
______________________________________
Mr. Unionblue, if the above paragraph was intended to belittle the efforts of Southerners, etc. on this thread who are not as savvy about web-sites, etc. as you are, it didn't hit the mark,at least with me.  I just keep plugging along. ....Pie....
_______________________________________

Again, I would suggest that you and several others don't seem to like the idea that I have laid out some facts that some people of Southern persuasion weren't aware of and I don't see that you  were offering to tell any of us much about slave-running.....  Pie....
______________________________________

However, I do not wish to stop you from posting historical documentation that there were those in the North that were engaged in the buying, selling, transporting, and shipping of slaves or the historical truth that there were those in the North who profited from such despicable practices.
________________________________________
I thank you for that but, as you say, it is my right to do so.
...Pie....
_______________________________________

 
In fact, I wish to state here and now that I fully acknowledge the information you have presented is accurate and true and that those men in the North who engaged in such evil activities were guilty of conducting an inhuman practice and deserved to be named as criminals and as such committed crimes against humanity.  Anyone in the North who participated in slavery, no matter how minor the connection, was guilty of a crime.  Anyone who profited off of this despicable traffic and trade, from those who financed the slave ships, who turned a blind eye to their purpose, who sailed in the ships, who commanded them, who crammed hundreds of helpless human beings into crowded, dank, dark holds, to those who recieved them and sold them or delivered these poor souls into bondage should recieve our deepest scorn, contempt, and comdemnation.

All I ask is you do is join me in the same comdemnation of every Southern slaveholder who bought, sold, transported, recieved, worked, drove, or beat a slave.

I will then be convinced that you are not merely holding up Northern examples of such evil practices to reduce the guilt of the Southern examples of the same evil.
_________________________________________________
Mr. Unionblue, I will gladly acknowledge what I know to be true about Southerners and slavery, but even some others on this board, I notice, have questioned some of the information that you and others opt to put out as the assumed way of life of Southerners.
I can't remember which one said this, but to assume that every single day a Southern woman took her slave, bound her to something and beat half to death  in hopes of getting more work out of her that day is ludicrous.  This sounds more like a psychopath (sp?) that should have been locked up long ago!

And I'm sure it's been said before, but this war could not have continued with most of the Southern men gone to fight if it had not been without the help of the slaves.  They had to have felt some feeling of family, otherwise every single one of them would have run away to join up with the Northern horde ravishing the South.
...Pie...
______________________________________


As it has been said on another forum, there were NO CLEAN HANDS REGARDING SLAVERY.  Whether they be Southern or Northern ones.

Don't you agree?
_______________________________________
Absolutely!  That is what I have been trying to point out, but some Northern cheerleaders try to side-track me and ask innane questions like what does this have to do with slavery in 1861.  The answer is very simple: Slave-running had been going on since before the Revolutionary war and it continued.  Ole would like to think that all those big mercantilists, etc. in the North were noble men.  No, they were merely businessmen who saw a a profit.  But I will leave Ole to be dealt with by others.  They seem to be doing a good job of it.  ...Pie....
________________________________________

Sincerely,
Unionblue

PIE

[Piewacket1861]

Before proceeding any further I would like to show more sources used for this thread. These come from books and articles.
 
The Rise of New York Port, 1815-1860,Robert Greenhalgh Albion. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1939.   References are to the 1967 edition.
 
History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Samuel Greene Arnold.  New York: D. Appleton, 1859-1860.
 
The Tiffany Fortune and Other Chronicles of a Connecticut Family., Alfred M. Bingham.  Chesnut Hill, MA; Abeel & Leet, 1996.
 
Five Black Lives: The Autobiographies of Venture Smith, James Mars, William Grimes, the Rev. G. W. Offley, [and] James L. Smith, Arna Bontemps, comp. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1971.
 
In the Hands of Strangers: Readings on Foreign and Domestic Slave Trading and the Crisis of the Union..  Robert Edgar Conrad, ed.  University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.
 
Roger Sherman's Connecticut: Yankee Politics and the American Revolution., Christopher Collier.  Middleton, CT:  Wesleyan University Press, 1971.
 
People, I believe, have made an attempt to turn this thread into another about Southern slavery.  This was not my purpose, although I will willingly discuss this on another thread; but this thread was designed to delve into something I knew nothing about until about 8 months ago.   Some have told me that it is irrelevant and that (to use my own terminology, it's old hat because everyone already knows this stuff.)
 
Well, I for one, didn't know this and was excited to share, what I thought was something that others like me didn't have knowledge of.  Admittedly I am not as well-read as many many others on forums but I am learning as I go along. 
 
I have not set out with this thread to beat up the North, but rather to show that slave-running was going on for years in these upper Northern states, even into the early 1860's, which I would have thought impossible.
But let me continue with some of the things I've learned. 

I am now turning in a little bit of a different direction, but please bear with me.
 
Southerners tried to reopen the slave trade, when they sent the Wanderer from New York to Africa and in 1858 and it successfully smuggled almost 400 young Africans into this country.  (Let me also remind viewers that Southerners did not own these ships that carried slaves, so there was an equal partnership, if you will, at that point, between North and South.)
 
Before the War between the States tens of thousands of Africans were transported on illegal U.S. slave ships; and almost all vanished on foreign coffee and sugar plantations where conditions were appallingly deplorable.  There is information though about some of the 400 Africans who endured the "Middle Passage" and were smuggled into the United States by the slave yacht Wanderer in late 1858.  These were sent to plantations on the Georgia mainland and ultimately dispersed throughout the cotton states.
 
Fifty years after being smuggled into the States Wanderer survivors were photographed and interviewed by an anthropologist, Charles Montgomery.  One of them, Ward Lee, originally named Cilucangy was found in South Carolina and still spoke his native language fluently.   He'd once handed out a circular asking for help to go back to Africa.  "I will be glad of whatever you will give me. I am bound for my old home if God be with me white or black yellow or the red I am an old African." the circular read in part.  (American Anthropologist, Vol. 10, 1908)
 
Another of the survivors, Tom Johnson, real name Zow Uncola, said he didn't think he would return to Africa even if given the chance.  "I'm gittin' so old, I'm 'fraid I couldn't git back," he told Montgomery in an interview.
 
To make matters more difficult Johnson said he was from a part of the African coast where the sun rises, probably meaning  the east coast, where the Wanderer sailed, up and down looking for humancargo.
 
The old slave tried to get more specific.  "Where I come from, you can see the water just drippin' out o' the sun."
 
(pp.134-137 COMPLICITY, paraphrasing.)
 
Let's continue now with another portion of this country's history that I knew a little something about, but not nearly enough: the kidnapping of free blacks in the North to sell into slavery.

Before the war the kidnapping of free blacks from Northern states was so rampant that the abolitionists called it a slave trade of its own sort.
 
They also claimed that the abductions boosted the South's slave population by the thousands each decade.  This is probably an exaggeration, but the traffic continued for so long that modern historians have said that it was almost like an underground railroad, but running in the wrong direction!  Furthermore, its most famous conductors were organized gangs, like outlaws, who became legends in their own time.
 
Patsy Cannon was the most unlikely gang leader; said to be so strong that she could jerk a 300-lb. sack of grain to her shoulder, or a grown man off his feet.  Her chief helper was her son-in-law, known only by a contemporary newspaper as "the celebrated Joseph Johnson, negro trader."
 
 The Cannon gang's territory extended from the Delmarva Peninsula of Maryland and Delaware, both slave states, to free Pennsylvania, where the Philadelphia waterfront was one of their favorite hunting grounds.
 
In the 1825 summer alone, the gang grabbed at least 12 young victims from Philly, the City of Brotherly Love.
 
When they found it necessary, kidnappers, like slave ship captains, resorted to murder to ensure the success of their business.  April, 1829 found the skeletons of one adult and 3 young children discovered on a farm Patty Cannon had occupied.
One of the children, thought to be around 7, had a crushed skull.
A previous gang member testified that he'd seen Cannon club the child to death in an effort to get rid of incriminating evidence.
 
Northern cities couldn't guarantee the safety of black residents: whether they were free people who had never been slaves or runaways who'd established lives in the North.
 
November, 1829: a New York newspaper warned that a kidnapping ring was taking a black child a day from city streets; and by 1835,  the continued threat of kidnappings in New York led to the creation of the first important black self-defense association, with its leader, David Ruggles.  This Ruggles also started a short-lived journal that exposed New York officials who worked with kidnappers.  Ruggles even threatened to publish a separate "slaveholders directory" for N.Y. City and Brooklyn listing the conspirators' names and addresses.
 
In 1838, Ruggles gave shelter for the most famous fugitive slave in American history, Frederick Douglass.  In the 1855 expanded edition of his autobiography Douglass gave credit to Ruggles and described the dread he'd felt before finding sanctuary with him.
 
"New York, 17 years ago, was less a place of safety for a runaway than now," he wrote, "and all know how unsafe it now is, under the new fugitive slave law."
 
I will try my best to get back to this Monday and get into the way the Fugitive Slave Act terrified free blacks, otherwise I'll get back as soon as possible.
 
I do understand that some folks may feel that I need to stop and debate portions of the information I have found.  I would like to get all this out there and then have a round-robin debate with hopefully, equal numbers of Northern and Southern participants. 
 
I've been on a lot of forums and as long as debate remains courteous I'm willing and able to do this. 
 
Hope everyone had a great week-end.

Pie

[ole]

A couple of minor adjustments, Pie.

The Wanderer was a southern-owned yacht. It put into the Congo on its single visit to Africa. That's West Africa. That one slave insists that the sun rose dripping with water would certainly indicate that he was from East Africa. That's not impossible, but must have, at least been unusual.

What makes the Wanderer notable is that it did intend to put in on US soil. If I'm recalling correctly, 415 of 485 survived the trip. The yacht could have held more, but the skipper got a bit anxious to leave.

Following the Congressional ban on importing slaves, the traffic shifted to the Spanish Caribbean. Slaves imported into the states after that time came mainly on small boats from Spanish possessions; for example, the Amistad which missed its delivery.

While on your voyage of discovery, look for Federal attempts to quash imports (special note: southern presidents), and the growing "need" for more slaves. Contrast also the efforts of northern states to clear themselves of the practice with the efforts of most southern states to do the same. I understand that Virginia made movements in that direction, and that there may have been more emancipation organizations in the south than there were in the north (at least until the death threats started).

ole

[unionblue]

Piewacket1861,

You state in you post above:

"Mr. Unionblue, I will gladly acknowledge what I know to be true about Southerners and slavery, but even some others on this board, I notice, have questioned some of the information that you and other opt to put out as the assumed way of life of Southerners."

I have no problem with folks questioning the information that I present, but I would like to make clear, I make no assumptions about the way of life of Southerners.  I make assumptions about the way of life of 19th century Southerners, not those living today.  Yet by some responses you would think the reverse is true.

"I can't remember which one said this, but to assume that every single day a Southern woman took her slave, bound her to something and beat her half to death in hopes of getting more work out of her that day is ludicrous.  This sounds more like a psychopath (sp?) that should have been locked up long ago!"

Piewacket1861!  Certainly you are not judging 19th century behavior with a 21st century sense of morals, are you?  But more to the point, I can't remember who said the above either, but if you are referring to another thread and an article I posted in the BEATING UP ON THE CONFEDERACY thread, I'm pretty sure the article didn't say a Southern woman beat her slave EVERY day.  But it's nice to know there does seem to be an upper limit to what would have been psychopathic behaviour.  One beating administered in a lifetime as you allude to above would be pretty horrible to me, but anyone can have a bad 'day' I guess.

"And I'm sure it's been said before, but this war could not have continued with most of the Southern men gone to fight it if it had not been without the help of the slaves."

Pie, I am sure it's going to come as no shock to you, but the war did NOT continue.  It lasted four years and most Southern whites had pretty much given up on the idea of the 'loyal' slave.  They pretty much said that they had deluded themselves into thinking that there was such.  Check out Confederate Emancipation, by Bruce Levine and read the comments by former slaveowners.

"They had to have some feeling of family, otherwise every single one of them would have to run away to join up with the Northern horde ravishing the South."

I am so glad that you have no ulterior motive in providing this thread to all this board's members and visitors.  "Northern horde" & "ravishing the South" along with other comments certainly gives me confidence that you intend this for no other purpose.

And again, as I fully expected, no condemnation of Southern slaveowners, but the weary continuation of kindly masters and contented slaves.  While you claim no Northerner was going to bring up this topic, it's strange that it was brought up by one Northerner who said it was just as wrong to carry slaves as it was to own them.  It also seems strange that the majority of your books that you use as reference for this thread are published in "Northern" states.  I wonder if you have checked to see who the authors were and where they resided.

But I digress, please continue.

Sincerely,
Unionblue