Don: Is it not true that slave-owners who granted freedom to their slaves were forced to post huge bonds to ensure they would not become a burden on the taxpayers? In some cases, it was just too expensive to let them go! -----Original Message----- From: Don Kelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:05 AM To: SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States To one of several good comments Stanley, the answer is YES, slavery would have ended anyway. Externally, Britain in 1812 outlawed slavery. For British /Americans that legal move was more supportive of an evolving human rights ideology than it was legally enforceable on American soil. Internally, legislators from the south had already made moves to limit the spread of slavery to other states. Kentucky was the first state placed out of bounds to slave owners. But the same eyes that saw Kentucky as a free state also saw other states north and west as free states in which slavery would not be tolerated. Kansas I believe was one of those. The descendents of the English Colonists held most of the plantations where slaves were kept (I don't know what percentage were slave owners, or English for that matter), but pressure upon them to reform was growing as new machines replaced the need for so much manpower. So YES, slavery would have ended anyway, but certainly not as fast. The biggest factor IMHO that caused the war was that the south had a thriving trade with Europe, which incidentally included better guns, better cannons, and more money for their cotton than the north could produce, and more money than the north was willing to pay for the cotton. As a matter of record, congressmen (and reps) of the north (more of them) ganged up on the congressmen/reps from the south and began passing laws detrimental to the south. "Unfair Enactments" they were called. An so they were. The situation became so overbalanced that the southern delegation, unable to achieve equal representation, as a body walked out and went home. Among the laws passed was laws to give industries in the north a monopoly on sales to the south. Add to that the northern navy, as a matter of government policy, harassed the ships who brought trade goods to the south, much through New Orleans......even boarding foreign ships in the open sea and even on the Mississippi River on occasion. So the question is, under those circumstances, if you were a southerner, what would be your first priority? Don Kelly ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stanley Perry" <sperry1@twmi.rr.com> To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: Re: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > Mr. Harrison: > Your reading about the Civil War is obviously selective. You should view > the fine progrom on HBO "Unchained Memories: Readings from the Slave > Narratives" and listen, from their own mouths, to how "tolerant and > compassionate" southern slave owners were to their slaves. It will turn > your stomach. These records are in the National Archives and there are many > oral histories in black families regarding slave life. I'm not saying that > there were some slaveowners who weren't kind, but the fact remains that they > were considered and treated as property the same as the owners' livestock. > (Look at tax records of plantations). True, some northern states did have > repressive laws against blacks, but chattel slavery did not exist. The > Underground Railroad succeeded because of people, black and white, who > risked their lives to disobey the 1850 Fugitive Slave law which allowed > slaveowners to pursue escaped slaves into northern states. Regardless of > Lincoln's original motivations, the Union and Confederate soldiers knew that > the war was over the institution of slavery. "States Rights" ultimately > meant the right of the South to continue this institution. In 1864, Lincoln > opened up the ranks of the Union Army to black men and more than 200,000 > free men and former slaves enlisted, including two of my great grandfathers. > They were most certainly fighting for the end of slavery, not to preserve > the Union. > > As far as your comments about the slave trade, black Africans did, in some > areas, participate in the enslavement of members of rival tribes as a result > of being offered weapons and other valuables to do so by European slave > traders. But to say that all slaves were sold into slavery by other blacks > is highly inaccurate. Colonials in America had tried to enslave Native > Americans, but were unsuccessful because the Native American could easily > escape into country that they knew better that the colonists. Africans were > seen as more ideal because they did not know the language and the country, > and could easily be identified if they tried to escape because of their > color. > Do you honestly believe that the South would have ended slavery voluntarily? > After the institution of slavery ended, psychological slavery in the form of > Jim Crow laws was established, which existed long after the states you > referred to had abolished anti-black laws. But,the whole nation, north and > south, I'm sure you will agree, has been tainted and haunted by this > history. > Pat Perry, slave descendant. > ---- Original Message ----- > From: "Sam Harrison" <samharrison@knology.net> > To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:32 PM > Subject: RE: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > I don't want to start another War here, but I have to comment ..... > > > > I still prefer to call it "The War of Northern Aggression" or "The War of > > States Rights." > > > > It is hard to believe, but in a number of Northern states, free blacks had > > fewer rights than slaves in the South. Historian Charles Adams reports > that > > Indiana and Ohio prohibited free Negroes from entering the state. Lincoln > > never spoke against the Illinois law (1853) that barred black people from > > residing in that state. The Oregon constitution (1859) prohibited blacks > > from coming into the state, holding property, making contracts or filing a > > lawsuit. > > > > Northern states that permitted black residency did not permit blacks to > > attend the theater or school, nor could blacks be admitted to hospitals. > > Alexis De Tocqueville wrote that the Southern people were "much more > > tolerant and compassionate" toward blacks than were Northerners. In 1862, > > the North British Review wrote that "free Negroes are treated like lepers" > > in the North. > > > > President Lincoln made it abundantly clear that the Civil War was not > about > > slavery. He invaded the Confederacy in order to maintain the union and the > > revenue base for his expansionist plans. > > > > In 1862, Lincoln wrote a public letter to New York Tribune editor Horace > > Greeley: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and > is > > not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union > without > > freeing any slave, I would do it. What I do about slavery, and the colored > > race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." > > > > When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation as a wartime measure > > hoping to stir up a slave rebellion in the South (Northern slaves and > those > > in Confederate territory under Union control were not freed), Union > General > > "Fighting Joe" Hooker wrote to Lincoln that "a large element of the army > had > > taken sides against it, declaring that they would never have embarked in > the > > war had they anticipated this action of the government." > > > > Pulitzer Prize winner David Herbert Donald documents that Lincoln, "well > > into his presidency," wanted to solve the "Negro problem" by sending all > > blacks back to Africa. Lincoln had a colonization scheme for sending > blacks > > to Liberia. This would keep blacks from migrating to the Northern states > > "where they would compete with white laborers." Lincoln justified his > scheme > > in terms of "restoring a captive people to their long-lost father-land, > with > > bright prospects for the future." > > > > If Lincoln had not been assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, he might have > > carried off his scheme. The Northern states would have wholeheartedly > > supported it, and perhaps the defeated Southern states, as well. > > > > Lincoln had the power to implement his scheme. He had acquired dictatorial > > powers early in the war simply by asserting them. He ignored rulings by > the > > chief justice of the Supreme Court, suspended habeas corpus, arrested > state > > legislators and newspaper editors, and exiled a U.S. representative. > Indeed, > > it was his exercise of dictatorial power that caused his assassination. > > > > Slaves were brought by European colonists to the South prior to the > > existence of the United States. Slaves were brought there not because the > > Confederacy (which did not exist at that time) wished to mistreat blacks, > > but because there was no labor force to work the fertile agricultural > lands. > > > > The black slaves brought to North America were captured and sold into > > slavery by other blacks. The African slave market in Dahomey was operated > by > > blacks. The Southern states emerged from colonies in which slavery was an > > established institution. As economic historians have noted, slavery was on > > the way out as a growing population provided a free labor market. > > > > Just started back to college at age 57 to get my degree. Kids today think > > the War was only fought over slavery (Revisionist History & Politically > > Correct Thinking). Trying to educate them.... The Professors won't. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Don Kelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:10 AM > > To: SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com > > Subject: Re: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > > > Civil War is a rather short and more traditional name of that war. > > > > Newspapers in the south referred to it as The War of Northern > > Aggression. > > > > That was the name used by my relatives in Arkansas....even after 1975. > > > > Newspapers in the north probably used a different name. > > > > By any name a half million young lives were snuffed out because Lincoln > > and the big manufacturing interests in the north wanted monopolies in > > sales of products in and to politically dominate the southern states. > > > > In those respects slavery had little to do with why the war was started. > > > > Don > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Nancie O'Sullivan" <drayton5@earthlink.net> > > To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:40 AM > > Subject: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > > > > > > > Kenneth, why do you prefer to call it 'Civil War > > > "? > > > > > > nancie > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Nancie O'Sullivan > > > > > > --- drayton5@earthlink.net > > > > > > --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. > > > > > > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > > > If you need to unsubscribe send mailto:SCSparta-l-request@rootsweb.com > > with one word in the bottom of the message: unsubscribe We hope you > > will join us again soon. > > > > > > ============================== > > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > > records, go to: > > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > > > > --- > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 > > > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > > The messages to this list are archived at RootsWeb. You can > > find past messages by going to: > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index and typing in: SCSparta. > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online > > genealogy records, go to: > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > ______________________________ > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > The South Carolina Archives has put some record indices on line: http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/search/default.asp You can find information there to order the actual records. > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== The South Carolina Archives has put some record indices on line: http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/search/default.asp You can find information there to order the actual records. ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Can't address that specific question, but IMHO many local laws ( like Jim Crow) were patently unfair. Incidentally, beside the instant point, but after the war a sizeable number of former slaves made a new home in Liberia. I don't know the details of how they got there, but today find surnames like Smith and Jones among the citizens. Don ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mildred "Mickey" Fournier" <mfournier@atlantic.net> To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:18 AM Subject: RE: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > Don: Is it not true that slave-owners who granted freedom to their slaves > were forced to post huge bonds to ensure they would not become a burden on > the taxpayers? In some cases, it was just too expensive to let them go! > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Kelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 10:05 AM > To: SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > To one of several good comments Stanley, the answer is YES, slavery > would have ended anyway. > > Externally, Britain in 1812 outlawed slavery. For British /Americans > that legal move was more supportive of an evolving human rights ideology > than it was legally enforceable on American soil. > > Internally, legislators from the south had already made moves to limit > the spread of slavery to other states. Kentucky was the first state > placed out of bounds to slave owners. > > But the same eyes that saw Kentucky as a free state also saw other > states north and west as free states in which slavery would not be > tolerated. Kansas I believe was one of those. > > The descendents of the English Colonists held most of the plantations > where slaves were kept (I don't know what percentage were slave owners, > or English for that matter), but pressure upon them to reform was > growing as new machines replaced the need for so much manpower. > > So YES, slavery would have ended anyway, but certainly not as fast. > > The biggest factor IMHO that caused the war was that the south had a > thriving trade with Europe, which incidentally included better guns, > better cannons, and more money for their cotton than the north could > produce, and more money than the north was willing to pay for the > cotton. > > As a matter of record, congressmen (and reps) of the north (more of > them) ganged up on the congressmen/reps from the south and began passing > laws detrimental to the south. > "Unfair Enactments" they were called. An so they were. > > The situation became so overbalanced that the southern delegation, > unable to achieve equal representation, as a body walked out and went > home. > > Among the laws passed was laws to give industries in the north a > monopoly on sales to the south. > > Add to that the northern navy, as a matter of government policy, > harassed the ships who > brought trade goods to the south, much through New Orleans......even > boarding foreign ships in the open sea and even on the Mississippi River > on occasion. > > So the question is, under those circumstances, if you were a southerner, > what would be your first priority? > > Don Kelly > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Stanley Perry" <sperry1@twmi.rr.com> > To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 9:57 PM > Subject: Re: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > Mr. Harrison: > > Your reading about the Civil War is obviously selective. You should > view > > the fine progrom on HBO "Unchained Memories: Readings from the Slave > > Narratives" and listen, from their own mouths, to how "tolerant and > > compassionate" southern slave owners were to their slaves. It will > turn > > your stomach. These records are in the National Archives and there > are many > > oral histories in black families regarding slave life. I'm not saying > that > > there were some slaveowners who weren't kind, but the fact remains > that they > > were considered and treated as property the same as the owners' > livestock. > > (Look at tax records of plantations). True, some northern states did > have > > repressive laws against blacks, but chattel slavery did not exist. > The > > Underground Railroad succeeded because of people, black and white, who > > risked their lives to disobey the 1850 Fugitive Slave law which > allowed > > slaveowners to pursue escaped slaves into northern states. Regardless > of > > Lincoln's original motivations, the Union and Confederate soldiers > knew that > > the war was over the institution of slavery. "States Rights" > ultimately > > meant the right of the South to continue this institution. In 1864, > Lincoln > > opened up the ranks of the Union Army to black men and more than > 200,000 > > free men and former slaves enlisted, including two of my great > grandfathers. > > They were most certainly fighting for the end of slavery, not to > preserve > > the Union. > > > > As far as your comments about the slave trade, black Africans did, in > some > > areas, participate in the enslavement of members of rival tribes as a > result > > of being offered weapons and other valuables to do so by European > slave > > traders. But to say that all slaves were sold into slavery by other > blacks > > is highly inaccurate. Colonials in America had tried to enslave > Native > > Americans, but were unsuccessful because the Native American could > easily > > escape into country that they knew better that the colonists. > Africans were > > seen as more ideal because they did not know the language and the > country, > > and could easily be identified if they tried to escape because of > their > > color. > > Do you honestly believe that the South would have ended slavery > voluntarily? > > After the institution of slavery ended, psychological slavery in the > form of > > Jim Crow laws was established, which existed long after the states you > > referred to had abolished anti-black laws. But,the whole nation, > north and > > south, I'm sure you will agree, has been tainted and haunted by this > > history. > > Pat Perry, slave descendant. > > ---- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sam Harrison" <samharrison@knology.net> > > To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:32 PM > > Subject: RE: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > > > > I don't want to start another War here, but I have to comment ..... > > > > > > I still prefer to call it "The War of Northern Aggression" or "The > War of > > > States Rights." > > > > > > It is hard to believe, but in a number of Northern states, free > blacks had > > > fewer rights than slaves in the South. Historian Charles Adams > reports > > that > > > Indiana and Ohio prohibited free Negroes from entering the state. > Lincoln > > > never spoke against the Illinois law (1853) that barred black people > from > > > residing in that state. The Oregon constitution (1859) prohibited > blacks > > > from coming into the state, holding property, making contracts or > filing a > > > lawsuit. > > > > > > Northern states that permitted black residency did not permit blacks > to > > > attend the theater or school, nor could blacks be admitted to > hospitals. > > > Alexis De Tocqueville wrote that the Southern people were "much more > > > tolerant and compassionate" toward blacks than were Northerners. In > 1862, > > > the North British Review wrote that "free Negroes are treated like > lepers" > > > in the North. > > > > > > President Lincoln made it abundantly clear that the Civil War was > not > > about > > > slavery. He invaded the Confederacy in order to maintain the union > and the > > > revenue base for his expansionist plans. > > > > > > In 1862, Lincoln wrote a public letter to New York Tribune editor > Horace > > > Greeley: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, > and > > is > > > not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union > > without > > > freeing any slave, I would do it. What I do about slavery, and the > colored > > > race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." > > > > > > When Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation as a wartime > measure > > > hoping to stir up a slave rebellion in the South (Northern slaves > and > > those > > > in Confederate territory under Union control were not freed), Union > > General > > > "Fighting Joe" Hooker wrote to Lincoln that "a large element of the > army > > had > > > taken sides against it, declaring that they would never have > embarked in > > the > > > war had they anticipated this action of the government." > > > > > > Pulitzer Prize winner David Herbert Donald documents that Lincoln, > "well > > > into his presidency," wanted to solve the "Negro problem" by sending > all > > > blacks back to Africa. Lincoln had a colonization scheme for sending > > blacks > > > to Liberia. This would keep blacks from migrating to the Northern > states > > > "where they would compete with white laborers." Lincoln justified > his > > scheme > > > in terms of "restoring a captive people to their long-lost > father-land, > > with > > > bright prospects for the future." > > > > > > If Lincoln had not been assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, he might > have > > > carried off his scheme. The Northern states would have > wholeheartedly > > > supported it, and perhaps the defeated Southern states, as well. > > > > > > Lincoln had the power to implement his scheme. He had acquired > dictatorial > > > powers early in the war simply by asserting them. He ignored rulings > by > > the > > > chief justice of the Supreme Court, suspended habeas corpus, > arrested > > state > > > legislators and newspaper editors, and exiled a U.S. representative. > > Indeed, > > > it was his exercise of dictatorial power that caused his > assassination. > > > > > > Slaves were brought by European colonists to the South prior to the > > > existence of the United States. Slaves were brought there not > because the > > > Confederacy (which did not exist at that time) wished to mistreat > blacks, > > > but because there was no labor force to work the fertile > agricultural > > lands. > > > > > > The black slaves brought to North America were captured and sold > into > > > slavery by other blacks. The African slave market in Dahomey was > operated > > by > > > blacks. The Southern states emerged from colonies in which slavery > was an > > > established institution. As economic historians have noted, slavery > was on > > > the way out as a growing population provided a free labor market. > > > > > > Just started back to college at age 57 to get my degree. Kids today > think > > > the War was only fought over slavery (Revisionist History & > Politically > > > Correct Thinking). Trying to educate them.... The Professors won't. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Don Kelly [mailto:donkelly@grovenet.net] > > > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:10 AM > > > To: SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com > > > Subject: Re: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > > > > > > Civil War is a rather short and more traditional name of that war. > > > > > > Newspapers in the south referred to it as The War of Northern > > > Aggression. > > > > > > That was the name used by my relatives in Arkansas....even after > 1975. > > > > > > Newspapers in the north probably used a different name. > > > > > > By any name a half million young lives were snuffed out because > Lincoln > > > and the big manufacturing interests in the north wanted monopolies > in > > > sales of products in and to politically dominate the southern > states. > > > > > > In those respects slavery had little to do with why the war was > started. > > > > > > Don > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Nancie O'Sullivan" <drayton5@earthlink.net> > > > To: <SCSPARTA-L@rootsweb.com> > > > Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:40 AM > > > Subject: [SCSPARTA] War Between the States > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Kenneth, why do you prefer to call it 'Civil War > > > > "? > > > > > > > > nancie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- Nancie O'Sullivan > > > > > > > > --- drayton5@earthlink.net > > > > > > > > --- EarthLink: It's your Internet. > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > > > > If you need to unsubscribe send > mailto:SCSparta-l-request@rootsweb.com > > > with one word in the bottom of the message: unsubscribe We hope > you > > > will join us again soon. > > > > > > > > ============================== > > > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > > > records, go to: > > > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > > > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > > > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 > > > > > > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > > > The messages to this list are archived at RootsWeb. You can > > > find past messages by going to: > > > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index and typing in: SCSparta. > > > > > > ============================== > > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online > > > genealogy records, go to: > > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > > ______________________________ > > > > > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > > The South Carolina Archives has put some record indices on line: > http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/search/default.asp You can find > information there to order the actual records. > > > > ============================== > > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy > records, go to: > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03 > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > The South Carolina Archives has put some record indices on line: > http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/search/default.asp You can find information > there to order the actual records. > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go > to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > > > > > ==== SCSPARTA Mailing List ==== > Newcomers: Please introduce yourself to the list and tell us about your Spartanburg County interests. > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/03