# Slavery 19th Century



## NicaNieves

1820-30s Boston Massachusetts. What would one witness in terms of the interaction between African Americans and Whites in that time? I know there were blacks who were born free in the north. But for example, if a seventeen year old girl who has spent the entirety of her life in the north suddenly takes a trip to the Deep South she would encounter slavery at its roots as opposed to....(back home)
That’s what I’m struggling with. Can someone paint a picture of what specifically the north was like during those years. Accuracy is important to me. Thanks!


----------



## Guard Dog

I'm not sure that the girl would find things all that different in the south, versus the north.

There were, as I understand it, quite a few free blacks there, many choosing to stay even after the civil war.

In fact there was even one Black slave owner, William Ellison Jr, who died in 1861 with 40 or so slaves in his possession, and quite a bit of land. And he was one of the wealthiest landowner in South Carolina.

So, although I'm not _quite_ old enough to have lived back then, I wouldn't be surprised if things weren't more than a little different than people generally believe they were.

After all, it was another 100 years after the civil war before the civil rights movement gained any traction anywhere in the U.S. 

...and I think that fact should tell you much about the situation even in the north, after the war.


G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison



> (c. April 1790 –December 5, 1861), was a U.S. cotton gin maker and blacksmith in South Carolina, and former black slave who achieved considerable success in business before the American Civil War. He eventually became a major planter and one of the medium property owners, and the wealthiest *black* property owner in the state.



Bolding mine.

There is a difference between being the wealthiest man and the wealthiest black man.

I'm sure there were differences between the North and the South before, during and after the civil war. Unfortunately, since there aren't any people from the time still alive, it will probably take quite a bit of research to get a handle on the differences. But that might be enjoyable, in its own way.

Good luck with the project!! It sounds intriguing.

Jack


----------



## Arachne

Don't quote me on this 'cos it's not my area but I would have thought an obvious difference would be seeing people in chains in the south. Though she would be used to seeing blacks in servitude to whites, and almost as slaves because the wages would presumably have been low and the treatment often poor, they would not have ever been shackled, I assume. I suppose she might also see public sales of slaves in the south and not in the north.
In the north black people would have been more free to walk around, do there own shopping etc but she would still be used to being seen as inferior, so probably not much difference in treatment. I think she would be asked for her 'papers' a lot, but I can't remember the ins and outs of that. 

Sorry I can't be more concrete but it's a massive subject, which I don't have the time to look into, and also a very delicate one which deserves to be rendered accurately, so you probably have a lot of research ahead of you if you want to get it right. Good luck!

Arachne


----------



## Guard Dog

Arachne, I would guess that given the sheer number of slaves that came into the U.S. through the north, that seeing black people in chains probably wouldn't be a completely unknown or unfamiliar sight, especially if a person spent much time near the docks.

...but then, that's just a guess.

P.S. I'm not saying it was just the north, folks. Anyplace on the east coast is likely to have more than a few slave ships unload there. Especially in the early days.



G.D.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

By all accounts the north was not much less racist than the south, at least in practice. They still had segregation, Jim Crow laws, and you still moved out of a white man's way.  I guess the north didn't have the clan, but as a whole they were not especially enlightened beyond ending slavery. Exploitation of Americans of African descent was prolific on both sides of the Mason-Dixie line.


----------



## Jack of all trades

I read about six months ago that Africans were generally taken first to ... I think it was Barbados, where their spirits were broken (what was left after the voyage, anyway). Only then were they transported to the US. So slave ships in northern ports doesn't seem very likely.

Please do proper research, and don't rely on what strangers on the Internet say on the subject. Remember, it's your name and your reputation at stake. Make sure it's your work.

Oh! I did a little research into William Ellison, Jr. Most of those slaves he "owned" were family. He owned his wife and children born to his wife before he managed to free her, cousins, and so forth. So he wasn't exactly the same kind of slave owner as some.  His goals were to keep the family together and set as many of them free as the society would allow. He sounds like a fascinating man.


----------



## Arachne

Guard Dog said:


> Arachne, I would guess that given the shear number of slaves that came into the U.S. through the north, that seeing black people in chains probably wouldn't be a completely unknown or unfamiliar sight, especially if a person spent much time near the docks.
> 
> ...but then, that's just a guess.
> 
> P.S. I'm not saying it was just the north, folks. Anyplace on the east coast is likely to have more than a few slave ships unload there. Especially in the early days.



Mmm I didn't know that, which just reinforces how important research is in historical fiction. I think, above all genres, this one requires a massive amount of research. My novel is in the genre and I can barely write half a page without having to delve into books or the internet. Saying that though I think I've read that you do a lot of research yourself, GD. I guess science fiction is the other genre which is heavy on the research, and crime stuff must be too, going off the amount of questions we get on here about that. 

Point is you can't go writing a story set in an historical period with doing the groundwork (I'm not suggesting the OP isn't by the way) and I don't mean just looking at Wikipedia and the like, reading at least a couple of decent factual books on the topic is necessary in my view, and a few, well written, relevant historical novels too, if not much more.

It does depend what kind of novel you want to write though, a bodice-ripper style novel is not going to need the same level of accuracy as the readers wouldn't be looking for it, they're reading for cheap thrills not to expand their knowledge. 

Arachne


----------



## Jack of all trades

Arachne said:


> Mmm I didn't know that, ...
> Arachne



Please read the post directly above your own. Written documentation does not support the guess.

Abraham Lincoln first saw slaves being sold when he went down the Mississippi. There is another thread on the site about a book, which told of a free black man from New York who went to Washington D.C. and was captured and taken further into southern territory where he was made a slave.

Also, once Africans were here and having children, there was less need to bring others over. The children of a slave woman were automatically slaves. 

I do agree that proper research is important.


----------



## Arachne

I didn't say it was true, I just meant I didn't know whether it was true or not but felt it was a bit rude to say that, and I try to avoid being rude if I can 

Your info sounds interesting but, again supporting my original point, I don't have the time it would take to check your sources for myself and cross reference them against others, as I didn't have time to check GDs, so I can't comment on the accuracy of them. 

I hope it helps the OP to build up a picture of what it was like in the north, do you happen to remember the name of the book you mentioned? That could help.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Arachne said:


> I didn't say it was true, I just meant I didn't know whether it was true or not but felt it was a bit rude to say that, and I try to avoid being rude if I can
> 
> Your info sounds interesting but, again supporting my original point, I don't have the time it would take to check your sources for myself and cross reference them against others, as I didn't have time to check GDs, so I can't comment on the accuracy of them.
> 
> I hope it helps the OP to build up a picture of what it was like in the north, do you happen to remember the name of the book you mentioned? That could help.



Twelve Years a Slave

Here's a link to the thread : https://www.writingforums.com/threads/180781-12-Years-A-Slave?p=2194517#post2194517


----------



## NicaNieves

I completely agree. I actually plan on taking a trip down to Charleston, SC to completely immerse myself in the history of it and make connections with professionals on the subject. This topic is so big and sensitive that I will not put my name on it unless my book does it justice.


----------



## NicaNieves

The book is 12 Years A Slave and I've actually been listening to the audiobook to better understand the daily life of that time. It has been a saving grace on the topic and I recommend it to everyone I can.


----------



## NicaNieves

In 12 Years A Slave, a memoir from the 1800s, Solomon described that he was born from free parents and was himself free. He received an education, he traveled, and worked honestly to provide for his wife and children. He also expressed that in the north, unlike the south, he could stand level-eyed with white men. So I do believe it was different in northern and southern regions. However, I won't assume anything. I only can do thorough research and do this subject justice.


----------



## Arachne

Brilliant, I can’t wait to read your book one day, it sounds like it will be right up my street. 

Arachne


----------



## Guard Dog

Nica, one of the suggestions I have for your research, is that if you get the chance, visit places like the various museums dedicated to life in certain areas around that time, not necessarily those dedicated to say, the civil war.

I've been through more battle fields and war related museums, here in TN and elsewhere than I care to even think about, yet learned as much or more about life back then in places like the Museum of the Appalachias, out at the east end of the state, and The Hermitage.

Anyway, look around and see what you can find, both locally and in the areas in question. And also remember that the history books are usually written by the winners of wars, not the losers. :wink:
( Sometimes the most valuable information will turn up 'off the beaten trail' and not with the usual collection of 'facts'. )


G.D.


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Sounds like an interesting project.  Being from Arizona, we don't have any of that history really.  During the civil war Arizonans were mostly just busy trying to not get scalped, shot, or stampeded.


----------



## Guard Dog

Ralph Rotten said:


> Sounds like an interesting project.  Being from Arizona, we don't have any of that history really.  During the civil war Arizonans were mostly just busy trying to not get scalped, shot, or stampeded.



Ralph, on behalf of a quarter of my relatives, I apologize for the inconvenience. Well, maybe an eighth, out that far west.

...though I'm pretty sure that if they were still alive, they'd still want for y'all to go the hell away.

 ( I'm 1/8th Lakota Sioux and 1/8th Cherokee. It was probably that first bunch that wanted to give you folks a haircut. )


G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog

One of the things I've always found funny is many people's apparent belief that everybody in the south owned slaves.

The fact is, only the wealthy, or relatively wealthy did. 

The big plantations and such, sure. The average farmer? Probably not.

So, as with most anything else, follow the money, and that's where you'd likely find slaves back then, north or south



G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Guard Dog said:


> One of the things I've always found funny is many people's apparent belief that everybody in the south owned slaves.
> 
> The fact is, only the wealthy, or relatively wealth did.
> 
> The big plantations and such, sure. The average farmer? Probably not.
> 
> So, as with most anything else, follow the money, and that's where you'd likely find slaves back then, north or south
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.



Define 'north'.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Guard Dog said:


> ( I'm 1/8th Lakota Sioux and 1/8th Cherokee. It was probably that first bunch that wanted to give you folks a haircut. )
> 
> 
> G.D.



So great grandparents, right?


----------



## Plasticweld

I am Native American... I was born here.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Here's some videos on slavery and/or the Civil War that has some interesting points to consider or research more.

Slavery's scar
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QAlWq...CFRfXnAod6mMF8TIKd2F0Y2gtdnJlY0jK3o3GoZ_6k9kB

10 myths
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=R1FO9MqWugY

Slave rebellions
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xV8xG...NkN8CFQX2nAodN_AI8TIHcmVsYXRlZEiG9NrUzN7TqEc=

African tribes taken into slavery
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r8PCd...NkN8CFQX2nAodN_AI8TIHcmVsYXRlZEiG9NrUzN7TqEc=


----------



## Ralph Rotten

Plasticweld said:


> I am Native American... I was born here.




According to Dad's DNA test, he is 20% Apache, so I am logically...10%?
It explains why I don't sun burn.


----------



## Wgrondzil

As most have written, there was not much difference between the North and South on the issue of slavery. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were all slave owners. And Lincoln introduced the notion that emancipation and equality were not the same thing. Later, Rutherford B. Hayes pulled federal troops out of the South, effectively ending Reconstruction, as part of a bargain he struck to win a closely contested tested election. 

The only notable contrast was in the psyche and sentiment of the two sides after the Civil War, but neither of these took aim at the institution of slavery. Both tales were equally mythical. The North was not as progressive as they portrayed, as others have noted, and the South introduced a new narrative, based on a righteous defense of an imperiled Southern heritage. 

 The repercussions of all this lasted, as Guard Dog noted, for the next century.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Wgrondzil said:


> As most have written, there was not much difference between the North and South on the issue of slavery. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were all slave owners. And Lincoln introduced the notion that emancipation and equality were not the same thing. Later, Rutherford B. Hayes pulled federal troops out of the South, effectively ending Reconstruction, as part of a bargain he struck to win a closely contested tested election.
> 
> The only notable contrast was in the psyche and sentiment of the two sides after the Civil War, but neither of these took aim at the institution of slavery. Both tales were equally mythical. The North was not as progressive as they portrayed, as others have noted, and the South introduced a new narrative, based on a righteous defense of an imperiled Southern heritage.
> 
> The repercussions of all this lasted, as Guard Dog noted, for the next century.





There is a flaw in the evidence provided that is supposed to support the claim that there was little difference between the North and the South. The three presidents mentioned lived, according to both my recollection and Wikipedia -- 



> Mount Vernon was the plantation of George Washington, the first President of the United States, and his wife, Martha Dandridge Custis Washington. The estate is situated on the banks of the Potomac River in Fairfax County, Virginia, near Alexandria, across from Prince George's County, Maryland.





> Monticello (mon-tee-CHEL-oh) was the primary plantation of Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, who began designing and building Monticello at age 26 after inheriting land from his father. Located just outside Charlottesville, Virginia, in the Piedmont region, the plantation was originally 5,000 acres (20 km 2 ), with Jefferson using slaves for extensive cultivation of tobacco and mixed crops, later shifting from tobacco cultivation to wheat in response to changing markets.





> The Hermitage is a historical plantation and museum located in Davidson County, Tennessee, United States, 10 miles (16 km) east of downtown Nashville. The plantation was owned by Andrew Jackson, the seventh President of the United States, from 1804 until his death at the Hermitage in 1845. Jackson only lived at the property occasionally until he retired from public life in 1837.



All three lived below the Mason Dixon line. In other words, they were from the South. So the owning of slaves by Southerners is supported, but the examples don't demonstrate what was going on in the North.

And Lincoln pointing out that there's a difference between emancipation and equally doesn't support the claim, either. There IS a difference. But so what? Before there could be equality, or even the attempt of equality, there had to be an end of slavery.

Post Civil War happenings, while interesting, are probably better suited for a separate thread, as the OP was asking about slavery.


----------



## Wgrondzil

Post civil war happenings are interesting, precisely because they do entail perspectives of slavery at the time. A good source for the contrast between what we assume, and the zeitgeist of the day about slavery can be found in Jon Meacham’s work, the Soul of America: 

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]_Yet the war was not as morally dispositive as we tend—or like—to think. “The Union,” the historian C. Vann Woodward wrote, “fought the Civil War on borrowed moral capital.” To accept emancipation did not mean one favored equality. Lincoln himself was forever evolving on the question. “Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people,” Lincoln told a delegation of blacks in August 1862. “But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race…. I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would.” One answer, Lincoln allowed, was the removal of blacks from the nation—colonization to Africa, perhaps. “But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other…. It is better for us both, therefore, be separated.”
_
Also, the biography of Sojourner Truth is an eye opener for those who might assume that there was a greater share of benevolence on the part of the North regarding treatment of their slaves. 

[/FONT][/FONT]


----------



## Jack of all trades

NicaNieves said:


> 1820-30s Boston Massachusetts. What would one witness in terms of the interaction between African Americans and Whites in that time? I know there were blacks who were born free in the north. But for example, if a seventeen year old girl who has spent the entirety of her life in the north suddenly takes a trip to the Deep South she would encounter slavery at its roots as opposed to....(back home)
> That’s what I’m struggling with. Can someone paint a picture of what specifically the north was like during those years. Accuracy is important to me. Thanks!





Wgrondzil said:


> Post civil war happenings are interesting, precisely because they do entail perspectives of slavery at the time. A good source for the contrast between what we assume, and the zeitgeist of the day about slavery can be found in Jon Meacham’s work, the Soul of America:
> 
> [FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]_Yet the war was not as morally dispositive as we tend—or like—to think. “The Union,” the historian C. Vann Woodward wrote, “fought the Civil War on borrowed moral capital.” To accept emancipation did not mean one favored equality. Lincoln himself was forever evolving on the question. “Your race are suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people,” Lincoln told a delegation of blacks in August 1862. “But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race…. I do not propose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact with which we have to deal. I cannot alter it if I would.” One answer, Lincoln allowed, was the removal of blacks from the nation—colonization to Africa, perhaps. “But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or the other…. It is better for us both, therefore, be separated.”
> _
> Also, the biography of Sojourner Truth is an eye opener for those who might assume that there was a greater share of benevolence on the part of the North regarding treatment of their slaves.
> 
> [/FONT][/FONT]





> The American Civil War was a war fought in the United States from 1861 to 1865. The Civil War is the most studied and written about episode in U.S. history. Wikipedia



As you can see, the OP is looking for specific information (slavery and blacks in Boston, Mass) from a specific time frame (1820-1839). While the issues of slavery and equality thirty to fifty years later are interesting, they are not relevant to the OP. That's why I say such a discussion probably belongs in a separate thread.

You have mentioned slaves in the North. Is there any written documentation that there were Northerners who owned slaves? I'm not talking about Southerners who were temporarily in the North. And keep in mind that Washington, Jefferson and most of the early presidents were Southerners.


----------



## Guard Dog

*When Did Slavery Really End in the North?*

The Mason-Dixon line, for anyone that's interested:





G.D.


----------



## Jack of all trades

Guard Dog said:


> *When Did Slavery Really End in the North?*
> 
> The Mason-Dixon line, for anyone that's interested:
> View attachment 23188
> 
> 
> 
> G.D.




Thanks for providing that link! The supporting documentation shows that many of the Northern states passed laws that limited slavery and/or emancipated slaves during the 1770's through 1790's. That shows how there were legal differences between the North and the South by the start of the Civil War (1861).


----------



## luckyscars

NicaNieves said:


> 1820-30s Boston Massachusetts. What would one witness in terms of the interaction between African Americans and Whites in that time? I know there were blacks who were born free in the north. But for example, if a seventeen year old girl who has spent the entirety of her life in the north suddenly takes a trip to the Deep South she would encounter slavery at its roots as opposed to....(back home)
> That’s what I’m struggling with. Can someone paint a picture of what specifically the north was like during those years. Accuracy is important to me. Thanks!



I don't think there's any reliable way to be accurate about the day-to-day interactions between ordinary white people/slave owners and free blacks/slaves. We tend to assume there would be rampant racism (in the North and obviously in the South) and we know there were things that even free blacks in the North could not do, but in terms of how people spoke to each other, communicated, basic levels of respect and manners? That's way more complicated.

The default way most authors and filmmakers address this now is to essentially transplant the kind of hostile racism that is within living memory during the Jim Crow era to a Victorian age and make it seem that life was more or less a constant hell for blacks everywhere. That's a safe way to do it because it respects the evils of the time. However I am not sure if it is accurate if we are talking about every black person's personal experiences.

What I mean is this: People aren't all the same in how they view race and how they treated black people. Not now and not in the 1950's and not in the 1860's and presumably not in the 1820's either. Slavery is old and racism, including violent racism, absolutely were present in the 1820's. But abolitionism goes back a long way too. Some white people were staunch abolitionists and plenty more were probably somewhere in between, believing slavery to be inherently evil and that blacks deserved some measure of good treatment, yet still white supremacists by today's standards. Abraham Lincoln is a good example of a white supremacist who nonetheless believed slavery needed ended. While all slave owners were guilty of racism by the virtue of owning slaves some we know treated their slaves compassionately. They deserve some degree of representation too.

So I think if you want to write this 'accurately' the best way to go is to put aside the documentaries and academia. Use them for basic context and to make sure you're not widely out of whack with the time period, of course, but do not base your story around retelling how terribly racist everything was based on known historical facts. We _know _that, most of us. If I want a story which consists of black people being victimized I have a never ending supply. A story about a 17 year old black girl who visits the South and gets called 'nigger' or abused constantly...I'm not interested, sorry. Call it white privilege if you want but I read it and was repulsed by it before. Uncle Tom's Cabin, 12 Years A Slave, The Color Purple....It says nothing new.

I'm not saying sanitize or avoid racism, that would be idiotically tone-deaf, but for gods sake write a story that is balanced and original and exhibits complex feelings and human inconsistency. So maybe your character encounters garden variety racism, but not constantly with every single person? Maybe she is pleasantly surprised by a couple of folks? Maybe she finds herself guilty of prejudice a couple times? You could do a lot with this, just tread carefully.


----------



## CyberWar

I think the question you really need to answer is whether you want a character that sells or a character that is realistic. What sells these days in your particular setting is unfortunately a liberal-left poster child transplanted to the Antebellum era. A realistic Northern (and presumably abolitionist) character would more probably be more along the "poor niggers deserve better than that" line, but hardly what you would call politically-acceptable these days.

Slavery in the United States is far from the black-and-white (no pun intended) issue it is typically portrayed as today. Alongside your typical rich WASP slave owners, there were also coloured slave owners in the South, some of them former slaves themselves. Even some native American tribes, notably the Cherokees, were also known for their ownership of slaves, a fact rarely brought up these days because of its stark contradiction to the "ever-oppressed Native American" narrative. Liberated Black slaves who were repatriated back to Africa and settled in Liberia implemented the exact same plantation slavery model they had learned in the US, enslaving and exploiting native Africans. Some slaves ran away to the North to escape cruel masters, while other slaves stayed with their old masters as paid servants even after being freed. Sometimes, the children of the white slavemasters grew up to have more affection for their Black nanny than their parents. Slave concubines could at times rise to become the de-facto wives and ladies of the house of their White masters, especially among Louisiana French.

All these things deserve a mention if you want a truly realistic portrayal of what slavery in the Antebellum US was like, contributing to the development of your character as she witnesses its many facets and contradictions.


----------



## Jack of all trades

There's a problem trying to decide the values and morals of someone who is long dead. That's speculation. And speculation needs to be taken with a grain or two of salt.


----------



## CyberWar

It isn't really speculative if the period and region in question is well-attested in written record, especially in personal records left by people living during that time. The attitudes and opinions of at least the literate social classes can be easy enough to decypher from personal correspondence which exists in abundance from the 19th century, provided one does not commit the cardinal sin of presentism, the applying of contemporary moral standards to the past.

So I would say it is more speculative to try and decypher the opinions of those who did not leave behind any written records - in this case, the Black slaves themselves. I think if they had all left some form of records, the picture of slavery in 19th century United States would be far from as unambiguously-negative as it is today.


----------



## Jack of all trades

CyberWar said:


> It isn't really speculative if the period and region in question is well-attested in written record, especially in personal records left by people living during that time. The attitudes and opinions of at least the literate social classes can be easy enough to decypher from personal correspondence which exists in abundance from the 19th century, provided one does not commit the cardinal sin of presentism, the applying of contemporary moral standards to the past.
> 
> So I would say it is more speculative to try and decypher the opinions of those who did not leave behind any written records - in this case, the Black slaves themselves. I think if they had all left some form of records, the picture of slavery in 19th century United States would be far from as unambiguously-negative as it is today.




And how does one determine the morals, values and ethics of the past? 

If Lincoln was truly a white supremacist, then why did his election immediately trigger the succession of southern states?

If being owned is no big deal, then why did women rebel against that in more recent history?

I think it's pretty clear that your beliefs are set, as are mine. The OP has abandoned the thread, too, so I think we should just agree to disagree.

Good day.


----------



## CyberWar

Reading what the people of the past have written about their morals and ethics usually helps.

Lincoln's abolitionist platform endangered the livelihood of an entire class of powerful landowners in the South, so it is absolutely unsurprising that they were willing to go as far as seccession and war to protect the social and economic system that was essential to their wealth and privileged status. That, however, absolutely doesn't suggest that Lincoln or any other Northern authority figure actually believed Negroes to be the equals of Whites. Their real concern was the forced coexistence of two incompatible social and economic systems in the country, one of which would have to go. The American Civil War was not a "war of rights", but rather a war between traditional agriculturalist society and economy where slavery was practical, and an industrialized capitalist economy, to which the continued existence of slavery was counter-productive.

As for your other question, slavery is a state of mind as much as it is a legal status - before a subservient group can emancipate itself formally, the majority of it must emancipate itself mentally, i.e., learn to think like free people. The various women's rights movements of the 20th century (which by the way never fought against "being owned", proprietary ownership over women as a general group never having been a thing in Western society) were a logical outcome of this mental emancipation that had been going on for over a century before, women becoming increasingly more literate and aware of their unequal status, the social upheaval of WWI providing the opportunity to assert themselves on equal footing with men on a large scale. The majority of Blacks, however, never underwent the same transformation when the Civil War happened, hence their continued condition as a subservient and discriminated ethnic group well into the 20th century.


----------



## Jack of all trades

CyberWar said:


> Reading what the people of the past have written about their morals and ethics usually helps.
> 
> Lincoln's abolitionist platform endangered the livelihood of an entire class of powerful landowners in the South, so it is absolutely unsurprising that they were willing to go as far as seccession and war to protect the social and economic system that was essential to their wealth and privileged status. That, however, absolutely doesn't suggest that Lincoln or any other Northern authority figure actually believed Negroes to be the equals of Whites. Their real concern was the forced coexistence of two incompatible social and economic systems in the country, one of which would have to go. The American Civil War was not a "war of rights", but rather a war between traditional agriculturalist society and economy where slavery was practical, and an industrialized capitalist economy, to which the continued existence of slavery was counter-productive.
> 
> As for your other question, slavery is a state of mind as much as it is a legal status - before a subservient group can emancipate itself formally, the majority of it must emancipate itself mentally, i.e., learn to think like free people. The various women's rights movements of the 20th century (which by the way never fought against "being owned", proprietary ownership over women as a general group never having been a thing in Western society) were a logical outcome of this mental emancipation that had been going on for over a century before, women becoming increasingly more literate and aware of their unequal status, the social upheaval of WWI providing the opportunity to assert themselves on equal footing with men on a large scale. The majority of Blacks, however, never underwent the same transformation when the Civil War happened, hence
> their continued condition as a subservient and discriminated ethnic group well into the 20th century.



Thank you making some of my points for me.


----------



## luckyscars

CyberWar said:


> Reading what the people of the past have written about their morals and ethics usually helps.
> 
> Lincoln's abolitionist platform endangered the livelihood of an entire class of powerful landowners in the South, so it is absolutely unsurprising that they were willing to go as far as seccession and war to protect the social and economic system that was essential to their wealth and privileged status. That, however, absolutely doesn't suggest that Lincoln or any other Northern authority figure actually believed Negroes to be the equals of Whites. Their real concern was the forced coexistence of two incompatible social and economic systems in the country, one of which would have to go. The American Civil War was not a "war of rights", but rather a war between traditional agriculturalist society and economy where slavery was practical, and an industrialized capitalist economy, to which the continued existence of slavery was counter-productive.
> 
> As for your other question, slavery is a state of mind as much as it is a legal status - before a subservient group can emancipate itself formally, the majority of it must emancipate itself mentally, i.e., learn to think like free people. The various women's rights movements of the 20th century (which by the way never fought against "being owned", proprietary ownership over women as a general group never having been a thing in Western society) were a logical outcome of this mental emancipation that had been going on for over a century before, women becoming increasingly more literate and aware of their unequal status, the social upheaval of WWI providing the opportunity to assert themselves on equal footing with men on a large scale. The majority of Blacks, however, never underwent the same transformation when the Civil War happened, hence their continued condition as a subservient and discriminated ethnic group well into the 20th century.



This is all gross generalization and, yes, speculative.

"The American Civil War was not a "war of rights", but rather a war between traditional agriculturalist society and economy where slavery was practical, and an industrialized capitalist economy, to which the continued existence of slavery was counter-productive."

^ That depends who you're asking. 

You are totally right that probably a majority of Northern people, including Lincoln, were racist by modern standards. 

It is, however, absolutely possible to be a racist/white supremacist and still believe passionately in the fundamental rights of black people - i.e that slavery was immoral. That's the box Lincoln is in, according to what he wrote and what was written about him. Then you have the people who believed slavery was part of the natural order of things - that's most (all?) slave owners and a decent chunk of non-slave owners, definitely Southern but possibly also some northern. Then you have people like John Brown and the Quakers who were abolitionist to the core and believed in total negro equality (or even, some cases, supremacy).

Most people, we can assume, fell somewhere in the middle, with some at the fringes. I am prepared to agree that the geography of North vs. South did not on its own dictate attitudes. What I am not prepared to agree with, though, is the B.S myth that the Civil War was not still partially about human rights and motivated by philosophical differences over the treatment of people - all you have to do is listen to the speeches and songs that were made to motivate either side.


----------



## CyberWar

I do agree that moral attitudes towards slavery certainly did motivate both sides of the conflict, but not that they were _the_ main cause of it. Every war needs a popular "noble cause" to rally the masses to support the war effort, which the abolition of slavery no doubt was. You are right that a lot of prominent Northerners including Lincoln sincerely believed in abolition for moral as well as practical issues, which is also attested in their own writing. It does, however, take more than ethical controversy to actually ignite a war, as modern conflicts amply attest, and that spark invariably involves pragmatic political and economic interests.

 For the North, it was firstly the seccession of questionable legality of the country's most important agricultural regions. Allowing that to happen unchallenged would undermine the authority of the Federal government and set a dangerous precedent for potential future secessions, essentially defeating the purpose of United States as a country. Northern industrialists were deprived of agricultural raw materials produced in the South and would have to import them at considerable cost from abroad unless the situation was rectified quickly. Lastly, giving in to Southern demands to retain the obsolete institution of slavery would hamper industrialization of the country, and mark the United States as a pariah among the civilized nations most of which had already abolished slavery for decades. I think this demonstrably proves there were numerous more pressing reasons for going to war than moral objections to slavery - though the latter certainly did inspire and motivate many to support the war effort.

An interesting issue to study is the Southerner attitudes towards slavery, more specificially, those of the average citizens rather than the wealthy planters. The average Joe probably had little interest in fighting to defend an institution that only benefitted the wealthy planter elite and contributed nothing to his own well-being, yet the Southern armies had no shortage of volunteers, at least early in the war. Why do you think that was?


----------



## Jack of all trades

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...mAHYQFggTMAI&usg=AOvVaw1bwetxdAr0pSBijlZKjhjs

"While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become ..." 

Even if the morality of slavery was not the cause, slavery was at the heart of the issue. 

But how does all this relate to the original question?


----------



## CyberWar

I agree, we've strayed quite far from the original topic with our historical debate.


----------

