Author Topic: BEAUregard or NO Regard?  (Read 12456 times)

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11057
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2013, 10:22:00 pm »
>>> APEXABYSS


Do you believe that slavery in America before emancipation was a crime against humanity?

APEXABYSS

  • Guest
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2013, 11:32:17 pm »
Is that really the question you wanted to ask me?

African people have been in some form of bondage since the fall of Egypt. That’s 2000 plus+ years of slavery.

Slavery is moral crime against humanity 101. That goes without...
The point is- the civil war has been made into some noble cause to free the slaves... that's called propaganda. The north had a different economy… 

Oh yeah, name one thing they’ve contributed?

Gangs of New York -Immigrants.flv
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 07:17:17 am by APEXABYSS »

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11057
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2013, 12:55:17 am »
>>> APEXABYSS




Do you believe that the American Civil War should not have happened?

...or not?


Offline The Griot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
    • View Profile
    • MVmedia
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2013, 06:54:28 am »
You're wrong, Apexabyss. For Southerners it was about slavery. Plan and simple. For Northerners it wasn't about slavery...initially. I'm born and raised in the south. Lived here all my life. Studied the Civil War eight ways to Sunday. Every argument raised by Southerners about the Civil war all lead back to slavery. States rights...to determine if they can own slaves. Preserve our way of life...to profit from slavery. And on and on.

The roots of the Civil War lie in a cultural disparity that existed between the North and the South since the colonies were established. The North drifted to an industrial based culture which didn't require the same mass of labor than the agricultural oriented South. Include with that the Puritan and Quaker dislike of slavery and you have a culture in opposition of the 'Southern' way of life. It was the expansion of this way of life into the new states, particularly Kansas and Missouri, that eventually brought everything to a head. Remember, folks were killing each other over the issue of slavery in those territories decades before the Civil War ignited.

As far as the practice of slavery, every culture on this planet incorporated slavery at one point or another. When agriculture is the means to wealth, the most costly aspect of raising that wealth is labor. The best way to reduce that cost is to have 'free' labor, hence slavery. At the time the British/Spanish/French whomever discovered that agriculture was the way to wealth in the 'New World' they went to the biggest existing slave market in the world to obtain them: West Africa.
"Happiness is dancing when the drumming is good."

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11057
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #19 on: April 26, 2013, 08:00:52 am »
You're wrong, Apexabyss. For Southerners it was about slavery. Plan and simple. For Northerners it wasn't about slavery...initially. I'm born and raised in the south. Lived here all my life. Studied the Civil War eight ways to Sunday. Every argument raised by Southerners about the Civil war all lead back to slavery. States rights...to determine if they can own slaves. Preserve our way of life...to profit from slavery. And on and on.

The roots of the Civil War lie in a cultural disparity that existed between the North and the South since the colonies were established. The North drifted to an industrial based culture which didn't require the same mass of labor than the agricultural oriented South. Include with that the Puritan and Quaker dislike of slavery and you have a culture in opposition of the 'Southern' way of life. It was the expansion of this way of life into the new states, particularly Kansas and Missouri, that eventually brought everything to a head. Remember, folks were killing each other over the issue of slavery in those territories decades before the Civil War ignited.

As far as the practice of slavery, every culture on this planet incorporated slavery at one point or another. When agriculture is the means to wealth, the most costly aspect of raising that wealth is labor. The best way to reduce that cost is to have 'free' labor, hence slavery. At the time the British/Spanish/French whomever discovered that agriculture was the way to wealth in the 'New World' they went to the biggest existing slave market in the world to obtain them: West Africa.






Thank you, sir.

By the way, love your work!  :)

Offline michaelintp

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2013, 09:03:16 am »
Griot, what you stated comports with my understanding as well, which is why I expressed the view that secession was fundamentally about slavery (though I suppose there could have been other subsidiary factors at play as well).  As to the North, the Abolitionist Movement had moral traction, being based on the fundamental belief in human liberty. The industrial economy of the North did not impede the embrace of these sentiments, whereas the South's agricultural economy did.  While you are correct that the North initially entered the Civil War to preserve the union, without the stated intention to free the slaves, this may in part have been due to the fact that wholesale abolition was a politically tricky business. There were, after all, two slave states that remained in the Union. All I am suggesting is that we should not discount the strong abolitionist sentiment that did exist, that you allude to. A settlement that I believe was morally based.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 08:39:41 pm by michaelintp »
The spirit of emptiness is immortal.
It is called the Great Mother
because it gives birth to Heaven and Earth.
It is like a vapor,
barely seen but always present.
Use it effortlessly.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 6

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11057
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #21 on: April 26, 2013, 09:30:44 am »
Girot, what you stated comports with my understanding as well, which is why I expressed the view that secession was fundamentally about slavery (though I suppose there could have been other subsidiary factors at play as well).



One of those other subsidiary factors was that sucession would mean that the newly-established American experiment would have failed miserably as the British would have hoped when the colonists broke away from the British Empire in the late 18th Century (1776 and up).

Slavery was an embarrassment , in and of itself, but the breaking up of the so-called 'United States' would have been an embarrassment to the entire World.

Offline The Griot

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 601
    • View Profile
    • MVmedia
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #22 on: April 26, 2013, 10:03:39 am »
I agree that the abolition of slavery was a moral issue for those supporting it. It was an issue that began the day the first enslaved Africans and Europeans set foot on this soil. It only gained momentum among the British Empire when they discovered they could make more money from free enterprise than a slave based system, which is why they abolished it earlier. Their efforts to end it everywhere else was more based on eliminating the competition than any moral pretext.

Now here's the odd thing. Many slaveholders believed slavery was essential for the establishment of the republic. They believed having a slave based culture freed those of intellectual leanings to develop such concepts as democracy. The original concept of democracy was not all inclusive. The Southern slaveholders envisioned and lived the republic concept similar to the Greeks and Romans, where only men who owned property were allowed to vote. When the Constitution was written, the definition of a man was a white man that owned property. To the 18th century mentality that was a given.

At least that's how I understand it.
"Happiness is dancing when the drumming is good."

Offline michaelintp

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #23 on: April 26, 2013, 01:55:52 pm »
Yes, the attitudes during the time of the American Revolution are interesting. No doubt many people held the views you describe in your post.  But many did not.  A few months ago, I was discussing this issue with my son, who is far more knowledgeable than I am regarding attitudes held during the American Revolution. He shared with me some comments made by some of the founders of our nation, to the effect that slavery was evil, or an embarrassment, or something that would have to be eliminated eventually. For some, however, the emphasis was on the word "eventually."  Because of the economics you described. And of course, as we are well aware, some owned slaves themselves. My son also pointed out that attitudes became more vicious and hardened and racist as the decades passed and the tensions between the free and slave states escalated. I'm sorry that I don't have more specifics. I just wanted to share with you the impression that the conversation with my son left with me: that at the time of the American Revolution, many did see a fundamental conflict between the principles upon which our nation was founded and the institution of slavery. Sadly, the solution was left for sometime in the future. The solution, ultimately, was a bloody civil war after decades of continued slavery and suffering.
The spirit of emptiness is immortal.
It is called the Great Mother
because it gives birth to Heaven and Earth.
It is like a vapor,
barely seen but always present.
Use it effortlessly.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 6

Offline Battle

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 11057
  • M.A.X. Commander
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #24 on: April 28, 2013, 06:22:05 am »
Acknowledging slavery as a way of life in the pre-Civil War days of America also means that the historical documents that today's republicans defend so fiercely in discussions and debates is flawed by default.   

Let's take for instance, the Declaration of Independance begins with the famous phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".  These are explicit and obvious flaws, if not outright contradictions.  If any republican gives you any BS about their conservative viewpoints, we can always turn to the Declaration of Independence as an answer. 

Why?

In asserting that all men are created equal, was Thomas Jefferson assuming that the term "men"  apply only to free white males?
...or was he also addressing the rights of enslaved African males, Native American males and women who lived in the colonies?


We all know now that that was'nt the case, but  newly re-elected, President Obama, by the People, for the People is a primary sign of progress in American society. 
We know that the American experiment is a 'work in progress'  thus, my political leanings 'progressive'.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 07:42:49 am by Battle »

APEXABYSS

  • Guest
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #25 on: April 28, 2013, 07:10:02 am »
I agree that the abolition of slavery was a moral issue for those supporting it. It was an issue that began the day the first enslaved Africans and Europeans set foot on this soil. It only gained momentum among the British Empire when they discovered they could make more money from free enterprise than a slave based system, which is why they abolished it earlier. Their efforts to end it everywhere else was more based on eliminating the competition than any moral pretext.

Now here's the odd thing. Many slaveholders believed slavery was essential for the establishment of the republic. They believed having a slave based culture freed those of intellectual leanings to develop such concepts as democracy. The original concept of democracy was not all inclusive. The Southern slaveholders envisioned and lived the republic concept similar to the Greeks and Romans, where only men who owned property were allowed to vote. When the Constitution was written, the definition of a man was a white man that owned property. To the 18th century mentality that was a given.

At least that's how I understand it.

Well said!

Wars are won by nothing but soldiers following orders. God bless the soldiers, man! As a Confederate General… I could see how the descendants would want to memorialize Beauregard. I mean, he was a veteran, right? Other than that, I have very little sympathy for the heroism of euro-male history. 

Please, don’t get caught-up in clichés!
There are no historical records of blacks enslaving other blacks in Africa.  Africans were introduced to the concept of slavery from invaders/settlers outside of the continent. Show me one (just one) historical record where Africans enslaved one another before other cultures/vultures invaded. Egypt doesn’t count because servitude isn’t slavery.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 07:22:41 am by APEXABYSS »

Offline michaelintp

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2013, 08:58:00 pm »
I mentioned to my son that we were discussing the topic of slavery in the early period of the American Republic. He emailed me the quotes below. I added the sections at the end describing the effects of the compromises made at the Constitutional Convention. As noted below, most founding fathers believed that slavery would eventually die out. Tragically, the founders failed to anticipate the advent of the cotton gin in 1793, which rapidly revolutionized the industry and made it more efficient, lucrative, and widespread. They left the problem for future generations to deal with.

ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA:
"Nevertheless, the Founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, exhibited considerable aversion to slavery during the era of the Articles of Confederation (1781–89) by prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves to individual states and lending their support to a proposal by Jefferson to ban slavery in the Northwest Territory."  http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1269536/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
Benjamin Franklin served as the President of America's first abolitionist organization, the Pennsylvania Abolition Society in 1785. In an address before the organization in 1789 he called slavery "an atrocious debasement of human nature."   He petitioned the US Congress to ban slavery in 1790: http://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/franklin/

JOHN ADAMS:
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States ... I have, throughout my whole life, held the practice of slavery in ... abhorrence." - John Adams, letter to Robert Evans, June 8, 1819

GEORGE WASHINGTON:
In 1786, Washington wrote to two Americans expressing his desire to see the lawful end to slavery. In a letter to Robert Morris he wrote, "I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people, who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by Legislative authority…" To John Francis Mercer he wrote that it was among his “…first wishes to see some plan adopted, by the legislature by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees.”  In a letter on slavery from about 1788, Washington reflected personally on slavery: "The unfortunate condition of the persons, whose labor in part I employ, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the adults among them as easy and comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit, and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator." http://www.pbs.org/georgewashington/classroom/slavery3.html

JAMES MADISON
A visitor to Montpelier in 1835 noted that “with regard to slavery [Madison] owned himself almost to be in despair,” that he “talked more on the subject of slavery than on any other, acknowledging, without limitation or hesitation, all the evils with which it has ever been charged.” On the one hand Madison felt that “the magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged: that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.” On the other hand, Madison was adamant that emancipation ought to be “gradual, equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned, and consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation.” http://www.montpelier.org/research-and-collections/people/african-americans/madison-slavery

VOICES AGAINST SLAVERY IN MADISON'S NOTES FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION OF 1787:
ROGER SHERMAN (CT):
"Mr. Sherman regarded the slave-trade as iniquitous... He disapproved of the slave trade: yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, & as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatching its business."
GEORGE MASON (VA): "Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic."
OLIVER ELLSWORTH (CT): "He said however that if it was to be considered in a moral light we ought to go farther and free those already in the Country."
The record shows clearly that South Carolina and Georgia were the only States at the Constitutional Convention to openly advocate for slavery, and who refused to ratify a constitution that would completely ban the importation of slaves (which the Constitution compromised for those two States in banning it after 1808).   http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_9_1s3.html
JAMES MADISON(VA):  We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man. What has been the source of those unjust laws complained of among ourselves?" http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_606.asp

VA (SLAVE STATE) RATIFYING CONVENTION:
GEORGE MASON ARGUING AGAINST RATIFICATION:  "Such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind; yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade.."

The spirit of emptiness is immortal.
It is called the Great Mother
because it gives birth to Heaven and Earth.
It is like a vapor,
barely seen but always present.
Use it effortlessly.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 6

Offline michaelintp

  • Honorary Wakandan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1279
    • View Profile
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #27 on: April 28, 2013, 08:58:31 pm »
SUMMARY OF THE EFFECT OF THE COMPROMISES MADE AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION:
http://americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/tp/compromises-of-the-constitutional-convention.htm

Great Compromise

The Articles of Confederation under which America operated from 1781-1787 provided that each state would be represented by one vote in Congress. When changes were being discussed for how states should be represented during the creation of a new Constitution, two plans were pushed forward. The Virginia Plan provided for representation to be based on the population of each state. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan wanted equal representation for every state. The Great Compromise, also called the Connecticut Compromise, combined both plans. It was decided that there would be two chambers in Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate would be based on equal representation and the House would be based on population.

Three-Fifths Compromise

Once it was decided that representation in the House of Representatives as to be based on population, delegates from Northern and Southern states had a difference of opinion on how slaves should be counted. Delegates for the Northern states where the economy did not rely heavily on slavery, felt that slaves should not be counted towards representation. [This is because the full counting of slaves] would provide the South with a greater number of representatives. On the other hand, Southern states fought for slaves to be counted in terms of representation. The compromise between the two became known as the three-fifths compromise because every five slaves would be counted as three individuals in terms of representation.

Slave Trade Compromise

Those who opposed slavery in the northern states wanted to bring an end to the importation and sale of slaves. On the other hand, southern states felt that slavery was vital to their economy and did not want the government interfering in the slave trade. In the end, the North agreed to wait until 1808 before Congress would be able to ban the slave trade in the US.

Race in Constitutional Convention

Looking at the Past Through the Lens of Race
http://www.shmoop.com/constitutional-convention/race.html

Slavery

For decades, scholars have debated whether the U.S. Constitution was not only a compromise on the institution of bondage, but actually a pro-slavery document. Ironically, both nineteenth-century abolitionists and their southern opponents argued that it was, though of course they made diametrically opposed conclusions from that consensus. The Constitution did ensure continuation of the African slave trade for at least another twenty years, it included a fugitive clause to return escaped slaves to their masters if they fled to free states, and notoriously ensured southern influence and power in national government with the three-fifths compromise.

Historian Don Fehrenbacher, among others, countered this interpretation by contending that the framers had not intended to make slavery a national institution supported by the Union's fundamental law. These supporters of the Constitution-as-anti-slavery argument usually interpret slavery as a necessary evil that had to be compromised upon in order for the Convention to succeed and the Constitution to be adopted. They point to the text of the Constitution, in which the Founders avoided the contentious terms "slave" or "slavery" altogether by euphemistically referring to slaves as "all other persons." Over time, Fehrenbacher said, the federal government adopted the position that slavery was a national institution fully protected by the Constitution, but many contemporary Americans disagreed and their dissent fueled the sectionalism that led, in the end, to Civil War.

The Dehumanizing Fraction: Three-Fifths

[Michaelintp: It is important to note that for purposes of counting the population in order to determine the number of Representatives granted to each State in the House of Representatives, it was the South that advocated that each slave be counted as a full person, as that would have resulted in a greater number of Representatives granted to the Slave States; the North opposed this. As a result, the Three-Fifths Compromise was reached.  This really had nothing to do with an evaluation of the inherent worth of the slaves as human beings. It was a political compromise to placate the South’s demand for greater representation in the House based on population, while reducing the South’s “benefit” from counting the slave population by two-fifths.]

The three-fifths compromise of Article I, Section 2 was the Constitution's most controversial slavery-related clause. It read that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." In other words, the number of representatives from each state would be determined by its total white (and assimilated Indian) population, plus three-fifths of its total slave population. When a slaveowner's property was assessed for taxes, the government counted three-fifths of his slaves in calculating his total assets.

Many northerners thought slaves who couldn't vote shouldn't count at all; southerners wanted them to count as whole people, although that was a pretty bold argument for them to make, since they simultaneously contended that their slaves were their property, equivalent to a plow, a mule, or a house. How could a human being be property at all, let alone the dual embodiment of property and population? Then again, white women could not vote either, but they too were counted for purposes of establishing representation—even if they did not have to undergo the horrors and violations of being considered "property." The delegates never really dwelled on such questions. Instead they struck a bargain between the northern desire to tax the slaveowners for their property, and the southern demand for increased representation since slaves composed such a substantial portion of their population. The basic structure of the three-fifths compromise had already been proposed in the Confederation Congress in an amendment that would make population the basis for fiscal requisitions, instead of land values. The three-fifths ratio was thus adopted into the Constitution as the means of apportioning representatives and direct taxes.

At the time, the three-fifths formula was not very controversial. A few brave delegates, such as Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, George Mason of Virginia, and Rufus King of Massachusetts all attempted to condemn the "nefarious institution" as a glaring anomaly within a republic. Prominent delegates Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush, members of the Pennsylvania convention that ratified the U.S. Constitution, were both members of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society. But most others attempted to avoid the issue and thwart any debate over it.

Most founding fathers believed that slavery would eventually die out. Thomas Jefferson claimed that in Virginia, "nearly the whole of the young men" were won over to the emancipation cause "as fast as they come into public life."12 Tragically, the founders failed to anticipate the advent of the cotton gin in 1793, which rapidly revolutionized the industry and made it more efficient, lucrative, and widespread. Even as the founders assembled in Philadelphia in 1787, historian David Brion Davis has found evidence that demand for slaves and the number of slaveholders was actually increasing steadily, "even in Virginia."13

Perhaps even more tragically, the founders left what they admitted to be a deplorable institution for another generation to deal with, rather than taking the albeit difficult but feasible action against slavery when they had the chance. Jefferson openly deplored slavery "as the most unremitting despotism" and warned that "Our children see this, and learn to imitate it"; and yet continued to profit from his own slaves all his life.14 As historian David Brion Davis has noted, Jefferson "gave no public sanction or moral encouragement" to the young generation of emancipators whom he claimed would resolve the slavery contradiction for America one day. "Instead," Davis writes, Jefferson's "icy caution provided a precedent and model for the younger generation of politicians both from both North and South who would attack every effort to discuss the slavery question as a reckless tampering with the 'seals' which Jefferson and the other Founders had 'wisely placed' on the nation's most incendiary issue."15 Such men conveniently convinced themselves that the problem would solve itself in time, but they seldom if ever considered the alternative scenario: Civil War.16

This compromise was devastating for the slaves it addressed, though not by name. Some have argued that the compromise implicitly recognized the humanity of slaves that set them apart from other forms of property. Others have countered that the clause only recognized a fraction of their humanity, thereby dehumanizing them all the more, and that the fraction it did recognize not only gave them no rights or liberties but actually worked to further their masters' political influence, the stability of the institution, and therefore their status as chattel. Clearly this posed a central contradiction, but it remained unresolved until ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, which nullified the three-fifths clause.

At its core, the Constitution was a series of compromises, and while this would normally constitute a somewhat bland observation, Northern willingness to compromise on the issue of slavery became the subject of considerable controversy in the decades that followed. This controversy has extended through to the present day, as when historian Gary Nash (in the book Race and Revolution) laid equal blame on the North for having compromised on slavery in 1787 and-by extension-for sharing an equal share of culpability in bringing about the Civil War less than a century later. Other colonial historians like Jack Greene might argue that slavery was integral to American life, rather than a great anomaly. This interpretation depends on your point of view, and some might frame it as the difference between reading early America through its ideals (a representative government, a meritocracy free from hereditary rank or privilege, and a country couched in liberty whose founders recognized slavery's immoral nature and its contradiction with their principles) and its realities (the country began with its own rank of elites, times were just as tough if not tougher for the poor and middling farmers, not everyone could vote and even those who could only directly elected their delegates to the House of Representatives, and slavery was a growing and extremely lucrative institution throughout much of the country).

Effects

Historians have noted that these compromises on slavery had serious effects on the nation. The fugitive slave clause (enforced through legislation passed in 1793 and 1850) allowed slaves that escaped into the North to be chased down and returned to their masters, even inside states that themselves had banned slavery. The fugitive slave clause also became the excuse for the illegal kidnapping and return to slavery of thousands of free blacks. The three-fifths compromise increased the South's representation in Congress and the electoral college but barely cost the South anything in direct taxes, since the federal government only levied them four times between 1789 and 1860.

As historian Leonard Richards has explained, as a result of the three-fifths compromise, the Deep South was rewarded for enslaving "even more Africans" and "the slave states always had one-third more seats in Congress than their free population warranted-forty-seven seats instead of thirty-three in 1793, seventy-six instead of fifty-nine in 1812, and ninety-eight instead of seventy-three in 1833—and that in turn affected the number of electoral votes they could cast."17 In 12 of the first 16 presidential elections, a Southern slaveowner won. Extending the slave trade (in order to bring Georgia and South Carolina into the union) past 1800 brought many more slaves to America. The Deep South imported more slaves from Africa in the 1788-1808 time period than in any other twenty-year period. South Carolina alone imported 40,000 slaves between 1803 and 1808 (when Congress overwhelmingly voted to end the trade).[Michaelintp: On the other hand, had representation in Congress been based on the entire Southern population, male and female, free and slave, as had been advocated by the slave states, the Deep South would have had even more Representatives; the compromise reduced by two-fifths the representational benefit the Deep South garnered from the count of its slave population.  So, I supposed, it is a matter of perspective. The full counting of slaves would have benefitted the South even more; the three-fifths compromise reduced this benefit].
The spirit of emptiness is immortal.
It is called the Great Mother
because it gives birth to Heaven and Earth.
It is like a vapor,
barely seen but always present.
Use it effortlessly.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 6

APEXABYSS

  • Guest
Re: BEAUregard or NO Regard?
« Reply #28 on: May 03, 2013, 04:52:35 pm »

Great information... seriously incredible... you guys are the best!

The Civil War 1861 to 1865
The Emancipation Proclamation 1863?
13th Amendment 1865