"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message link.net...
"N2EY" wrote:

When? Check a map of 1860. There were 19 slave states,
of which 4 stayed in the Union. Delaware was a slave state
but it did not secede.


Depends on the definition of a slave state, I guess. There were 18 Union
States and 11 Confederate States. The three border states did not side with
either and four of the slave states stayed in the Union.

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34 in 1861, but
18+11+3 = 32

Let's look at the states/commonwealths as they were in 1861:

Confederate states (formally declared secession, all slave states): 11
(VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, AL, MS, LA, AR, TX)

Union states that did not allow slavery: 19 (ME, VT, NH, MA, RI, CT,
NY, NJ, PA, OH, IN, IL, MI, WS, IA, MN, KS, OR, CA)

Slave states that did not secede: 4 (KY, MO, DE, MD)

West Virginia was admitted as a Union state in 1863 by breaking away
from the rest of Virginia. "Mountaineers Are Always Free!"

Even if you believe
the three border states, and all of the Union States (including the four
slave states), would have voted to end slavery, the Union did not have
enough numbers to abolish slavery in 1860 had the South not seceded-
remember, it takes 2/3rds of the Congress to pass an amendment.

Check your math, Dwight. 23/34 = 67.64..% - more than the 2/3 needed.
It would have taken 23 states to pass such an amendment. 19 nonslave
Union states plus only 4 others would have been enough - and that's
without West Virginia.

Since
slavery was not threatened had the South remained in the Union, slavery
obviously did not cause them to secede.

But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was clear to see. As
the West and Midwest developed, more and more free states would be
added. Many of the border states, like Delaware, had a low and
decreasing percentage of slaves and
slaveholders, so soon they would become de facto free states. (1860
census shows Delaware having a total population of 112,216, of which
1,798 were slaves. That's 1.6%.)

In other words, the Civil War was
not about slavery until the Union (then and now) decided to make it so.
Whatever, it is certainly not what the South fought for.

Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did the 11 states
cherish so greatly that they would secede and fight a war to keep
them?

The Emancipation Proclamation was written in 1863. It legally
freed most (but not all) of the slaves.

It freed only the slave in states "now in rebellion against the United
States" and listed the specific states. It did not apply to slaves in any
state that was not part of the Confederacy (it did not apply to slaves in
the Union States).

No argument there - but where were most of the slaves? In the
Confederate states!

The 13th amendment, passed after the war, ended slavery
throughout the United States. Read how the 13th amendment was passed by
Congress and later ratified.

Do you have a problem with how it was done?

Consider this: According to the 1860 census, the *MAJORITY* of the
population in South Carolina and Mississippi were slaves. Do you think
the state governments of those states accurately represented their
population's views on the issue?

Which states were they? Slavery was abolished in
the North by 1804. In many northern states it was
abolished before the Constitution was written.

So that makes their accountability less?

YES! Because:

A) they recognized the inherent contradiction of proclaiming "all men
are created equal" and then allowing some men to own others.

B) they did not have to be forced to abolish it from outside - they
did it on their own.

C) they did it *generations* before 1861.

In essence, you're arguing that
the Northern states are somehow better only because slavery ended there
before it ended in the South.

Is that not correct? I'm not saying the northern states were without
any guilt or accountability, or that they never had any slaves. The
northern states, by compromising with evil, enabled the slave states
to flourish. If someone does business with a thief, they become an
accessory to the theft, and share the guilt.

It seems like you are arguing that all states are equally guilty,
regardless of when they abolished slavery or how the abolition
happened. Somehow I find that hard to accept.

Here's what I learned about the War Between the States:

Fine. Since there are other messages to respond to, I'll ignore the
remaining nine paragraphs.

Was anything in those nine paragraphs incorrect?

And I'll repeat the key question:

What rights did the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would
secede and fight a war to keep them?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34
in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32


The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11
Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the
issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede.


But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was
clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more
and more free states would be added. (snip)


The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states,
dependant on farming, would want slaves.


Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did
the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and
fight a war to keep them?


You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question. I suspect
there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved.
Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War
nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with
England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for
that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods
heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to
leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary
markets. Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by
Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government
did nothing to stop the practice). Others objected to what they saw as
efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern
States. The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go
on and on here).


No argument there - but where were most of the slaves?
In the Confederate states!


Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North.
These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor
families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern
factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom. Ben Franklin and his
maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers. She married the man
who held her contract. Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his
contract and the laws). The only differences between this and outright
slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day. Of
course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be
free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

You're forgetting at least two states. There were 34
in 1861, but 18+11+3 = 32

The other states did not get involved. There were 18 Union States and 11
Confederate States. California and Oregon wanted nothing to do with the
issue or the conflict. The four border states did not secede.

They were involved to the extent that they supported the Union cause
financially and politically.

You previously claimed that "slavery was not threatened" because the free
states could not get the needed 2/3 majority. I showed that was simply not true
- it would have taken 23 states of the 34.

It's not a coincidence that 11 states (34-23=11) seceded.

But slavery *was* threatened, because the trend was
clear to see. As the West and Midwest developed, more
and more free states would be added. (snip)

The trend was not so clear. Certainly some of the Midwest states,
dependant on farming, would want slaves.

Not at all! Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois...all farming states
back then, all free.

The simple fact was that more free states than slave states were being
admitted, and that as time went on the days of slavery were numbered - unless
the Union were broken.

Then what *was* the South fighting for? What rights did
the 11 states cherish so greatly that they would secede and
fight a war to keep them?

You're looking for an easy answer to a very complex question.

I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be things anyone today
is proud of. I'm not proud that the founders could "proclaim liberty" and say
"all men are created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their country.

I suspect
there were as many reason for the conflict as their were people involved.

I'm looking for the facts.

Some of the roots of the Civil War dates back to the Revolutionary War
nearly a century earlier, where many Southerners did not want to break with
England, sided with England during the conflict, and were persecuted for
that afterwards. Others objected to the taxes and tarrifs on farm goods
heading overseas, seeing that as similar to what the North objected to
leading up to the Revolutionary War and reducing profits from their primary
markets.

The Constitution forbid tariffs and taxes on exports. Only imports could be
taxed or tarriffed. This was obvious economic protectionism.

Others saw the attempts for fix market prices on farm goods by
Northern firms as a threat to free markets (and were angry the government
did nothing to stop the practice).

In very broad terms, the problem was that the North industrialized and the
South stayed agrarian. The North rejected slavery in favor of immigration,
while the South allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in at least
two states the number of slaves exceeded the number of free people.

Others objected to what they saw as
efforts by Northern States to limit the political influence of the Southern
States.

That game was played both ways. The original Constitution counted 60% of the
slave population when allocating seats in the House of Representatives - but no
slaves were allowed to vote! So the slave states had a built-in political
advantage over the North, based on the illogical and immoral idea that a slave
was not a human being when it came to rights, but *was* a human being - or
rather 60% of a human being - when it came time to determine the political
population.

Was that fair in any way?

The list goes on and on (and I certainly don't have the time to go
on and on here).

The point is simple: Slavery was at the bottom of all those causes. It was the
root cause of the differences in economy, politics and culture that caused 11
states to secede.

No argument there - but where were most of the slaves?
In the Confederate states!

Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice, workers in the North.

Those were not slaves.

These were people purchased at slave auctions (blacks), or from poor
families (whites), and given contracts to work for years in Northern
factories to hopefully earn their eventual freedom.

They had *contracts* - BIG difference!

Which is completely different from being enslaved *forever*, together with all
of your children. Most indentured servants worked out their contracts and
became free. Most slaves never did.

Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part) working off debts. It was
common practice for poor European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7
years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7 years, they were
free.

Apprentices traded their labor for education, working a set number of years in
order to learn a skilled trade.

In most cases those workers entered into the contract *voluntarily*. And the
contract had a definite time limit.

Those contracts were valid because both parties got something of value.

Slaves, on the other hand, were simply *stolen* from their homes by raiders and
shipped off. They received *nothing* for their work and had no choice in the
matter. There was no limit on their service.

Ben Franklin and his
maternal grandmother were both once apprentice workers.

Were they dragged from their homes in chains and sent thousands of miles away,
to work the rest of their lives in a strange place with little hope of freedom?
Or was it a voluntary, temporary agreement for economic and educational
reasons?

She married the man
who held her contract.

How many slaves did that?

Ben Franklin escaped to Philadelphia (breaking his
contract and the laws).

Yep - he stole a few years labor from the man who held the contract. I
understand that later on he paid off the contract.

The only differences between this and outright
slavery were the legal papers and the idea of possible freedom some day.

WRONG!

There's also the fact that the apprentices were not stolen from their homes and
dragged away against their will.

Of
course, because of the working conditions, few ever lived long enough to be
free. This practice continued long after slavery was abolished.

That's simply not true. Most indentured servants worked out their 7 years and
were freed.

In fact, indentured servants were used widely in the colonies before the
revolution, but in the South the practice became unpopular because the
plantation owners were always having to buy new contracts and the now freed
indentured servants were setting up their own plantations using skills and
knowledge learned while indentured.

We still have contract labor today. Actors, athletes and executives, to name a
few, sign contracts where they agree to work for a certain period of time and
receive certain benefits. Both sides are legally bound by the contract.

To equate the immoral horror of slavery with contract labor is simply not valid
in any way.

"N2EY" wrote:
Dwight Stewart wrote:

(my comments here snipped)

I'm looking for the facts. Some of those facts may not be
things anyone today is proud of. I'm not proud that the
founders could "proclaim liberty" and say "all men are
created equal" and then allow slavery to exist in their
country.

In very broad terms, the problem was that the North
industrialized and the South stayed agrarian. The North
rejected slavery in favor of immigration, while the South
allowed slavery to grow to the extent that by 1860 in
at least two states the number of slaves exceeded the
number of free people.


Blacks were obviosuly held as slaves in the South (nobody has denied that)
and I've acknowledged that slavery played a role in the Civil War (the Emac.
Proc. shows that). I simply don't agree slavery was the cause and have given
some reasons why - which you've either ignored or tried to downplay. At the
same time, you've pointed your finger at everyone else (the South, the
founders, and just about anyone else you can think of) while ignoring or
downplaying your own State's involvement in the slave trade. Above, you said
the North rejected slavery. In another message, you said they did so before
they were forced to do so. Both are true. But what you didn't say is that
both are just barely true when it comes to your State. According to the
Central Pennsylvania African American History Web Site
(www.afrolumens.org/slavery/), quoting from the Pennsylvania State Archives
(Harrisburg), slaves were owned in Pennsylvania as late as 1842, only 18
years before the Civil War. Seems like your State got out of the slave trade
just in the nick of time - just in the nick of time for you to look down
your nose at others today.


Only if you ignore indentured, bound, or apprentice,
workers in the North.

Those were not slaves.


It was simply slavery by a different name. Most were sold into indentured
servitude (especially the very poor and blacks) and were held in that
situation by force of law. Most blacks were sold into lifelong servitude.
Indentured workers serving fixed terms were rarely paid, instead promised
money or land afterwards. Of those who were supposedly paid, the money was
often collected back to cover the costs of the employer. Their working and
living conditions were horrible. Many, if not most, were abused by their
employers and, because of working conditions or abuse, many died before
completing their indenture. Of those who did serve out their terms, evidence
suggests most remained poor afterwards, routinely deprived of the things
they were promised. [Source: America, A Narrative History, pgs 118-121,
Norton & Company Publishing, New York/London]


They had *contracts* - BIG difference!


See paragraph above.


Indentured and bound workers were (for the most part)
working off debts. It was common practice for poor
European immigrants to indenture themselves for 7
years to pay for their transatlantic passage. After that 7
years, they were free.


Yes, probably half the white settlers from England, Ireland, and Germany,
entered the country using this method. But we're talking about blacks, not
white settlers from Europe (the living and working conditions were rarely
the same).


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/