Reply #63: Free blacks could not live in Lincoln's Illinois, "Free" states meant white-only

[unc70]

While I am wary of his intentions in VA, I think that we would all benefit from re-examining the events from 150 years ago to understand their complexities, rather than simplistically having "feeing the slaves" is one episode in the morality play that passes for American history, a series of triumphs of good over evil, following God's preordained plan for this bountiful land He has bestowed. Columbia.

"Preserving the Union" was one of the primary justifications for the war. That was important because most of the Federal revenue came from the Southern states. Northern banks would have problems collecting on loans, the NE textile industry needed the cheap cotton for their mills, the railroads their business and possibly their investments in tracks, etc.

If the South left the Union, the Midwest might leave and form a third country. Resentment there of Washington and of the banks, railroads, etc. was nearly equal to that in the South and had festered from the founding of country.

The battle over admission of "Free vs Slave States" was closer to being "White-only vs Slave States".

It wasn't just that slavery was not allowed in states of the Northwest Territories, it was that "people of color" were not allowed to move to most of these states and could transit only after posting a bond. In states where people of color were allowed to live, they had few rights, could not own property in many states, and were denied entry to various vocations.

That same non-slave black man ("person of color") in NC had the same rights as a white man, except the rights to vote and hold elective office which were taken away in the 1830's. He could still own property, including slaves, have apprentices and indentures bonded to him (including whites), testify in court, own a business, and make contracts. Of course, no married woman had these rights anywhere, nor did he in most states.

The best opportunity for dealing with slavery was probably lost when resolving several related issues would have made it much more difficult to ratification. The number of slaves at that time was relatively small, grants of new land could have compensated slave owners, and many political and religious leaders were opposed to slavery. (For example, here in NC those opposed to slavery included the Quakers, Deists, Universalists, and Methodists.)

The problem for everyone was for after the slaves were freed, what then? For many, particularly in states with few slaves, the answer was to make them leave or send them back to Africa. In states like MD, VA, NC, and SC with larger slave populations that would have been nearly impossible.What about those free people of color whose families might have lived in NC or VA for generations? What was their status, their rights? Were they citizens?

So issues like this were put aside for later. Unfortunately, the invention of the cotton gin only a couple of years later changed everything. The demand for cotton first by English mills and later (after industrial espionage finally provided the secret technology) for the textile mills in New England. Many of these mills were owned by the same families who had grown wealthy from the slave trade. Newport and Boston old money was from the slave trade. Their mills depended on cheap slave-grown cotton from large plantations in the South, some owned by those families.

Yes it was about slavery. And about racism. About predestination vs free will. Industrial vs agrarian. Urban vs rural.

Yes, the South lost. So did everyone else.

Especially NC where in five years a third of the men were killed or died from wounds or infections and another third had been wounded, many losing one or more limbs.

Get over it? Not likely.