44067RE: [civilwarwest] Re: Banning the Slave Trade
- Jul 20, 2007First I changed the subject: this topic has nothing to do with Chickamauga!
Secondly, I just posted before you posted this an answer as to why the 20
year date. And the Constitutional ban was only refusing permission for
Congress to do ban the trade before 1808. Congress would then have the
opportunity or not to place legislation placing the ban into place.
As for the 3/4, yes it was the Yankees who were willing to compromise on 3/5
-- because the slave states wanted the slaves counted as a full person. I do
not remember ever being taught or teaching that the South wanted 3/5.
And I repeat what I said before: it was South Carolina that did not want ANY
ban. My source ways it was SC that suggested 1808 rather than 1800 -- what
ever, the date chosen was a compromise. Massachusetts was pretty much out of
the trade by the '80s.
Judy and Bob Huddleston
10643 Sperry Street
Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane."
---Mark Twain, 1907
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
Behalf Of Steve Hall
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: The hard hand of logistics in the
I had long wondered why the 20 years. If they want to allow time for the
ships then at sea to come to port, which was one argument, why so long a
period? Then I found out that the 20 period was argued for by the
Massachussetts delegates! Apparently this huge shipping state had an
investment in ships built for the slave trade, which were very different
from other ships in that they did not have the large, open holds of other
cargo ships, but had extensive wood work in the bunks. While bunks could be
added to almost any cargo ship of the time, it was much easier to build them
in at the time of construction. The normal "life span" of a sailing ship
was, you guessed it, 20 years.
One thing that I find interesting in your post is the votes mentioned. Not
questioning your information, but I have to wonder why a vote was taken on
the matter in 1807 when the Constitution states "Section 9. The migration or
importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year
one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. "
Why would they need a vote when this was already part of the Constitution?
What good would a vote be without a Constitutional amendment?
Here is something interesting that I just found at www.usconstitution.net
First we will address the capitation (counting) of slaves in the
Constitution. On June 11 <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/611.htm>
, Roger Sherman suggested that representation be based on a count of all
free men. The South wanted their slaves counted as whole persons, but that
would never happen. James Wilson wanted to get the issue out of the way
quickly, and asked the Convention to adopt the same standard as that in the
Articles: slaves would count as three-fifths persons. This issue would rise
again on July 9 <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/709.htm> , when
some began to realize that the South could increase their representation in
the Congress by simply importing new slaves. Recall, too, that everyone
expected the extreme Southern states to grow in white population as well,
over the next few decades. The notion was frightening to many from the
North, and Northern states banded together on July 11
<http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/711.htm> to completely remove
slaves from the population counts.
One thing that this brings to light is that many "history books" and history
classes make the claim that it was the South that wanted the slaves counted
as less than a whole person, but reality shows us otherwise.
----- Original Message -----
From: William H Keene <mailto:wh_keene@...>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:29 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The hard hand of logistics in the
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
<mailto:email@example.com> , "Steve Hall" <Tunnelhill@...>
> Upon what do you base this assumption?
In the records of the debates during the drafting of the
Constitution, South Carolina's delegates stated that that would not
agree to the Constitution without the clause that permitted the
to continue. In fact General Pinckney, one of South Carolina's
delegates, stated "South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without
slaves." I also find it interesting that when the issue was put to
a vote in 1807, the southern congressmen voted 43-8 Against banning
the slave trade and the northern congressmen voted 52-6 In Favor of
banning the slave trade.
> While you are at it, why was the period 20 years?
That I dont know.
> Steve Hall - Commander
> Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
> Sons of Confederate Veterans
> Chatsworth, Georgia
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: William H Keene
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:26 PM
> Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: The hard hand of logistics in the
> --- In email@example.com
<mailto:civilwarwest%40yahoogroups.com> , "Steve Hall" <Tunnelhill@>
> I disagree completely with your conclusion. The barring of the
> importation of slaves in 1774 was an action taken against trade
> specifically with Britain and was not a permanent end to the
> trade. And in reality the 20 year period was because of the south.
> > ...
> > BTW, I found it very interesting to read some of the
> resolutions passed by the merchants and other citizens in protest
> the tarriffs and other "intolerable acts" of the British
> One clause in particular jumped out. They were listing the items
> that they would NOT purchase or import, tea being the most
> one, but "Slaves from Africa or the West Indies" came up in
> of these. Georgia was barring the importation of slaves in 1774!
> Not the picture painted by the history books concerning the end
> the slave importation is it? Most of them make it look like it
> the South that wanted the trade to continue and, barring that,
> insisted on it continueing for 20 years after the ratification of
> Constitution, when in reality, the 20 year period was brought out
> the NORTH!
> > Steve Hall - Commander
> > Lt. Col. William Luffman Camp #938
> > Sons of Confederate Veterans
> > Chatsworth, Georgia
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Bob Huddleston
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 5:44 PM
> > Subject: [civilwarwest] The hard hand of logistics in the
> Chickamauga-Chattanooga Campaign
> > I noticed this letter in a catalog and thought it worth sharing.
> > 189. LETTER-REPORT CONCERNING WAGON TRAINS 3p 8x10 manuscript
> from Ezra B.
> > Kirk 71st NY, 14th OVI then AQM Vols. Letter going to Col. A.
> > STEVENSON, ALA, Nov 1st 1863. Col, Enclosed I hand you report
> arrival and
> > departures of wagons trains at this place for the day. Your
> dispatch was
> > received and answered by Telegraph. Enclosed I hand you
> of trains
> > now here with remarks. I have done all in my power to
> the mooring
> > of trains but feel that all my labor has been in vain, caused
> > several reasons; first, the want of forage. For 3 and 4 days at
> time not a
> > sack of corn was to be had and trains were compelled to forage
> > country for sufficient to keep their stocks alive. Second, the
> want of
> > mechanics to repair the wagons and shoe the mules. I don't
> pretend to say
> > whose fault it is that the necessary foreage and mechanics are
> not provided
> > but an increased supply of both are very much needed out of the
> > trains now here, only four have a grain of corn, two of them
> (both belonging
> > to 3d Divs 14th AC) have sufficient to make the trip to
> Chatanooga, the
> > other two a couple of days rations each. I shall send 50 wagons
> out foraging
> > in the morning if no forage arrives tonight. The general
> understanding seems
> > to be that trains now here and arriving are to remain until the
> > improve and supply of forage is sent to the front is that the
> fact? In my
> > report of yesterday, Capt McCunes train of 41 wagons, 3d Div 14
> AC was
> > reported as departed, it was an error of my clerk, the train
> > started. There will be at least seventy five wagons to be
> deducted out of
> > the 456 reported here should you desire to make an estimate of
> the amt.
> > transportated. Many of the teams would not be able to haul the
> empty wagon
> > back if they had been well fed while here and as it is they
> cannot get back
> > without a harness on. Capt. Warren has about 2000 head of
> and mules
> > in one correll and they are decaying at the rate of 30 head per
> > something should be done with them at once. All commissary
> > passing through to Bridgeport. I should like very much to get
> away from
> > here. I am Col, very Resp your obtd svt E. B. Kirk AAQM.
> > 40478..........................$65.00
> > Catalog 223, June 2007, Olde Soldier Books
> > Take care,
> > Bob
> > Judy and Bob Huddleston
> > 10643 Sperry Street
> > Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
> > 303.451.6376 Huddleston.r@
> > "The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries
> are insane."
> > ---Mark Twain, 1907
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>