Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[civilwarwest] Re: slave labor and confederate forces

Expand Messages
  • Margaret D. Blough
    Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com ... Thanks Margret, that was excellent. My next question is this, have you written any books?
    Message 1 of 24 , Mar 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
      >
      Thanks Margret, that was excellent. My next question is this, have
      you written any books? If not then why not? :)

      Thanks and have a great day. Hope it isn't snowing like hell where
      you are. (we have an unexpected blizzard here in Northern New
      England. Boston is wet, but there is snow on everything North of it.)

      --Peter

      <

      Peter,

      No books written. Unfortunately, there's no way I can find the time to do
      one properly in terms of research, etc., and I wouldn't want to do one
      unless I felt I had something that would really add to the understanding of
      the subject.

      I'm in Pennsylvania. It's just grim and drizzly here. The snow is long
      gone and, fortunately, while it is chilly, it's too warm for ice.

      Regards,

      Margaret
    • Bob Huddleston
      “The creed is pretty black in the northern end of Illinois; about the center it is a pretty good mulatto; and it is almost white when you get down to
      Message 2 of 24 , Mar 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        “The creed is pretty black in the northern end of Illinois; about the center
        it is a pretty good mulatto; and it is almost white when you get down to
        Egypt.” – Senator Stephen A. Douglas, in the United States Senate, February
        29, 1860.

        With consideration for some political exaggeration, Douglas had it about
        right. Indeed a major reason for the Republican selection of Abraham Lincoln
        was the diverse population of his home state, and the correct perception
        that he was a moderate anti-slavery conservative (not as oxymoronic as it
        sounds!)

        Describing Southern Illinois as “Egypt” goes back to at least early
        statehood days, and in still occasionally used: a few years ago, I was
        driving on an election night and station “surfing” the car radio when I
        picked up a Chicago radio station. They were giving state-wide results and
        the reporter made the comment that the returns were slow coming in from
        “Egypt”!

        The term was applied to the area essentially South of today’s I-70: in the
        nineteenth century the counties included varied a little, depending upon the
        newspaper editors’ political leanings but Alton, where Abolitionist Owen
        Lovejoy had been murdered by a pro-slavery mob in 1837, and Springfield were
        about as far North as Egypt ran. Egypt was settled by families from the
        slave South, primarily Kentucky and Virginia, with names like Logan from
        Ellicott Mills, Maryland and Thomas Lincoln from Kentucky by way of Indiana.
        On the other hand, Northern Illinois was settled by Yankees from New
        England, from the Burned Over District of New York, and Ohio’s Western
        Reserve, as well as large numbers of foreign-born.

        In 1860, the census showed significant differences between Northern and
        Southern Illinois: the largest city in Egypt was Cairo, at the mouth of the
        Ohio River (and pronounced like the syrup, not the city in Egypt), with a
        population of 2,188 compared to Chicago’s 112,172. In the state as a whole,
        foreign born made up 19% of the residents of Illinois but only 5% of those
        living in Egypt.

        The position of slavery in Illinois was complex: the Northwest Ordnance
        prohibited slavery in the Territories north of the Ohio River, but the
        Ordnance also allowed those already owning slaves in Illinois to keep them.
        In addition, the Illinois Territorial legislature allowed black
        “apprentices,” slaves in everything but name (the slave owners conveniently
        ignored the problem that, like a minor child, a slave could not legally
        contract).

        After statehood, the Southern Illinois argued for the state to legalize
        slavery, the Northwest Ordnance no longer being in force now that the
        territory was a state. After an 18 month fight, the measure was defeated in
        1824 by a vote of 6,822 to 4,950.

        The fight to make and keep Illinois a free state was led by Edward Coles,
        the state’s second governor: he was a Virginian, who had grown up in
        Albemarle County, next door, as it were, to Monticello. Coles corresponded
        and talked frequently with the elder Jefferson about the Particular
        Institution, which Coles had come to detest. Jefferson maintained that
        slavery was bad but, rather like Robert E. Lee a generation later, nothing
        could be done about the “wolf.” (Cole had served as private secretary to
        Pres. Madison and was instrumental in bringing together in their old age
        those two revolutionaries, turned political opponents, Jefferson and John
        Adams.)

        Coles refused to believe nothing could be done about slavery. He sold his
        plantation and immigrated with his slaves to Illinois in 1819. Once there,
        Coles manumitted the slaves and purchased and settled each family on 160
        acre tracts of Missouri bottom land near his new home in Edwardsville, down
        in Egypt. Edwardsville in located in the Mississippi bottom lands, east of
        St. Louis, and just north of where I-70 and I-270 and I-55 cross each other.
        “Reparations” with a vengeance! The standard biography of Edward Coles was
        written by congressman and member of one of the more remarkable political
        families in American history, Elihu Washburne. We remember Washburne today
        primarily because of his Civil War sponsorship of a man from Washburne’s
        home in Galena, Ulysses S. Grant.

        Even after the anti-slavery vote, and like most free states, Illinois
        continued to allow transit of slaves, en route from one slave state to
        another. At the same time, the state legally allowed a slave holder to bring
        slaves into the state to work a farm, as long as the slaves did not become
        permanent residents. Slave owners satisfied the legal requirement by
        importing slaves in the spring and taking them back to Kentucky or Missouri
        for the winter.

        Tom and Sarah Lincoln and their Hanks and Johnston cousins, you will recall,
        moved to Coles County, on the edge of Egypt (and named for Edward Coles).
        Coles County is about half way between Urbana and Effingham on I-59.
        Although not part of the Eighth Circuit, which Lincoln followed, it was on
        the edge and, given that his father and step-mother lived near the country
        seat Charleston, Lincoln would come to Charleston when he was riding the
        circuit, conduct some legal business and visit his relatives.

        In 1847, in Charleston, Lincoln got involved in his only case where he
        represented a salve owner attempting to recover an alleged fugitive. Robert
        Matson of Kentucky had farmed land near Newman, then part of Coles County.
        Each fall he would take the slaves back to Kentucky. Matson had a
        year-round manager, an African-American named Anthony Bryant. Since Bryant
        lived there full time, he was freed by virtue of his tenure. But his wife,
        Jane Bryant, and their four children, were returned each winter to Kentucky.

        In the fall of 1847, Bryant took his wife and children to Oakland and placed
        them under the care of a pair of abolitionists, Gideon Ashmore and Dr. Hiram
        Rutherford. Matson swore out a warrant for the return of the fugitives.
        Under the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, all Matson would have needed to do was go
        before one of the Federal commissioners and swear they were all his slaves,
        and that would have been the end of it. But on October 16, 1847, Ashmore
        hired an attorney, Orlando Ficklin, who filed a writ of habeas corpus for
        the return of the slaves, claiming that since Matson had allowed them to
        winter over in Illinois, they were free. Matson retaliated by filing suit
        against Ashmore and Rutherford for $2,000 for what was in essence, theft of
        his property.

        Usher Linder, Matson’s attorney, asked Lincoln to draw up some of the legal
        documents in the case, and attest the bond for costs. According to Ficklin,
        writing in the 1870s, this was Lincoln’s only involvement.

        Rutherford approached Lincoln to represent him, but Lincoln had to turn
        Rutherford down, since he now had a conflict of interest.

        The case was heard on October 16, 1847 (nothing slow about justice in those
        days!) before two state supreme court justices, who rode the circuit as a
        court of appeals (rather like U.S. Justice Taney was doing when he ruled in
        ex parte Merryman).

        Usher Linder argued that the U.S. Constitution created an obligation on the
        part of Illinois to protect property of citizens of other states. Ficklin
        countered, claiming the Northwest Ordnance as well as the state
        constitution, made slavery illegal in Illinois. Lincoln, for his part,
        agreed with Ficklin that, if the Bryants were residents, they became free
        but since Matson had never declared the slaves were to become residents of
        Illinois, the Bryants remained slaves. Ficklin always believed that Lincoln’
        s argument helped his case.

        The justices ruled against Matson, assessing him costs and freeing the
        Bryants. Matson immediately absconded home to Kentucky, stiffing Lincoln and
        Linder of their fees, as well as the monies due to Ashmore and Rutherford.

        The major result was that not only transit of slaves through Illinois was
        now jeopardized, but the practice of bringing slaves in to work the land
        ended.

        To show how confused people could get about such things, Matson’s attorney,
        Linder, and Ficklin were both Democrats but Linder became a staunch War
        Democrat – although his son joined the Confederate army, was captured and
        paroled by the President. Ficklin became a leading Illinois copperhead.

        Although Lincoln had few ties – and received few votes from the area – he
        had personal friends, who were also political enemies, people like Dr. John
        Logan, a state representative from Jackson County on the lower Mississippi
        River. In 1836, Abraham Lincoln, also a state representative, sponsored
        legislation slicing a new county from Sangamon (Springfield) and naming it
        for Dr. Logan.

        Logan had a son, John Alexander Logan, named for his father and maternal
        grandmother. After service in the Mexican War, the young John Logan followed
        his father to the legislature, serving from 1852 to his election to Congress
        in 1858. Logan was a good representative of the feelings and prejudices of
        his are. He ran on a pro-slavery and Negrophobe candidacy, promising to push
        for legislation to keep blacks, free or slave, out of the state. After a
        hard fight, the result was the passing in 1853 of what came to be know as
        “Logan’s Nigger Laws.” The laws prohibited the entry of blacks into the
        state, with a $100 fine levied on the white who brought them in and
        provisions for the black to be jailed and fined – and if unable to pay the
        fine and jail costs, the black could be forced to work off the expenses.

        One result was that Missouri slaves quickly learned that freedom did not
        exist immediately across the Mississippi – although further North, opposite
        Iowa, escaped slaves would find white friends. When the former antebellum
        boy from Hannibal, Missouri came to write the finest novel in the English
        language, Mark Twain used the presence of the Logan laws as a literary
        excuse to have Huck and Jim go down the Mississippi, with the intention of
        turning up the Ohio to freedom via the Underground railroad in Ohio. The
        Logan laws remained on the Illinois books until their repeal in 1863.

        And they helped fasten a nickname on the fiery Jack Logan: “Black Jack”
        referred not only to his swarthy complexion but also his Negrophobe
        politics.

        Jumping ahead a few years, Logan would become one of the finest of the Civil
        War’s amateur “political generals,” along with Missouri’s Frank Blair and
        Louisiana’s Dick Taylor. And his politics would change, as he moved South.
        When Vicksburg surrendered to Grant, Logan was appointed military governor
        of the city, with responsibility for paroling the surrendered Confederates.
        Logan discovered that when a Confederate officer brought his “servant” in
        and Logan would ask the slave if the latter wanted to accompany the officer,
        the black always answered yes – as the Rebel officer was present. But when
        interviewed separately the slaves opted for freedom and refused to go along
        with their now former masters. Logan changed the interview process and
        Pemberton complained bitterly to Grant – however Grant supported Logan.
        Logan even sent several blacks North to live on his farm – a farm located
        deep in Egypt.

        For further reading:

        James P. Jones, John A. Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War (1967
        E.B. Washburne, Sketch of Edward Coles, Second Governor of Illinois, and of
        the Slavery Struggle of 1823-24 (1882, reprint: 1969)
        Paul Finkelman, Slavery and the Founders: Race and Liberty in the Age of
        Jefferson (1996)
        Paul Finkelman, An Imperfect Union : Slavery, Federalism, and Comity (1981)
        N. Dwight Harris, The History of Negro Servitude in Illinois and of the
        Slavery Agitation in That State, 1719-1864 (1904, reprinted 1969)

        And, as I was finishing this up to post it, the March 2001 Civil War History
        arrived and the lead article is on the topic”

        Suzanne Cooper Guasco, “’The Deadly Influence of Negro Capitalists’:
        Southern Yeomen and Resistance to the Expansion of Slavery in Illinois,”
        Civil War History (March, 2001), pp. 7-29. Guasco’s footnotes provide leads
        to additional readings.

        Take care,

        Bob

        Judy and Bob Huddleston
        10643 Sperry Street
        Northglenn, CO 80234-3612
        303.451.6276 Adco@...
      • carlw4514@yahoo.com
        Thanks for the great post, Bob, you have shed tremendous light on this subject. How interesting that Abe himself was involved the court case that ended the
        Message 3 of 24 , Mar 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for the great post, Bob, you have shed tremendous light on this
          subject. How interesting that Abe himself was involved the court case
          that ended the practice of " temporary slave labor" in Illinois, but
          argued for the "wrong" side! I was mostly unsure of all of this and am
          grateful for your post and will definitely save it, thanks again.

          Carl
        • sdwakefield@prodigy.net
          mega dittos! A really great informative post Thank you Bob! Wakefield ... this ... case ... but ... am
          Message 4 of 24 , Mar 30, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            mega dittos!
            A really great informative post Thank you Bob!
            Wakefield


            --- In civilwarwest@y..., carlw4514@y... wrote:
            > Thanks for the great post, Bob, you have shed tremendous light on
            this
            > subject. How interesting that Abe himself was involved the court
            case
            > that ended the practice of " temporary slave labor" in Illinois,
            but
            > argued for the "wrong" side! I was mostly unsure of all of this and
            am
            > grateful for your post and will definitely save it, thanks again.
            >
            > Carl
          • William Henry Keene
            ... Mr. Mancini, You wrote: Further only 3% or 6% of Southeners had slaves, why would the other over 90% care one way or the other if they were in non-combat
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 13, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Peter Mancini" <peter_mancini@m...> wrote:

              Mr. Mancini,

              You wrote: "Further only 3% or 6% of Southeners had slaves, why would the other over 90% care one way or the other if they were in non-combat roles?"

              You statistics are faulty. The number was ten times that.
            • Margaret D. Blough
              Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com ... Mr. Mancini, You wrote: Further only 3% or 6% of Southeners had slaves, why would the other
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 13, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Message text written by INTERNET:civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
                >
                --- In civilwarwest@y..., "Peter Mancini" <peter_mancini@m...> wrote:

                Mr. Mancini,

                You wrote: "Further only 3% or 6% of Southeners had slaves, why would the
                other over 90% care one way or the other if they were in non-combat roles?"

                You statistics are faulty. The number was ten times that.<

                The smallest figures on slaveholding are obtained by only counting the
                actual title holder and not family and other dependents. In addition,
                leasing slaves was a major source of labor for the lessors and income for
                the lessees in the antebellum South. For instance, it was not at all
                unusual for widows and/or children to be left slaves to be hired out in
                order to provide the beneficiaries with an income. It also made it
                possible for others who needed labor to obtain it when they either didn't
                have a year round need for it or couldn't afford to buy a slave as prices
                skyrocketed in the 1850s. Als, having slaves as a permanent undercaste
                formed a "mudsill" (to use Hammond's phrase) above which all whites, no
                matter how poor would be above.

                Regards,

                Margaret D. Blough
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.