A black man, armed, in Federal uniform, holding a captured Confederate at the point of a bayonet. Is this an image of the white South's worst nightmares come true? From a Confederate perspective, yes. Many feared exactly this scenario: armed blacks turned loose against their former masters. Of course there is more to the image than that. A black man taking up arms to risk his life for the Union suggests something much more profound. Oh sure, imagery such as this certainly struck fear into the hearts of whites in the South. But it also helped to ensure that blacks could claim basic citizenship rights at war's end. How could one deny rights to a man who had shouldered a musket for and helped secure the national integrity of his country?
While many, both black and white, asked exactly that, the truth is that blacks' rights - even those who were veterans - were often denied in the postwar nation. In this sense, do the postwar decades represent a lost chance to capitalize on Union victory? Your comments, as always, are welcome.
K
This image crystallizes fears that Southern whites still have. Fears this deep don't just go away. Thus all the furor about Obama . . . at least that's what I believe. There's a fear that he will "stir up" the African-American population--a fear with a long white Southern history.
ReplyDeleteThe Northern whites had their fair share of fears about slave uprisings (Yes, there were slaves in the North, even after the War). Ever heard of the Slave Insurrection of 1741? The plot may have been fabricated, but the whites' fears that led to slaves burned at the stake were real enough.
ReplyDeleteAsk the Northern whites in the suburbs of Detroit what their fears are. What about the 'Rebellion of 1967'? What caused the whites to evacuate the city for the suburbs? That should be the Detroit city flag.
The 'furor about Obama' couldn't possibly be a genuine dislike of his politics, right? Obviously, it's all because he's partially black. If he were a 100% white socialist, we'd all adore him.
For the record, how many significant slave uprisings occurred during the War? That's what I thought.
Well - i certainly didn't mean for this to turn into a blue/red pissing match over whether or not Obama is a Socialist (he's not, by the way - I would wager that most accusers do not know the definition of Socialism - but that is entirely beside the point). And Greg - trust me, the readers of this blog are well aware of the past national relationship with slavery and of racist proclivities in the northern states.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in these slaves that you mention who were held in the North AFTER the war. I would love to see some documentation on this. .
I'm neither red nor blue ... I have no use for either ... and I never said Obama was a Socialist (you can re-read my comment above). As for documentation of Northern slavery after the war, for starters, examine the 1860 U.S. Census Slave Schedules for Northern states to confirm that it existed at least until mid-1860s. Next, look for any proof that these states eliminated slavery prior to the Thirteenth Amendment's ratification in December of 1865. Kentucky, a Northern state, didn't even approve the Thirteenth Amendment until the mid-1970s ... that's NOT a typo ... NINETEEN-SEVENTIES! So, it's hard to believe these Kentuckians voluntarily gave up their slaves before they absolutely had to. That, in and of itself, is not proof, but I'll provide you with more as I peruse my library.
ReplyDeleteNone of this is news, Greg - everyone knows about the 13th amendment and Kentucky (not a northern state, but a border state that stayed loyal to the Union, actually).
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to that proof, though.
And I'll let you slide on the Obama thing...even though one could easily read an implication into your statement.
Just to be clear - by proof, I mean something appearing after June 1865 along the lines of 1) bills of sale, 2) wills bequeathing human property 3) runaway slave notices 4) the 1870 census illustrating status of servitude [this would be a slam dunk] 5) purchase invoices 6) inventories showing human property.
ReplyDeleteOh, so Kentucky was a BORDER state! Therefore, slavery in the Bluegrass State doesn't count against The North! I hadn't realized prior to this point that there were THREE parties to the War ... The North, The South, and The States The North Disavowed. How about we just stick with 'Union' and 'Confederacy'. So I suppose I'll have to revise my claim to 'There were slaves in the Union before, during, and after The War'. And, while we're at it, I'm guessing Washington, D.C. doesn't count, either, because, well, it's not a state! And it turns out that I'm utterly incorrect about New Jersey ... they didn't have any slaves after about 1846. They couldn't possibly have had slaves because the state legislature made them all permanent apprentices. What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Bravo, Bard!
ReplyDelete----------------------------
Just to be clear, I'll decide what standard of proof I'll follow, but I have no intention of submitting an article from The Onion to support my position. You and I both know your list is ludicrous. What bearing would a census record from 1870 have on an institution we both agree was dead in 1866? Are you really saying that if there's no proof a slave was bought, traded, or sold that slavery didn't exist? We both also know that by June of 1865, twenty-two of the necessary twenty-seven states had already signed off on the Thirteenth Amendment, so the proverbial handwriting was on the wall and the market value of a slave would have plummeted faster than Enron stock at the end of 2001. I'll concede that there was not a vibrant slave trade in the Union states in 1865, but I will not concede that there were no slaves there.
Relax hombre.
ReplyDeleteStill waiting for your evidence.
Actually I think my list is pretty reasonable and very broad. Your original post said, and I will quote exactly, "Yes, there were slaves in the North, even after the War." You did not specify time or area.
ReplyDeleteAny of the things on the list, including inventories, would be a very easy way to verify your statement. But - if you have some other verifiable source illustrating slavery functioning as an institution, I am happy to have a look.
Just for fun, I thought of a couple of things that one could perceive as restricted labor. Do you want a hint?
Still waiting for your evidence.
Three weeks later and still waiting for your evidence. I am starting to suspect that you don't have any.
ReplyDeleteThere's no evidence, clearly...
ReplyDelete