Northern “antislavery” was, in the vast majority, an “antiblack” crusade with sectional political advantages attached. Being rid of blacks was a primary goal. Forcing emancipation, with the blacks kept bottled up in the South, would expedite colonization; or if not colonization, it was believed that confinement to the South, cut off from the cradle to grave welfare of the master, would lead to a Darwinian “dying out” of all the destitute blacks. Abolitionist Ralph Waldo Emerson proclaimed, “The abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery, but because he wishes to abolish the black man.” To which he added, “the dark man, the black man declines… It will happen by and by, that the black man will only be destined for museums like the Dodo.” Such genocide was discussed openly by Northern Senators on the floor of the Senate. New York Senator, John Dix, for whom Ft. Dix is named, made a speech supporting the “dying out” of the slaves . . .
The North's Racist Crusade Against Black People
What the Primary Source Record Shows
"What Shall Be Done With The Blacks?"
[Publisher's Note, by Gene Kizer, Jr. - Below is another outstanding article by historian Rod O'Barr published first in the Abbeville Institute Blog February 15, 2023 with title "What Shall Be Done With the Blacks?" That question is posed by the antebellum North, which made it clear that they were terrified of blacks living up there.
The Northern reaction to blacks in the North was probably not much different from the reaction of Martha's Vineyard when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis flew a handful of illegal immigrants up there last year. MV got rid of them fast, though in the antebellum days getting rid of them could mean letting them die off or shipping them off, or making sure they all stayed in the South.
Alexis de Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America that race relations were better in the Old South despite slavery than in the North. He said race relations were bad in places that had abolished slavery and were the worst in places that had never known slavery.
The Old South, out of necessity, was an integrated bi-racial society as C. Vann Woodward writes in The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Blacks and whites knew each other and for the most part got along fine. Old Jim Crow began in the North and was there a long time before moving South with a Yankeefied version of racism and segregation.
If Lincoln had allowed the South to leave in peace there would have been no war and no Reconstruction with its pitting of blacks against whites for the political advantage of the Republican Party. When Republicans realized they could dominate the country with the black vote in the South, modern American racism began.
Southerners would have ended slavery in a much better way than what happened with war and nearly a million blacks dying due to disease and neglect by the North, which sure did not want blacks living up there. Several antebellum Northern states including Lincoln's Illinois had laws forbidding blacks from even visiting much less living there.
Most abolitionists hated black people and were against slavery because they were against blacks, as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Charles Dickens and so many others observed. That's why Northerners didn't want slavery in the West, because they didn't want blacks living next to them in the West.
Lincoln his whole life believed in sending blacks back to Africa or into a place they could survive. In the meantime, they were to remain in the South only. Not up North.
If academia was honest, people would know these facts of history, but, of course, academia has been politicized since the 1960s. They aren't looking for historical truth. They are looking for political advantage for liberals in academia, the media and Democrat Party. That's why distinguished historian Eugene Genovese said the treatment of Southern history by academia and the media is a "cultural and political atrocity."
Most people do not know that Northerners and especially New Englanders and New Yorkers were America's slave traders who brought the slaves here and made huge fortunes in the process. Esteemed historian Bernard Bailyn said that slavery, unquestionably, was the reason for New England's economic success.
New York Senator John Dix, for whom the United States Army's Fort Dix is named, is quoted in O'Barr's article below as being in favor of the slaves "dying out."
Perhaps "Native American" Elizabeth Warren and the naming commission ought to take a look at Fort Dix and other government establishments named or connected to Northern slave traders and change those names like they are changing the names of bases in the South.
Or maybe the hypocrite Warren should offer to change the name of Boston's Faneuil Hall since Peter Faneuil was a slave trader, but then honesty, honor and historical knowledge are not things Elizabeth Warren knows about. Virtue signaling is her forte.
Scroll down past the article for several links to help in the fight to STOP the demolition of the Confederate Reconciliation Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery. In previous posts, I published Defend Arlington's law suit against DOD, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and others who want to destroy the magnificent 109 year old monument that is surrounded by over 500 Confederate graves in concentric circles. It is a true work of art supported by numerous presidents and veterans North and South. It is one of Arlington National Cemetery's most historic as stated several times in their registration to be on the National Register of Historic Places.
Please donate because WE CAN AND WILL win this fight.]
From the Abbeville Institute Blog
"What Shall Be Done With The Blacks?"
By Rod O'Barr
February 15, 2023
THE PRIMARY SOURCE RECORD is clear. A main reason 19th century Southerners were forced to defend slavery as a practical matter was the absolute unwillingness of the North to allow dispersion and integration of the freed people across the Union and its territories. A chronic Northern racism was intent on keeping all blacks bottled up in the South if freed.
That meant an absolute social disaster in the South as many of the freed people, cut off from the required cradle to grave welfare of the master, would be forced into a life of mendicancy and crime to survive; not to mention the certain peril of those too old or too young to work who were entirely dependent upon the cradle to grave welfare of the master.. Slaves were already being rented out to economically accommodate their excess numbers. And with no surplus land in the South for subsistence farming, the freed people faced certain disaster. There simply was not enough available land or jobs in the South to accommodate them.
Yet the Republican Party, dead set on keeping Northern States free of new blacks, and the territories for whites only, attacked the South for its seeking the equal right to expand any of its black population into the territories; an arid land unaccommodating to plantation slavery, but where slaves could be dispersed and freed with land to survive. It was Northern racism that drove a segregation that would keep blacks out of the territories. Lincoln made this clear:
“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…” – Abraham Lincoln, 6/26/1857.
Senator Jefferson Davis, in an 1850 speech on the Senate floor, pointed out the hypocrisy of Northern “antislavery” opposition to taking slaves into the territories as the reason slaves were not being emancipated:
“What has been the progress of emancipation throughout the whole history of our country? It has been the pressure of free labor upon the less profitable slave labor, until the slaves were transferred to sparser regions, and their number, by such transfer, was reduced to a limit at which, without inconvenience or danger, or serious loss, emancipation of the few who remained might occur…. it is odious among us now, as it was with our ancestors. We only defend the domestic institution of slavery as it exists in the United States; the extension of which into any new Territory will not increase the number of the slaves by one single person, but which it is very probable may, in many instances, produce emancipation… It is not, then, for the purpose of emancipation or for the benefit of the slaves that it is sought to restrict it… “
Northern States had laws forbidding new blacks from entering their borders. In 1862 the Senate was firmly in the grips of the Republican Party. Members of that Party openly joked on the Senate floor about their own unwillingness to accommodate blacks in Northern States if freed. Read this excerpt from the speech of Republican J. R. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, on Emancipation and Colonization; delivered in the Senate of the United States, March 19, 1862:
“A very distinguished gentleman from Vermont was first elected to Congress, I believe, about 1843. One of the well to do farmers in his neighborhood called upon him, the evening before he was to leave for Washington, to pay his respects. He found him in his office, and told him that he came for that purpose, and to bid him goodbye.
‘And now, judge,’ said he, ‘when you get to Washington, I want to have you take hold of this Negro business and dispose of it in some way or other; have slavery abolished and be done with it.’
‘Well,’ said the judge, ‘as the people who owned the slaves, or claim to own them, have paid their money for them, and hold them as property under their state laws, would it not be just, if we abolish slavery, that some provision should be made to make them compensation?’
‘But,’ said the judge, ‘there is one other question; when the Negroes are emancipated, what shall be done with them? They are poor people; they will have nothing; there must be someplace for them to live. Do you think it would be any more than fair that we should take our share of them?’
‘Well, what would be our share in the town of Woodstock?’ He inquired.
The judge replied: ‘There are about 2500 people in Woodstock; and if you take the census and make the computation, you will find that there would be about one for every five white person; so that here in Woodstock our share would be about 500.’
‘What!’ Said he, ‘five hundred Negros in Woodstock! Judge, I called to pay my respect; I bid you good evening;’ and he started for the door and mounted his horse. As he was about to leave, he turned around and said, ‘judge, I guess you need not do anything more about that Negro business on my account.’ [Laughter.]
(Congressional globe, 37th Congress, 2nd session, vol. IV, appendix, page 84, col. 3)
Northern “antislavery” was, in the vast majority, an “antiblack” crusade with sectional political advantages attached. Being rid of blacks was a primary goal. Forcing emancipation, with the blacks kept bottled up in the South, would expedite colonization; or if not colonization, it was believed that confinement to the South, cut off from the cradle to grave welfare of the master, would lead to a Darwinian “dying out” of all the destitute blacks. Abolitionist Ralph Waldo Emerson proclaimed, “The abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery, but because he wishes to abolish the black man.” To which he added, “the dark man, the black man declines… It will happen by and by, that the black man will only be destined for museums like the Dodo.” Such genocide was discussed openly by Northern Senators on the floor of the Senate. New York Senator, John Dix, for whom Ft. Dix is named, made a speech supporting the “dying out” of the slaves, to which then Senator Jeff Davis responded:
“With surprise and horror, I heard this announcement of a policy which seeks, through poverty and degradation, the extinction of a race of human beings domesticated among us. We, sir, stand in such a relation to that people as creates a feeling of kindness and protection. We have attachments which have grown with us from childhood – to the old servant who nursed us in infancy, to the man who was the companion of our childhood, and the not less tender regard for those who have been reared under our protection. To hear their extinction treated as a matter of public policy or of speculative philosophy arouses our sympathy and our indignation.”
Most Southerners were adamantly against deporting the slaves they had known from childhood. And they certainly were against the slaves being forced to “die out” landless and penniless. Which is why General Lee stated:
“The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution of slavery and were quite willing to see it abolished. But, unless some humane course, based on wisdom and Christian principles, is adopted, you do them great injustice in setting them free.”
It was Northern segregationist racism that forced the South to defend slavery, not out of a desire to perpetuate and extend the institution, but as a means of protecting the Southern economy and society, as well as the slaves themselves from the inhumane disaster that would have been had emancipation been confined within Southern borders alone.
A slave master quoted in the 1854 study, “A Southside View of Slavery” said, “‘If our friends at the north would devise ways in which we could dispose of these poor people FOR THEIR GOOD, I should then no longer be a ‘servant of servants.’” (Emphasis mine)
For Southerners and Northerners alike, the problem was “what to do with the negro.” The answer to that question differed greatly by section. Most Southerners sought a humane answer that would assimilate the freed people into American society across the Union. As Jeff Davis stated, “Slavery is for its end the preparation of that race for civil liberty and social enjoyment… When the time shall arrive at which emancipation is proper, those most interested will be most anxious to effect it.” Northerners were having none of that assimilation. What kept Davis’ “proper time” for emancipation arriving was Northern refusal to disperse and integrate blacks. Abolitionist Dr. Nehemiah Adams in his above-mentioned study of slavery stated regretfully:
“There are, probably, few who would not abstractly prefer free labor; but what shall be done with the blacks? There has never been a time in the history of our discussions on this subject, when, the South had expressed her willingness to part with the slaves, we at the north could have agreed in what way they should have been disposed of. Who has ever proposed a plan of relief which could in a good measure unite us? What shall be done with the blacks? On the evils of slavery all are well-informed. But as to this essential question we get no light.”
An Alabama Secession Commissioner explained why he was going to vote for secession in terms that reveals a common humane concern for the outcome to freed slaves:
“Mr. President, if pecuniary loss alone were involved in the abolition of slavery, I should hesitate long before I would give the vote I now intend to give. If the destruction of slavery entailed on us poverty alone, I could bear it, for I have seen poverty and felt its sting. But poverty, Mr. President, would be one of the least of the evils that would befall us from the abolition of African slavery. There are now in the slaveholding States over four millions of slaves; dissolve the relation of master and slave, and what, I ask, would become of that race?”
The Mississippi Declaration of Secession asserted the Southern concern for the slaves lamenting that the North, “seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”
A British publication summed up the South’s dilemma:
“The South has hitherto clung to slavery – because it saw no way to abolish it, without cruelty to the unprepared negro… it does not fight for the maintenance of slavery, as the North pretends, and as some in Europe still believes, but for independence… the sentiment of the Southern people towards the negroes was so kindly that there was nothing in the world that could be done to ameliorate their condition that the South would not gladly undertake.” (“The Friend of India” Dec 29, 1864).
Here presented is just a small sampling of primary sources that reveal just how skewed the truth is in the popular narrative that the South seceded to “perpetuate and extend slavery,” Also skewed is the fabrication that the recalcitrant North held a sincere moral concern for the slaves when, in reality, it opposed dispersion and integration of those freed, and just wanted blacks gone! Had Lincoln not been assassinated, and had Republicans not realized that freed slaves were a potential voting block for Republican control of the South, one can only wonder in what godforsaken place the descendants of slaves would be living today, or if they would exist at all.
Rod O’Barr is retired and lives in Tennessee with his wife of 45 years, Kathy. He has advanced degrees in Philosophy and Theology, and a lifelong interest in history. He is the webmaster of a WWII website and a member of both the Abbeville Institute and the SCV. When not enjoying time with his children he enjoys doing living history at local schools.
Links to Important Resources
Hot off the press! Here is a link to the new 385 page PDF from Defend Arlington that flips pages as you read. It contains all the great scholarly white papers gathered up by Defend Arlington to make sure that Woke ignorance DIES at Arlington National Cemetery.
Defend Arlington's 385 Page Book of White Papers
Here is a link to Defend Arlington's donation page that states:
CHIP IN FOR THE ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY MEMORIAL LITIGATION DEFENSE FUND
Please Donate Money -- THANK YOU!
Here is a link to an informative nine minute video, "The Arlington Confederate Monument," produced by the Abbeville Institute.
The Arlington Confederate Monument
Here is a link to the outstanding scholarly PDF white papers written for Defend Arlington. You can download them all with one click. Please share them far and wide, especially the letter from Defend Arlington's attorney, Karen C. Bennett, to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.
PDF White Papers from Defend Arlington
Here is link to an excellent video refuting point by point a historically false Prager University video by Ty Seidule, who is on the naming commission. This one is produced by Bode Lang and entitled "The Civil War Was Not for Slavery."
Click Here for Bode Lang's excellent video,
Here is a link to an excellent video of a Georgia lady calling out Elizabeth Warren and her Massachusetts hypocrisy.
Click Here for Georgia Lady Teaching Elizabeth Warren a Lesson
Here are important Southern Legal Resource Center links. SLRC mailing address is: Southern Legal Resource Center, 90 Church St., Black Mountain, NC 28711-3365.
Click Here to donate to the Southern Legal Resource Center
Click Here to follow on Facebook
Click Here to go to their website
Great work here Mr. Kizer. Essential material for the better understanding our history’s actual unfolding within a very complex and troubling time. Thank you.
Rod O’Barr is one of the best. Abbeville Institute has great articles every day.
Got a lot more coming on Northern slave trading and the racism embedded in laws in many Northern states that forbid blacks from even visiting much less living there. It is understandable why Alexis de Tocqueville said race relations were best in the South and worst in the North.
It is impossible to deny Ralph Waldo Emerson’s meaning when he says that abolitionists wanted to abolish slavery because they wanted to abolish the black man.
We want the truth of American history and not the politicized fraud that serves liberals in Academia and the news media.
All the best to you!