Laws regarding the teaching of slaves to read

[Pvt Schnapps]

I debated starting a new thread on this subject, but I'll let the moderators decide if there's enough there to discuss, or whether it would simply degenerate into name-calling. But the question of Stonewall Jackson as "the black man's friend" intrigued me, especially the question of whether, as claimed, he broke Virginia state law by teaching blacks to read.

The first part of this relates to his role in teaching blacks. His own letters don't say much about this. Apart from scattered references to "servants" (a popular euphemism for slave in his time and place) he doesn't seem to mention blacks at all, except in a June 7, 1858, letter to John Lyle Campbell, in which Jackson describes the "Lexington Colored Sabbath School."

You can find the entire letter on the VMI site I linked to earlier. A few points seem worth emphasizing. The school has a name and it's well-known; there's no attempt to hide any violation of law. The school meets once a week for 45 minutes -- it's a school in the Sunday school sense only. It opens with a hymn, includes a reading of Bible verses, prayer, a lecture by "its teacher" (not Jackson -- the teachers report to him and he keeps the records), and an examination of a couple students in the meaning of verses of the child catechism.

There's nothing in the description about teaching anyone to read, nor does it seem there's any time left from the 45 minutes once a week in which one could learn to read, nor does Jackson describe himself as one of the teachers in any case. In assigning verses for further study, and in periodic awards of books to "scholars," there seems some implication of reading, but where and when and how it's taught isn't specified.

But let's assume that the instruction in reading takes place elsewhere. Does this violate the law?

Both supporters of Jackson as a friend to blacks and critics of slavery seem to assume that it was against the law to teach blacks to read. This enables the first group to present Jackson as some sort of civil rights pioneer and the second group to more strongly condemn the "institution."

The historical truth was actually a little more complex and, I think, a bit uglier than either comic book version. According to a Virginia law passed in 1831 (in the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion) it was against the law to teach FREE blacks to read, or to teach slaves for compensation. Teaching slaves to read without compensation was OK.

See http://www.nathanielturner.com/educationhistorynegro6.htm

Interestingly enough, you could be flogged for teaching free blacks, but if you took money for teaching slaves you were only subject to a fine. The authorities weren't threatened by literate slaves so much as by free blacks who thought they might have other rights.

So, whatever postwar hagiography might say, Jackson's own writings provide little or no evidence that he taught slaves to read and, if he did, he violated no law unless he got paid for it.

[Linda Trent]

I debated starting a new thread on this subject, but I'll let the moderators decide if there's enough there to discuss...

Mr. Schaffner,

I don't know much about Jackson or the southern laws concerning this, but this sounds like a very fascinating topic. I hope the moderators will allow the question to stand, and that the participants can keep the discussion civil.

Linda.

[hanktrent]

So, whatever postwar hagiography might say, Jackson's own writings provide little or no evidence that he taught slaves to read and, if he did, he violated no law unless he got paid for it.

Concerning teaching slaves, it's an important distinction whether they were primarily being given "religious instruction" in Jackson's Sunday school or whether the meetings were for the purpose of "instructing them to read or write."

There was an exception (http://books.google.com/books?id=Vrw4AAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA851&output=html) which said that white ministers or licensed laymen couldn't be prevented "from preaching or giving religious instruction to slaves, free negroes and mulattoes, in the day time" and that "masters or owners of slaves [had] the right to engage or employ any free white person whom they may think proper to give religious instruction to their slaves..."

Concerning the fact that only paid teaching of reading was illegal, it looks like the 1848 update to the old Nat Turner-era laws changed that. This (http://books.google.com/books?id=ic2wAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA120&output=html)1848 act of the legislature looks like any instruction in reading and writing was illegal, paid or not. See paragraph 40. However, there's still nothing against white people giving religious instruction to slaves or free blacks.

Some more trivia, not related to Jackson: Apparently some well-to-do free blacks were getting around the law by sending their children north to be educated, but the 1848 law clamped down on that by disallowing the children from returning once they'd left. See the bottom half of the page here (http://books.google.com/books?id=G7AJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA144&output=html), and onto the next page, including the footnote on the next page. After the 1848 law, the only loophole left for free blacks was to hire white private tutors, since assembly was what was banned.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Pvt Schnapps]

Thanks for the links, Hank! I knew the law was dynamic, but I was running short on time yesterday morning. The whole issue turned out to be educational in unexpected ways, leading from a bit of postwar romanticism to some interesting insights on the problems faced by the free black population in the prewar south. One site -- I now forget which -- stated that, despite all the obstacles, about one-sixth of the free black population was literate. It could not have been easy.

[hanktrent]

Thanks for the links, Hank! I knew the law was dynamic, but I was running short on time yesterday morning. The whole issue turned out to be educational in unexpected ways, leading from a bit of postwar romanticism to some interesting insights on the problems faced by the free black population in the prewar south. One site -- I now forget which -- stated that, despite all the obstacles, about one-sixth of the free black population was literate. It could not have been easy.

Also because I was short on time, I didn't add a link to another potentially interesting hit on google books--an 1854 account of a woman who was prosecuted and imprisoned for teaching free blacks to read in Virginia. I didn't have time to check it out to see the context and how bad the spin was, but if anybody's interested, here it is. (http://books.google.com/books?id=Lg4CAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=html)

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[tompritchett]

I debated starting a new thread on this subject, but I'll let the moderators decide if there's enough there to discuss, or whether it would simply degenerate into name-calling.

I thought there was so I have pulled this discussion from its original thread, where it is likely to be overlooked, into a brand new thread. My only debate was where to put as it is really not a military discussion nor is it related to civilian reenacting.

[Linda Trent]

I'm curious. I looked up Stonewall Jackson on the internet and got a Wikipedia hit. Now normally I'm not a fan of Wiki unless the article is well footnoted, which this one was. What I found interesting is the article stated that Jackson
"made a deal with one of his uncle's slaves to provide him with pine knots in exchange for reading lessons... Jackson secretly taught the slave to write, as he had promised. Once literate, the young slave fled to Canada via the underground railroad." The footnote is to Robertson, page 17. The references show the book was Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, MacMillan Publishing, 1997. Does anyone have that book, and if so can you check the reference, please?

What I find funny is, if the above is true, the very thing that the south feared about educating the slaves came to pass. As soon as he became literate he ran away. I wonder how Stonewall's uncle felt about the loss of a young slave? Did the uncle find out that his nephew had been teaching his slave? Did the uncle make Thomas pay for his loss? Did the uncle decide not to prosecute because he was kin? So many interesting questions. :twisted:


My only debate was where to put as it is really not a military discussion nor is it related to civilian reenacting.

Actually, laws regarding teaching slaves to read would be civilian, but here's just fine. :-D

Thanks for moving it! I think it needed it's own thread.

Linda.

[flattop32355]

http://www.thewordsofeternallife.com/sunday_school.html.

They apparently started out as something totally different than what they have become today.

Please forgive the partial thread hijacking, Mike. I thought it might add a bit of historical information to the overall picture.

An accepted view seems to be "Why would anyone want to educate a piece of property?", a concept quite foreign to our modern thinking.

[hanktrent]

An accepted view seems to be "Why would anyone want to educate a piece of property?", a concept quite foreign to our modern thinking.

But that's like saying, why would one want to train a horse? And the answer is because it makes it easier to handle, safer and more valuable.

Admittedly, there's no point in trying to teach a cart-horse dressage, but there were those who did notice the difference:


All our negroes have, to a great extent, grown up under religious instruction; some, indeed, have been more favoured than others. The benefits may be seen by the most superficial observer. They have so improved that they seem to be almost another set of beings. Their improvement has been in proportion to their instruction. They are orderly, well-behaved, and seem to strive to fulfil the relative duties of life... We scarcely hear of depredations upon stock, &c. They are more obedient and more to be depended on;--indeed, there has been an astonishing improvement within ten years past. We have few or no runaways; and corporeal punishment is but seldom resorted to. (Proceedings of the Meeting in Charleston (http://books.google.com/books?id=i-ZA7GUM5vMC&pg=PA38&vq=obedient&output=html&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1), SC, May 13-14, 1845, on the Religious Instruction of the Negroes)

Okay, so it's still foreign to our way of thinking... :rolleyes:

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Rob Weaver]

How forcefully the law was prosecuted seems also to be at issue. Not a Virginia example, but Susie King Taylor writes that she was taught to read by a lady in town (South Carolina). The slaves took their books to her every day wrapped in brown paper like deliveries. I think she was 9 when she learned to read, so that puts it at about 1858-59. If you were really looking to crack down on slave literacy, wouldn't book shaped deliveries every day to the same location, by the same people look suspicious?

[hanktrent]

How forcefully the law was prosecuted seems also to be at issue.

Another example, showing the other side of the coin, was reported by Frederick Douglass (http://books.google.com/books?id=rKkJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=inauthor:douglass+intitle:bondage+school+date:0-1865&output=html) in Maryland.


...We had scarcely got at work--good work, simply teaching a few colored children how to read the gospel of the Son of God--when in rushed a mob, headed by Mr. Wright Fairbanks and Mr. Garrison West--two class-leaders--and Master Thomas; who, armed with sticks and other missiles, drove us off, and commanded us never to meet for such a purpose again. One of this pious crew told me, that as for my part, I wanted to be another Nat Turner; and if I did not look out, I should get as many balls into me, as Nat did into him. Thus ended the infant Sabbath school, in the town of St. Michael's.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Pvt Schnapps]

I'm curious. I looked up Stonewall Jackson on the internet and got a Wikipedia hit. Now normally I'm not a fan of Wiki unless the article is well footnoted, which this one was. What I found interesting is the article stated that Jackson Does anyone have that book, and if so can you check the reference, please?

What I find funny is, if the above is true, the very thing that the south feared about educating the slaves came to pass. As soon as he became literate he ran away. I wonder how Stonewall's uncle felt about the loss of a young slave? Did the uncle find out that his nephew had been teaching his slave? Did the uncle make Thomas pay for his loss? Did the uncle decide not to prosecute because he was kin? So many interesting questions. :twisted:



Actually, laws regarding teaching slaves to read would be civilian, but here's just fine. :-D

Thanks for moving it! I think it needed it's own thread.

Linda.


A version of the Jackson story occurs on p. 394 of the 1948 Federal Writers Project guide to West Virginia: http://books.google.com/books?id=Q3n11Tg9kDoC&lpg=PA394&dq=jackson%20slave%20read%20%22pine%20knots%22&lr=&as_drrb_is=b&as_minm_is=1&as_miny_is=1860&as_maxm_is=1&as_maxy_is=1970&as_brr=1&pg=PA394#v=onepage&q=jackson%20slave%20read%20%22pine%20knots%22&f=false

According to this version, Jackson taught the slave to read in return for pine knots that would enable him (Jackson) to study at night. This occurred at some vague period between 1830 (when Jackson was six, and the act would have been legal) and 1842.

[Blair]

Hank,

A young slave boy by the name of Fred Bailey was owned by Thomas Auld, of Talbot Co. Maryland. Young Fred ran way in 1837 and gained his freedom and changed his name to Frederick Douglass. The Auld's are relatives of mine.
Thomas Auld's brother, Hugh Auld had been loaned Fred Bailey to do household chores at the family business at Fells Point. Hugh's wife, Suzanna Harrison Auld taught the slave boy Fred how to read and write.
Frederic Douglass does not have kind things to say about Thomas or Hugh in his autobiography, but has kind words for his teacher.
The "Master Thomas" you mentioned is most likely Thomas Auld.

[Bee]

"An accepted view seems to be "Why would anyone want to educate a piece of property?", a concept quite foreign to our modern thinking."

But that's like saying, why would one want to train a horse? And the answer is because it makes it easier to handle, safer and more valuable.

Interestingly, when Maryland lawmakers, including a majority of staunch Unionists, were debating the proposed State constitution of 1864, and included into it the apprenticeship laws, which basically returned minor emancipated blacks back into a "piece of property", they then allowed the exclusion of white masters from current law, which was applicable to white apprentices, that an apprentice be taught to read and write.
Maryland frees its slaves

Elizabeth

[hanktrent]

The "Master Thomas" you mentioned is most likely Thomas Auld.

Yep. Frederick Douglass leads into the long story concerning the attack on the Sunday school with a description of Thomas Auld's conversion a few pages before. (http://books.google.com/books?id=rKkJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA194&vq=thomas&dq=inauthor:douglass+intitle:bondage+school+date:0-1865&output=html)

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[hanktrent]

Interestingly, when Maryland lawmakers, including a majority of staunch Unionists, were debating the proposed State constitution of 1864, and included into it the apprenticeship laws, which basically returned minor emancipated blacks back into a "piece of property", they then allowed the exclusion of white masters from current law, which was applicable to white apprentices, that an apprentice be taught to read and write.
Maryland frees its slaves (http://Maryland frees its slaves)

The link didn't work for me. :(

But it occurs to me that I should have clarified: it only makes sense to train one's property up to the point that the training increases the value and/or makes the property easier to manage. If reading and writing is perceived as more harmful than helpful, it's not going to be encouraged. There's a difference between slaves reading the Bible about masters obeying their servants, or reading the latest abolitionist tracts, and only a master could make the prediction which way his individual slaves might go with their particular training.

Linda and I were talking about this yesterday, and about the fact that if the law followed public sentiment, there was a dual issue.

On the one hand, you didn't want abolitionists and general trouble-makers putting ideas into Blacks' heads or Blacks gathering and organizing in large numbers without supervision.

On the other hand, you didn't want to step in between the rights of an owner to do what he wanted with his property, because if a man couldn't do what he wanted with his own slaves, the terrorists win... uh, I mean, the abolitionists win. ;)

So that's probably why there was an exception that allowed slave-owners to teach their own slaves individually to read and write, and also the similar exception in the Maryland law mentioned above, that allowed masters not to teach their apprentices to read and write.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Bee]

My apologies,
correct link: Maryland frees its slaves (http://www.examiner.com/x-26912-Maryland-Civil-War-History-Examiner~y2009m10d31-Maryland-frees-its-slaves)

[tompritchett]

On the one hand, you didn't want abolitionists and general trouble-makers putting ideas into Blacks' heads or Blacks gathering and organizing in large numbers without supervision.

On the other hand, you didn't want to step in between the rights of an owner to do what he wanted with his property, because if a man couldn't do what he wanted with his own slaves, the terrorists win... uh, I mean, the abolitionists win.

So that's probably why there was an exception that allowed slave-owners to teach their own slaves individually to read and write, and also the similar exception in the Maryland law mentioned above, that allowed masters not to teach their apprentices to read and write.


It also cuts to the core of the whole Southern position about slavery. If the Federal government has no right to interfere with the rights of an individual to own slaves, how can the state dictate what a slave owner can and can not teach his slaves.

[RebelBugler]

I debated starting a new thread on this subject, but I'll let the moderators decide if there's enough there to discuss, or whether it would simply degenerate into name-calling. But the question of Stonewall Jackson as "the black man's friend" intrigued me, especially the question of whether, as claimed, he broke Virginia state law by teaching blacks to read.

The first part of this relates to his role in teaching blacks. His own letters don't say much about this. Apart from scattered references to "servants" (a popular euphemism for slave in his time and place) he doesn't seem to mention blacks at all, except in a June 7, 1858, letter to John Lyle Campbell, in which Jackson describes the "Lexington Colored Sabbath School."

You can find the entire letter on the VMI site I linked to earlier. A few points seem worth emphasizing. The school has a name and it's well-known; there's no attempt to hide any violation of law. The school meets once a week for 45 minutes -- it's a school in the Sunday school sense only. It opens with a hymn, includes a reading of Bible verses, prayer, a lecture by "its teacher" (not Jackson -- the teachers report to him and he keeps the records), and an examination of a couple students in the meaning of verses of the child catechism.

There's nothing in the description about teaching anyone to read, nor does it seem there's any time left from the 45 minutes once a week in which one could learn to read, nor does Jackson describe himself as one of the teachers in any case. In assigning verses for further study, and in periodic awards of books to "scholars," there seems some implication of reading, but where and when and how it's taught isn't specified.

But let's assume that the instruction in reading takes place elsewhere. Does this violate the law?

Both supporters of Jackson as a friend to blacks and critics of slavery seem to assume that it was against the law to teach blacks to read. This enables the first group to present Jackson as some sort of civil rights pioneer and the second group to more strongly condemn the "institution."

The historical truth was actually a little more complex and, I think, a bit uglier than either comic book version. According to a Virginia law passed in 1831 (in the aftermath of the Nat Turner rebellion) it was against the law to teach FREE blacks to read, or to teach slaves for compensation. Teaching slaves to read without compensation was OK.

See http://www.nathanielturner.com/educationhistorynegro6.htm

Interestingly enough, you could be flogged for teaching free blacks, but if you took money for teaching slaves you were only subject to a fine. The authorities weren't threatened by literate slaves so much as by free blacks who thought they might have other rights.

So, whatever postwar hagiography might say, Jackson's own writings provide little or no evidence that he taught slaves to read and, if he did, he violated no law unless he got paid for it.

I was pleased to see Mr. Schaffner pursue this topic, particularly as it relates to General Jackson as the "Black mans friend". By all accounts, Jackson was not only a brilliant military officer but also a highly moral, ethical and kind human being who was, in a sense, a pioneer in the realm of racial relations. In addition to teaching the children to read, Jackson regularly made monthly contributions from his pay in support of the black Sunday school. He was personally opposed to slavery, as were a number of Confederate military officers including Robert E. Lee and A.P. Hill.

An excellent article on Jackson's influence and contributions to black society can be found at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/05/20060505-083815-2779r/?page=2 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/05/20060505-083815-2779r/?page=2)

Another interesting article, which addresses General Jackson's involvement with educating young blacks and the generational impact, can be found at:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/270006.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/270006.aspx)

[billwatson2]

In a previous discussion on this topic generally one of the variations on "permission" was that at some times and some places, the law said teaching was OK so long as the teaching was done with the permission of the slave's owner. And these are all state laws, so there's going to be any combination you could imagine in them, especially across time.

A quick reminder that it is helpful in discussing this to pay attention to whether a law in question is intended to apply to slaves or blacks. Not all who were black in the south were slaves.

[Jenn12]

There is a book called "Stonewall Jackson, the Black Man's Friend." Written by Richard Williams. Excellent book. That may be of some help.

[Pvt Schnapps]

I was pleased to see Mr. Schaffner pursue this topic, particularly as it relates to General Jackson as the "Black mans friend". By all accounts, Jackson was not only a brilliant military officer but also a highly moral, ethical and kind human being who was, in a sense, a pioneer in the realm of racial relations. In addition to teaching the children to read, Jackson regularly made monthly contributions from his pay in support of the black Sunday school. He was personally opposed to slavery, as were a number of Confederate military officers including Robert E. Lee and A.P. Hill.

An excellent article on Jackson's influence and contributions to black society can be found at:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/05/20060505-083815-2779r/?page=2 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/may/05/20060505-083815-2779r/?page=2)

Another interesting article, which addresses General Jackson's involvement with educating young blacks and the generational impact, can be found at:
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/270006.aspx (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/270006.aspx)

You missed the earlier discussion, with the reference to Jackson's own correspondence, which you can find here: http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=4931

With all due respect to the Washington Times of today, the man's own letters probably give us a better idea of how he felt about "servants."

There's nothing in those letters that indicates any opposition to slavery. Instead, we have a passage like this, from October 6, 1855 (quoted as well in the other thread):

"I do not want him [William Wirt Woodson, or "Wirt", his half brother] to go into a free state if it can be avoided for he would probably become an abolitionist and then in the event of trouble between the N & S he would stand on one side and we on the opposite."

http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=8419

In other words, Jackson was not only unopposed to slavery, but five years before the war he saw it coming and knew that he would fight on the side opposed to the abolitionists.

Jackson administered a Sunday school for blacks, but there's nothing in this incompatible with even someone as rabidly pro-slavery as Alexander Stephens. Christianizing the Africans was, after all, one of the few "moral" arguments for the peculiar institution.

[RebelBugler]

You missed the earlier discussion, with the reference to Jackson's own correspondence, which you can find here: http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=4931

With all due respect to the Washington Times of today, the man's own letters probably give us a better idea of how he felt about "servants."

There's nothing in those letters that indicates any opposition to slavery. Instead, we have a passage like this, from October 6, 1855 (quoted as well in the other thread):

"I do not want him [William Wirt Woodson, or "Wirt", his half brother] to go into a free state if it can be avoided for he would probably become an abolitionist and then in the event of trouble between the N & S he would stand on one side and we on the opposite."

http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=8419

In other words, Jackson was not only unopposed to slavery, but five years before the war he saw it coming and knew that he would fight on the side opposed to the abolitionists.

Jackson administered a Sunday school for blacks, but there's nothing in this incompatible with even someone as rabidly pro-slavery as Alexander Stephens. Christianizing the Africans was, after all, one of the few "moral" arguments for the peculiar institution.

In the context of the letter, Jackson is apparently putting up money for his half brother to purchase land to farm. A previous letter indicates Wirt had suffered some sort of medical problem and "that Wirt's mind had not entirely recovered". Considering the time frame, and the fact that one of the persons Wirt was to see for assistance was in Missouri, might Jackson be concerned that land would be purchased in "Bleeding Kansas"?

Should Jackson be expected to embrace abolitionists, in light of what was going on at the time? The Nat Turner Massacre did little to assuage Southern concerns as to how to deal with the slavery-emancipation question, and polarized public opinion. Subsequent actions in May 1856 by Pottawatomie Brown suggest Jackson's analytical insights may have been well founded.


It is unclear why Jackson expressed concern that his brother might enter a free state and "would probably become an abolitionist". Any reasonable person would wish to avoid a family member, particularly one with possibly impaired thinking, from entering an area where there was the threat of physical harm or loss of investment.

Considering that the entire context of Jackson's letter is not known, I believe your conclusion that the letter establishes Jackson's pro slavery convictions is erroneous. Clearly, Jackson has a disdain for abolitionists, generally viewed as troublemakers, and anticipates sectional troubles developing.

[Pvt Schnapps]

In the context of the letter, Jackson is apparently putting up money for his half brother to purchase land to farm. A previous letter indicates Wirt had suffered some sort of medical problem and "that Wirt's mind had not entirely recovered". Considering the time frame, and the fact that one of the persons Wirt was to see for assistance was in Missouri, might Jackson be concerned that land would be purchased in "Bleeding Kansas"?

Should Jackson be expected to embrace abolitionists, in light of what was going on at the time? The Nat Turner Massacre did little to assuage Southern concerns as to how to deal with the slavery-emancipation question, and polarized public opinion. Subsequent actions in May 1856 by Pottawatomie Brown suggest Jackson's analytical insights may have been well founded.


It is unclear why Jackson expressed concern that his brother might enter a free state and "would probably become an abolitionist". Any reasonable person would wish to avoid a family member, particularly one with possibly impaired thinking, from entering an area where there was the threat of physical harm or loss of investment.

Considering that the entire context of Jackson's letter is not known, I believe your conclusion that the letter establishes Jackson's pro slavery convictions is erroneous. Clearly, Jackson has a disdain for abolitionists, generally viewed as troublemakers, and anticipates sectional troubles developing.

I'm just going by the plain wording of the original source -- that is, Jackson's own correspondence. If you have another letter of Jackson's that shows his opposition to slavery or his regard for his black neighbors, by all means feel free to post it. I didn't find one on the VMI site, but that doesn't mean it's not out there. It does mean, however, that you would actually have to research rather than speculate.

[RebelBugler]

I'm just going by the plain wording of the original source -- that is, Jackson's own correspondence. If you have another letter of Jackson's that shows his opposition to slavery or his regard for his black neighbors, by all means feel free to post it. I didn't find one on the VMI site, but that doesn't mean it's not out there. It does mean, however, that you would actually have to research rather than speculate.

The plain wording from the original source that you mentioned merely states that Jackson doesn't want his half brother buying land in an undetermined free state, becoming associated with abolitionists, and anticipates a future conflict between North and South. None of these statements directly address Jackson's views towards slavery. If we apply the same standards to what Jackson actually said in his letter, you need to "research rather than speculate" as well.

Admittedly, Jackson owned slaves. By the same standard, so did US Grant. Similarly, Lincoln was willing to support the Corwin amendment and thereby continue the practice of slavery in perpetuity.

[hendrickms24]

The plain wording from the original source that you mentioned merely states that Jackson doesn't want his half brother buying land in an undetermined free state, becoming associated with abolitionists, and anticipates a future conflict between North and South. None of these statements directly address Jackson's views towards slavery. If we apply the same standards to what Jackson actually said in his letter, you need to "research rather than speculate" as well.

Admittedly, Jackson owned slaves. By the same standard, so did US Grant. Similarly, Lincoln was willing to support the Corwin amendment and thereby continue the practice of slavery in perpetuity.

I love when people point their finger at General Grant and say he own slaves too. In 1858, while attempting to make a go in civilian life as a farmer
near St. Louis, MO, U.S. Grant acquired a slave named William Jones,
probably from his father-in-law, although the record is not entirely
clear. In March, 1859, Grant gave Jones his freedom despite the fact that
Grant desperately needed the money he might have recovered by selling him.
So he owned one slaves for no more then 15 months. Is that really comparable to Jackson owning six slaves? Grant and Lincoln action helped free and end slavery and Jackson did not plain and simple.

[Blockade Runner]

I love when people point their finger at General Grant and say he own slaves too. In 1858, while attempting to make a go in civilian life as a farmer
near St. Louis, MO, U.S. Grant acquired a slave named William Jones,
probably from his father-in-law, although the record is not entirely
clear. In March, 1859, Grant gave Jones his freedom despite the fact that
Grant desperately needed the money he might have recovered by selling him.
So he owned one slaves for no more then 15 months. Is that really comparable to Jackson owning six slaves? Grant and Lincoln action helped free and end slavery and Jackson did not plain and simple.

A slaveowner is a slaveowner, whether it was one slave or one hundred.

[RebelBugler]

I love when people point their finger at General Grant and say he own slaves too. In 1858, while attempting to make a go in civilian life as a farmer
near St. Louis, MO, U.S. Grant acquired a slave named William Jones,
probably from his father-in-law, although the record is not entirely
clear. In March, 1859, Grant gave Jones his freedom despite the fact that
Grant desperately needed the money he might have recovered by selling him.
So he owned one slaves for no more then 15 months. Is that really comparable to Jackson owning six slaves? Grant and Lincoln action helped free and end slavery and Jackson did not plain and simple.

And when did General and Mrs. Grant free their other slaves? I remember.... it was after the war and the passage of the 13th amendment. I recall reading accounts of Mrs. Grant visiting the General, accompanied by her servants. Why did the Grants keep their slaves in bondage, while the North was allegedly fighting a war "As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free"? Because "good help was hard to find"!

[Pvt Schnapps]

The plain wording from the original source that you mentioned merely states that Jackson doesn't want his half brother buying land in an undetermined free state, becoming associated with abolitionists, and anticipates a future conflict between North and South. None of these statements directly address Jackson's views towards slavery. If we apply the same standards to what Jackson actually said in his letter, you need to "research rather than speculate" as well.

Admittedly, Jackson owned slaves. By the same standard, so did US Grant. Similarly, Lincoln was willing to support the Corwin amendment and thereby continue the practice of slavery in perpetuity.

Jackson also clearly states that when the balloon goes up, he's going to be on the side of the slave owners. And he was. You have his words, and you have his deeds, and to make the contrary argument you haven't come up with anything.

If, despite this clear evidence to the contrary, you still want to call him a "friend" of the black man, it seems you ought to be able to find something besides Sunday school. That could just as easily be interpreted as a way of trying to reconcile them to their fate.

Whether Grant owned any slaves is besides the point. We all know what he did during the war, just as we know what Jackson did.

My previous offer stands. I'll be happy to reconsider any of my conclusions if you can come up with some journal entry, letter, or other statement of Jackson's that supports his opposition to slavery, regard for blacks, or commitment to their literacy.

Go ahead -- show us you can back your sentiments with research.

[RebelBugler]

Jackson also clearly states that when the balloon goes up, he's going to be on the side of the slave owners. And he was. You have his words, and you have his deeds, and to make the contrary argument you haven't come up with anything.

If, despite this clear evidence to the contrary, you still want to call him a "friend" of the black man, it seems you ought to be able to find something besides Sunday school. That could just as easily be interpreted as a way of trying to reconcile them to their fate.

Whether Grant owned any slaves is besides the point. We all know what he did during the war, just as we know what Jackson did.

My previous offer stands. I'll be happy to reconsider any of my conclusions if you can come up with some journal entry, letter, or other statement of Jackson's that supports his opposition to slavery, regard for blacks, or commitment to their literacy.

Go ahead -- show us you can back your sentiments with research.

Jackson's desire to avoid or oppose abolitionists does not necessarily make him a staunch supporter of slavery. Recall that angry mobs attacked abolitionists in the North and Congress passed gag orders to prevent abolitionist from presenting petitions. Abolitionists came in various flavors.....some were peaceful and nonviolent, others were murdering terrorists like John Brown. Perhaps rather than speculating as to Jackson's views on slavery based upon his statements regarding abolitionists, free states and future conflict, you may wish to read Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend. Feel free to back up your assertions regarding Jackson's views on slavery with direct quotes on point versus your interpretation

I find it ironic that you are dismissive of the fact that the Grants owned slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment. Would you give Stonewall a pass on the slavery issue, if he had fought with the north? Since Grant fought for the North, you assume "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free". Do you not see the hypocrisy?

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

That old, tired, "Grant owned slaves" thing is the cop-out to every argument regarding slavery as a cause/issue of the war. Grant owned one slave, William Jones, whom he granted his freedom to in 1859 (a time when he could have most definitely used the money). His wife Julia Dent Grant held slaves from her family who were freed when Missouri, like all other states of the United States, repealed slavery in 1865.

[RebelBugler]

That old, tired, "Grant owned slaves" thing is the cop-out to every argument regarding slavery as a cause/issue of the war. Grant owned one slave, William Jones, whom he granted his freedom to in 1859 (a time when he could have most definitely used the money). His wife Julia Dent Grant held slaves from her family who were freed when Missouri, like all other states of the United States, repealed slavery in 1865.

Is it a cop out because it discredits the argument that the war was fought over slavery? Are you suggesting Grant had no control over his wife's slaves in the 1860's? I think Grant's slaveholding illustrates that the individual motivations for fighting the war varied and the cause of the war was not a simplistic "to free the slaves". Grant, to some of you, is clearly an "Inconvenient truth", contradicting the proposition that the North fought to free the slaves.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

I actually do agree with you that slavery wasn't the dominating cause for the CW and only became a "selling point" after Antietam/Sharpsburg. Grant was far from being the only northern officer holding slaves, as I've found at least 15 others from field grade up to general, and I'm sure there's several more. For thousands of western boys from Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois and points west, slavery was the last thing they were fighting to end. They had as much use for abolitionists as they did slave holders, truth be told. The Grant Cop Out continues to bother me because the the number of northerners who owned slaves paled in comparison to the number of southern officers who continued to hold slaves as long as feasible, and it took a war for all of them to be free, north or south. Grant demonstrated by his actions in 1859 what his stance was when he freed the one he did own. As for his wife's property, Julia Dent was well-known for getting her way when she wanted to, much like President Lincoln's wife....

[hendrickms24]

Is it a cop out because it discredits the argument that the war was fought over slavery? Are you suggesting Grant had no control over his wife's slaves in the 1860's? I think Grant's slaveholding illustrates that the individual motivations for fighting the war varied and the cause of the war was not a simplistic "to free the slaves". Grant, to some of you, is clearly an "Inconvenient truth", contradicting the proposition that the North fought to free the slaves.

Your right, most Northerners did not care about the slavery issue and were fighting to keep the US country as one nation. It was the Southern Slave owner that was fighting to preserve slavery and their way of life (which was to own slaves and live off of Slave labor.) So was the war fought over slavery? Yes, it was one of its main issues. Heck- look at the CS Constitution! The major changes from the US Constitution was the Presidential six year term, the Line item veto and the right to own slaves. Now I'm sure the south wanted to break away and fight and die for the Presidential six year term, and the Line item veto. :rolleyes:

[Blair]

In the event some of you may have forgotten, few southern citizens own slaves.
It also had absolutely nothing to to with how many years a President maybe able to serve, and absolutely nothing to do with a "Line Item Veto". Whining about apples and oranges not tasting like peaches is crazy!
Go back and look at the rights of the States, the rights of the Citizens of those various States to choose right from wrong as they saw fit.
Not what some politician in State of Oregon thought was right or even wanted for the citizens in the State of Florida.
Florida Politicians demanding the Citizens of Oregon make allowances for Alligator cross walks is absolutely crazy when Oregon has no Alligators?
What can you all be thinking???

[sbl]

In the event some of you may have forgotten, few southern citizens own slaves.
...."



Perhaps non-slave owning Southerners were trying to protect the right to own slaves someday.

[Pvt Schnapps]

Jackson's desire to avoid or oppose abolitionists does not necessarily make him a staunch supporter of slavery. Recall that angry mobs attacked abolitionists in the North and Congress passed gag orders to prevent abolitionist from presenting petitions. Abolitionists came in various flavors.....some were peaceful and nonviolent, others were murdering terrorists like John Brown. Perhaps rather than speculating as to Jackson's views on slavery based upon his statements regarding abolitionists, free states and future conflict, you may wish to read Stonewall Jackson: The Black Man's Friend. Feel free to back up your assertions regarding Jackson's views on slavery with direct quotes on point versus your interpretation

I find it ironic that you are dismissive of the fact that the Grants owned slaves until the passage of the 13th Amendment. Would you give Stonewall a pass on the slavery issue, if he had fought with the north? Since Grant fought for the North, you assume "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free". Do you not see the hypocrisy?

Ironic? To me the irony is that you still haven't posted any quotes at all from Jackson that would support the assertion that he opposed slavery or supported black literacy. As we discussed earlier in the thread, the Sunday school wasn't a literacy class and the old story about his trading reading lessons for pine knots -- even if true -- came from a time when the act was still legal.

So you either can't find any, in which case you have no support for your arguments, or you haven't bothered to look, in which case you have no respect for the subject matter at hand. And why do you think a book called "Stonewall Jackson, The Black Man's Friend" -- which wears its bias openly -- is somehow a superior source to Jackson's own writings?
Do you even know the difference between a primary and secondary source? Or don't you care, so long as the source tells you what you want to hear?

***

Going back to the original subject of the thread -- before it becomes entirely hijacked by neo-Confederate apologists -- does anyone know of any southern states that did not legislate against slave gatherings and literacy, or constrain the rights of free blacks to read?

I'd also be curious as to whether this caused any debate in the south. There doesn't seem to be anything in the record showing that Jackson objected to these restrictions, but were there any other white voices speaking out?

[Blair]

Or perhaps Mass. residents were trying to prevent having to pay for garter cross walks "someday" because a Florida Politician had more Electoral votes than the Senator from Mass. ???
It is a matter of prospective and is not intended to trivialize the issues from either side of that prospective.

[sbl]

Or perhaps Mass. residents were trying to prevent having to pay for garter cross walks "someday" because a Florida Politician had more Electoral votes than the Senator from Mass. ???
It is a matter of prospective and is not intended to trivialize the issues from either side of that prospective.

Don't you find in your own experience that low income people will stick up for "free enterprise" or capitalism, or lower taxes because they might get rich some day? I sure do. I might be able to put myself in the place of a Southerner who saw the way to success as acquiring slaves and land, just as I can imaging a Northern man hoping to build a factory, educate himself, or raise himself within a company. If that's the society he knows, that's how he hopes to succeed and he'd fight to protect it. That doesn't seem trivial to me at all if I can identify with why a man might fight rather that judging him by modern standards.

As far as modern politics go I want to go anywhere in the United States w/o a passport, use the same money, speak the same language, and get equal protection under the laws.

[Blair]

Scott,

I think you are right on track with what most people in this country want today.

Florida had in the 1850's an 60's all the sugar cane molasses they could stand to grow. Some was even coming in from the island of the Caribbean.
As for free enterprise, why would any Floridian want someone from Mass. legislating all of this "free enterprise" when it was not to their "the Floridians" benefit?. But was instead legislated to the benefit of those persons in Mass.?
This is part and parcel with what was going on during that time period and is not what is taken into account in todays politics/discussions!

This discussion is not all about Slavery any more than it is all about States Rights.
It is about WHO has the right, the strength, the power to dictate those policies over another group, and WHO authorizes that ability? 150 years ago or in 2009?

[sbl]

I could see why a Floridian might not like an elected rep from another state legislating but since laws and such are voted in the Congress, the Floridian has representation. Since tax dollars go to clean up Florida after a Hurricane, New Englanders may wonder why Floridian's continue to build right at the high tide mark. (No me, we're all in this together.)

Not t!t for tat, but why would a New Englander feel he had to capture a Southerner's "property" as in the Anthony Burns case? Not to mention the cost in 1850s $$$ and calling out the US Marines from the Charlestown Ship Yard?

[billwatson2]

"Grant, to some of you, is clearly an "Inconvenient truth", contradicting the proposition that the North fought to free the slaves."

Wait, the slaves aren't free? Spread the word, we'll have to go back.

:cool:

[RebelBugler]

***

Going back to the original subject of the thread -- before it becomes entirely hijacked by neo-Confederate apologists ?

Congratulations Max.....it was only a matter of time before you resorted to name calling.

[billwatson2]

"neo-Confederate apologists"

It is just as easy to regard the phrase as merely descriptive as it is insulting, isn't it? It's your choice to consider it an insult. Or do you not consider yourself a new Confederate defending what you consider to be the truth about the cosmopolitan, free-thinking, progressive South of 1861-65? Where color meant nothing, nobody owned slaves, all the Confederate officer corps taught black Sunday school, and the war was about a misunderstanding as to which end of the egg should be broken in making an omelette?

Something about turning 60 has made me less patient, I'm afraid. I have the least patience with people who won't accept their ancestors for the beliefs their ancestors actually had, which were beliefs common to the time and widely held, even preached from the pulpit, advocated from editorial pages, and espoused in the halls of Congress. Give them their due. To do otherwise is just wrong.

[jthlmnn]

There is a large and significant difference between the cause of secession & civil war, and the motives people had for supporting that war. If anyone wants to find out what was the central issue of the day and the issue that led to the initial secession of states, I suggest that they look at the sources from before the war, leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter. One repository for a specific type of source is linked below. The transcriptions are as yet incomplete. The ones that are available are quite interesting and cover a rather wide spectrum of localities and political allegiances. I heartily suggest that the editorials from Southern newspapers be given a thorough reading.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~rtownsen/Hist615_Maps/Final/Editorials/NO_DCrescent_11_28_60.htm

As a side note: the whole "Grant thing" strikes me as a rather clumsy attempt at deflection and distraction. It has nothing to do with what got some people fired up enough to attempt secession and risk a war. Nor does it have anything to do with the original focus of this thread: legislation that prohibited teaching slaves to read, the fear that lay behind that legislation, and its implementation.

[RebelBugler]

I debated starting a new thread on this subject, but I'll let the moderators decide if there's enough there to discuss, or whether it would simply degenerate into name-calling.

It will only degenerate into name calling, if you engage in name calling. Perhaps you need to re-examine the premise of your original thread before postulating that the thread has been high jacked by Neo-Confederate apologists.

The topic was whether it was against the law to teach blacks to read in Virginia, particularly as it related to the actions of General Jackson. The simple answer was YES. Whether he was teaching blacks to read in Sunday school or not, it was still a violation of Virginia law at the time.

Only when evidence suggested that Jackson was indeed a friend of the Black man did you postulate on his support of slavery, based upon YOUR own interpretation of his letter that never mentions slavery but rather mentions abolitionists, free states and sectional conflict between North and South.

Considering that the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Roanoke, an historically black church, has a prominent stained glass window honoring the contributions of General Jackson, I am firmly convinced he was indeed a "Friend of the Blackman.

If you have any information discrediting the honor bestowed upon Jackson by the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, or wish to impugn the Church's decision to honor him, please provide citations to your primary sources.

[Pvt Schnapps]

It will only degenerate into name calling, if you engage in name calling. Perhaps you need to re-examine the premise of your original thread before postulating that the thread has been high jacked by Neo-Confederate apologists.

The topic was whether it was against the law to teach blacks to read in Virginia, particularly as it related to the actions of General Jackson. The simple answer was YES. Whether he was teaching blacks to read in Sunday school or not, it was still a violation of Virginia law at the time.

Only when evidence suggested that Jackson was indeed a friend of the Black man did you postulate on his support of slavery, based upon YOUR own interpretation of his letter that never mentions slavery but rather mentions abolitionists, free states and sectional conflict between North and South.

Considering that the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in Roanoke, an historically black church, has a prominent stained glass window honoring the contributions of General Jackson, I am firmly convinced he was indeed a "Friend of the Blackman.

If you have any information discrediting the honor bestowed upon Jackson by the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, or wish to impugn the Church's decision to honor him, please provide citations to your primary sources.


Despite repeated invitations to do so, you still refuse to cite any original sources for your own claims about Jackson. This reinforces the impression that you either don't have any, or don't know how to find them.

If you had simply followed the discussions elsewhere in this thread, you would know that the "simple answer" to the question of whether it was illegal to teach blacks to read in the antebellum south is not "YES" but "it depends": there's one answer before 1831 and several different answers after 1831. It was not against the law to teach blacks to read before 1831; it was never against the law for a master to teach his slaves to read, even after 1831.

Not only do you get the basic facts wrong, but in the absence of any textual sources for Jackson's "friendship" for blacks, you can only cite the existence of a stained glass window dedicated in 1906. But I don't think you've thought that one through, either -- there are several reasons why a black church in the Jim Crow south might have wanted to put in a stained glass window of Stonewall Jackson in 1906, and they don't necessarily have anything to do with anti-literacy laws passed in the wake of the Nat Turner rebellion.

Jackson's own words verify the picture of an upright, moral, Christian gentleman of his time. Note those last three words: "of his time." Those words also show us a man who saw nothing wrong with slavery and did nothing to oppose it -- quite the opposite, actually, when it came to the war, and quite skillfully, too. Today he is remembered as one of the great captains of American history, perhaps of world history.

But as for being a "friend" to blacks, well, friendship -- if we mean a real and not patronizing relationship -- implies a measure of equality. But that wasn't the kind of time or place that Jackson lived in.

For most of us, that's fine. We don't need a "politically correct" picture of Jackson. We especially don't need one that's not supported by the historical record. And it's a little funny, but also sad, that you for some reason do.

[plankmaker]

Well, it seems there is teaching and there is teaching.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Richmond Dispatch.
Thursday morning...February 11, 1864
Marrying a negro in Vicksburg.
--The doctrine of negro equality, so liberally advocated by the Northern Abolitionists, is bearing its legitimate fruits in practice, and the negro worshippers have now the grunt satisfaction of knowing that their labors have not been in vain. As an evidence of this fact, says the Meridian Clarion, we will state that a white woman, imported from Yankeedom to educate Sambo, was recently united in matrimony to a big woolly headed negro fellow, whom she had been teaching at one of the negro schools in Vicksburg. As the Abolitionists have sown they shall reap.

[plankmaker]

Another bit of a different take.

http://docsouth.unc.edu/church/butsch/butsch.html

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

[Blockade Runner]

Congratulations Max.....it was only a matter of time before you resorted to name calling.

Terry...one of us gets called that every week. It's just your turn:D

[plankmaker]

I prefer to look at it as a "misinformed, delusional, and myopic troll." Watch out for the last goat, he'll put your eye out.

Mark Campbell
Piney Flats, TN

Celebrate Benjamin F. Butler Day, November 5, 2010.