Replies

NORTHERN PROFITS from SLAVERY

” Even after slavery was outlawed in the North, ships out of New England continued to carry thousands of Africans to the American South. Some 156,000 slaves were brought to the United States in the period 1801-08, almost all of them on ships that sailed from New England ports that had recently outlawed slavery. Rhode Island slavers alone imported an average of 6,400 Africans annually into the U.S. in the years 1805 and 1806. The financial base of New England’s antebellum manufacturing boom was money it had made in shipping. And that shipping money was largely acquired directly or indirectly from slavery, whether by importing Africans to the Americas, transporting slave-grown cotton to England, or hauling Pennsylvania wheat and Rhode Island rum to the slave-labor colonies of the Caribbean.

Northerners profited from slavery in many ways, right up to the eve of the Civil War. The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands. William Lloyd Garrison made his first mark as an anti-slavery man by printing attacks on New England merchants who shipped slaves from Baltimore to New Orleans. “

excerpted from http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm

Not sure what your point is. Northern textile mill owners profited from cotton grown by slaves. Northern bankers profited loaning money to Southerners to buy more slaves. Shipbuilders in the Baltimore and other Northern ports made money building ships used in the slave trade. Insurance companies in the North made money insuring cotton cargos to New England and Europe.
You don’t suppose that the plantation owners made money from the crops that slaves tended. You don’t suppose that the Southern railroads made money transporting cotton grown by slave. You don’t suppose the ports of Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, and New Orleans profited from the cotton, tobacco, sugar and rice that flowed though their ports. If there was money to be made, people will make it. Called capitalizm, that is the way it worked in the world, in those days.

The decline of slavery in the upper South is well documented, as is the sale of slaves from Virginia and Maryland to the cotton plantations of the Deep South. But someone had to get them there, and the U.S. coastal trade was firmly in Northern hands.

Most of the slaves got there overland, as did most of the free white settlers -- and often by foot. Others came down the Mississippi on flatboats or steamboats. In the last years before the war, some got there by railroad.

As for the slaves who were transported by ship, there were Southern slave trading firms in Baltimore, Richmond, Alexandria, Norfolk, Charleston and elsewhere that were rich enough to own ships and did.

Franklin and Armfield of Alexandria owned four ships, the United States, the Tribune, the Uncas, and the Isaac Franklin, and sent a ship of slaves to New Orleans twice a month. In the 1830s they were sending an average of 1200 enslaved people a year by ship to the Gulf ports, as well as other slaves by land routes, and were responsible for most of the slave sales in Natchez.

"Slave North" appears to take at face value Southern claims that the North controlled coastal shipping and assumed that Southerners didn't play a role in shipping between Southern cities.

But that's not true. Some Northerners were involved, but it would be a mistake to conclude that they had the largest share of responsibility in the domestic slave trade.