I suspect there were a few black slaves in French Canada, but they would hardly have been common. French Louisiana, of course, was another story.
One statistic you may not be familiar with: Of all the slaves transported across the Atlantic during the black slave trade, only about 10% were taken to what is now the United States. 90% went to Brazil and the Caribbean. The slaves in these areas had a much shorter average life, as the closer distance to Africa made them cheaper to replace than to maintain. Slaves in America were more expensive due to distance and "shipping losses," and were therefore on average much better treated.
IL, OH and IN never had slaves, as the Northwest Ordinance (passed by the Confederation) banned slaves from settling in the territories that later became these states. Same is true of MI and other states that were entirely or in part included in this area.
This Ordinance, of course, was passed when even southerners still agreed that slavery was a bad thing and the only question was how to get rid of it. Over the decades after about 1820, the South gradually developed an ideology of slavery as a positive good, which would have made the southern founders imitate a lathe. The proponents of this racist and inherently anti-democratic ideology were the most forceful proponents of secession.
Happy New Year.
btw...I am very familiar with slavery. I am a 7th generation Mississippian and was once married to a Brasilian and have lived throughout the Carib Basin and South America and West Africa.
The reasons slaves fared better in North America was not simply economic or climatologiocal but cultural as well.
There are reams of works out there detailing that mistreatment of slaves was frowned upon here for the most part.
The great irony is that slavery in Brasil where it was harsher inadvertantly resulted in a more mixed race society ultimately even under harsher conditions....
Yes...there were some slaves for a time in Canada.
The brakes on slavery began with the UK if I'm not mistaken and involved recompense...an idea that never got very far here.
Too many zealots on both sides....not unlike today actually but of course I feel as right now as they did then..lol
well,
Human slavery had been installed within the borders of what now is the state of Illinois by the early French colonizers in the eighteenth century. Amazingly, the institution was never legally abolished before 1818 under French, British, or American administrations. During the American territorial administration, slaves had been brought into the Illinois by some of the most prominent officials of the territory and state, and remained in bondage until and after the admission of the state into the Union. To understand why the institution remained in existence for such a long period of time, the patterns of migration which brought the vast majority of European settlers to Illinois must be understood. The great majority of the residents of the state who arrived before statehood in 1818 came from slave-holding states located below the Ohio River. These settlers were accustomed to and comfortable with the terms of the institution of human slavery. Therefore, there was no attempt or even a thought to abolish slavery before the territory became a state. Those who held slaves and brought them to Illinois favored and encouraged the system while the majority of those people without slaves tolerated the system. In fact, during territorial days, the issue did not become a vital question of subject of controversy for the citizens living within the future borders of Illinois.
Even though the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Ordinance seems clear, it must be emphasized that this provision did not affect slaves already living in the territory and did not prevent some slaveholders from bringing slaves into Indiana and Illinois territories. In parts of the Old Northwest, there was strong pressure for slavery. In 1802, a convention in Indiana Territory asked Congress to allow slaves to be brought into the region. Later, an indentured servant act allowed de facto slavery in the territory. It was only in 1823 that Illinois defeated the efforts of a proslavery party. These antislavery victories drew heavily on the precedent of the Ordinance of 1787.
http://www.bccns.com/history_slavery.html (Canada slaves)
I have always been of the opinion that the North never took to slaves like the South simply for one reason....they simply did not work well there...no Cotton, Indigo, Rice or SugarCane and these new Ibos and Yorubas and Coramatees did not much cotton to the cold. Course...both north and south had tried Injun slaves aplenty but the Red Man was less pliant.
Do-goodery only ever counted for the abolitionists and it was a self virtue enhancing moral superiority thing...not unlike today's lefties. Praise murdering John Brown, scold the South, meanwhile commit genocide against the Indig Indians with glee and rationalization aplenty. Southerners have never cornered the market on rationalization.
Funny how history repeats isn't it? We still loathe Yankees preaching to us down here or moving here to force on us their "ways" they purport to have escaped from.
Alas...it should also be noted that plenty of Yankees came south during the antebellum days to plunder white gold from the slave's sweat....even old Roundheads.
I have a new book about Lost Mansions of Mississippi...one really has to study these things to see what a long lasting upheaval the war had on this region for all down here and it is still in high frequency doppler even now. Like Mississippi....40% black....down there, it actually matters a whole lot how blacks vote and govern. It's more than just a well intentioned ideal...it has real ramifications.
The solid South means the white Solid South obviously...and a handful of brave blacks. Course 40% of them voted to keep the MISS flag....I think they resent Yankees too a bit..lol
Sorry for rambling.