Slavery in the North

Unnamed ^ | 2003 | Douglas Harper

[nosofar]

African slavery is so much the outstanding feature of the South, in the unthinking view of it, that people often forget there had been slaves in all the old colonies. Slaves were auctioned openly in the Market House of Philadelphia; in the shadow of Congregational churches in Rhode Island; in Boston taverns and warehouses; and weekly, sometimes daily, in Merchant's Coffee House of New York. Such Northern heroes of the American Revolution as John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin bought, sold, and owned black people. The family of Abraham Lincoln himself, when it lived in Pennsylvania in colonial times, owned slaves.[1]

When the minutemen marched off to face the redcoats at Lexington in 1775, the wives, boys and old men they left behind in Framingham took up axes, clubs, and pitchforks and barred themselves in their homes because of a widespread, and widely credited, rumor that the local slaves planned to rise up and massacre the white inhabitants while the militia was away.[2]

African bondage in the colonies north of the Mason-Dixon Line has left a legacy in the economics of modern America and in the racial attitudes of the U.S. working class. Yet comparatively little is written about the 200-year history of Northern slavery. Robert Steinfeld's deservedly praised "The Invention of Free Labor" (1991) states, "By 1804 slavery had been abolished throughout New England," ignoring the 1800 census, which shows 1,488 slaves in New England. Recent archaeological discoveries of slave quarters or cemeteries in Philadelphia and New York City sometimes are written up in newspaper headlines as though they were exhibits of evidence in a case not yet settled (cf. “African Burial Ground Proves Northern Slavery,” The City Sun, Feb. 24, 1993).

[kipita]

I hate to be drawn into this argument, but having had many friends of Asian decent, they resent this today and are still looking for an apology from England. But the past is the past, we need to walk as brothers towards a better future.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[JennyG]

ping

[BIGZ]

History should be taught properly and start from the beginning. Muslims were the among the first to move slaves from Africa, the slave trade was by foot and from East to West, the Muslim Countries.

The United states had little actual involvement in the removing of peoples from Africa and their transportation to the New World. The actual Slave trading and transportation was at the hands of the French, English, Dutch, Portuguese, and other seafaring nations.

Five percent ( 5% )of the Slaves transported, actually landed in what is now the United States, a low number compared to the Slaves that landed in the Caribbean and So. America.

It never ceases to amaze me that the ones being the most vociferous about Slavery are the ones that adopt Muslim names, EL this and Al that, total lack of education. Slavery as taught in the United States public education system appears to insinuate that all slaves were transported by and landed in the US>

[Squawk 8888]

It never ceases to amaze me that the ones being the most vociferous about Slavery are the ones that adopt Muslim names

Especially when one considers that slavery was still LEGAL in Saudi Arabia until 1964.

[Mamzelle]

Blacks owned slaves, Jews owned slaves, and even American Indians owned slaves.

[Savage Beast]

Of course this is true. At the time of the Declaration of Independence, slavery was legal in every one of the colonies.

This is a dark chapter in American history, and one we can all be grateful to be past.

African slavery was ramant in Europe as well as America, and Europeans themselves were enslaved (in Europe and elsewhere).

At the beginning of the 20th century, one could buy a man, woman, or child, of European extraction, in parts of Europe.

In Britain, during the Industrial Revolution, some children were virtual slaves.

The most important thing about this is that slavery exists today in parts of the world, and it will exist again if people are not vigilant.

Western Civilization has abolished slavery. Many alternative cultures in the world today have not.

This is only one of many reasons why Western Civilization must be preserved, despite the attempts of many, notably Islamists, to destroy it and despite the unwillingness of many, notably decadent European and American Leftists, to defend and preserve it.

[Alouette]

"My impression was the crews on the slave ships were all Southerners."

Actually quite the opposite, most were from New England.

And many New England seamen were Black.

[Ditto]

For the most part, it was Yankee sea captains and crews who transported Africans across the Atlantic.

Not even close to being true. The "Yankee" slave traders were very late comers to the game. The British monopolized the North American trade before the Revolution.

Americans slave traders existed from the end of the Revolution until 1810 when the trade was outlawed by the US. Some continued but were considered "pirates" under US law and subject to trial by drum-head and confisication of their ships if caught.

American slave traders (Yankee and otherwise, including ships from southern ports) were a distant 5th place to the British, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, and French slave traders in the overall slave trade. In fact, very very few of the slaves transported to North America were from American ships. The "Yankees" generally off-loaded their African cargo in the British and Dutch Caribbean colonies in exchange for molasses which they took home to New England to make rum, a portion of which they used to exchange for more slaves on their next voyage to Africa. That was the meaning of the "triangle" trade.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is completely false that the Civil War was not about slavery. For the South that was ALL it was about and pretensions that other issues were more important are just that, pretenses. Lincoln fought the war to save the Union but the South rebelled specifically and ONLY because Lincoln had won the election and they feared he would free their slaves. That was a lie but the Ruling Aristocracy had no challenge and controlled the Slaverocracy like totalitarian rulers.

Most Southerners were terrible undereducated and had no means of seeing through the lies about Northern oppression etc. fed them by their masters. They would not have been aware that the majority of the Presidents were Southern or that the South controlled the Congress and the Court. They would not have been aware that history was rolling over their degenerate society without pause or compunction or that their culture was based upon tyranny through and through.

There was never a less competent ruling class than the slavers (though Russians came close) or a more ignorant and gullible source of cannon fodder than those presented by the South. A bigger set of fools one cannot find.

[infowarrior]

My impression was the crews on the slave ships were all Southerners.

Not so. Many New Englanders were deeply involved in the transAtlantic slave trade, when it was still "legal", and the family fortune of no small number of New England's finest families were either increased, or started by the trade. Not normally publicized, for obvious reasons, but a fact nonetheless...

the infowarrior

[stainlessbanner]

filing

[U S Army EOD]

The crews on the slave ships were a mixture of people from everywhere. Most of these people were from New England where they found it much easier to run slaves than to chase whales. On some rare occasions some of the ships had freed blacks as crew working as interpreters and sharing in the profit. Slavery was just basically a way of life at that time.

[U S Army EOD]

The major cause of the Civil War was due to States Rights. This is what the war war fought over, however the major issue of States Rights was slavery.

[canalabamian]

There was never a less competent ruling class than the slavers (though Russians came close) or a more ignorant and gullible source of cannon fodder than those presented by the South. A bigger set of fools one cannot find.

Sounds a bit like dear Carole Simpson of ABC. IMO.

[skutter]

If you actually do research into the issue rather than take what you've been fed in school to be fact you will see that you are wrong. Samuel Wilberforce, Anglican Bishop of Oxford (son of William Wilberforce, the best known campaigner against the slave trade) sided with the south. Slavery was not even seen as an issue in this war until the north made it so, in an effort to gain popular and international support. A majority of Southerners, as well as General Lee believed slavery was wrong and accepted the idea of Gradual Emancipation, in which slaves would earn their freedom as well as money and capital through their work. This way when they were free they would be able to feed their families and make a life for themselves. Due to the abolitionist practices of the north, once slaves were free they had a hard time finding work outside of the work they had done as slaves, and had an extremely difficult time getting by.

[vaudine]

There are a lot of ironies, large and small, in history. To me, one of the greatest is to see so many US blacks convert to Islam. After all, the Yankee sea captains did not sail up to the coast of Africa, anchor, and make an inland trek to round up slaves. They sailed to African ports where Arab/Islamic slavers had already rounded up the prospects, looked the merchandise over, bought from the Arabs and set sail for home. Yet, the descendents of slaves just blame Americans. Some uneducated blacks seem to think this is the only country where slaves ever existed--and look at the Sudan even today.

vaudine

[stand watie]

in point of fact virtually ALL of the slave ships companies were from new england AND all but ONE slave ship was REGISTERED in new england.

free dixie,sw

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only a fool would claim that the main motivator for the war was not slavery after all ALL the South's leaders happily admitted this was the case. Southern politicians had been scheming for over a decade to spread it throughout the Territories and agitating to prevent the people therein in from outlawing it.

Lincoln's election meant a end to their schemes and the certain containment of the Evil. This drove them wild with irrational rage and the forced the War upon the nation. This is not even disputable except on the fringes of scholarly research. However, if you prefer to read the ravings of such nutcases I can do nothing about it. But I defy you to examine the Buchanan administration and deny that it was under the control of Southerners like Cobb, Floyd and pro-slavery northerners.

Ron Reagan sided with John Kerry so who gives a fork what the son of Wilberforce thought?

The majority of Southerns were roped into this disaster by the insanity of their leaders who by this time were arguing that slavery was not just not evil but a positive good. We hear echos of this here when tales of the kindly masters treating their property well are passed (like gas.) Similiar gas is passed by those trying to foist silly tales such as the Southern emancipation movement.