History Question About Slavery In The North

[selmaborntidefan]

Hey, y'all can help me point someone in the right direction here. I have a girl I work with who's sort of 'almost special ed' doing a History thing for college. I was hoping maybe Tidewater or Tide-HSV or one of you "knows more about history than Bill does" guys or girls could help me out a tiny bit here. It's not so much I want you to do it 'for' her as to give a point in the right direction. (If you give sources, I have a Master's and look stuff up - I don't just take anyone's word for it).

So here's the basic question as it is laid out:

"There were 13 colonies in the territory that became the US as a result of the American Revolution. During the colonial period, slavery was legal in every one of the 13 colonies. By the time the revolution ended, states in the North began abolishing slavery.

What EVENT prompted the NORTHERN STATES (after the Revolution, they were no longer colonies) to begin ABOLISHING slavery while the Southern states would maintain slavery until they were forced to abolish it in the 1860s? You must be very specific here."


help? I honestly don't know, I was taught the mythical Civil War concept, where the North was pure and virgin white and the South was evil.

 

[Al A Bama]

While I'm waiting for Tidewater and Tide-HSV to reveal their expertise, I'll just say that the North was NOT pure nor Virgin White!

I'll also say that the South was what it was, in part (what part I don't know), because of evil doers in the North.

 

[Bamaro]

, I was taught the mythical Civil War concept, where the North was pure and virgin white and the South was evil.

Just wondering where you were living when you were taught that. It was never taught that way here.

 

[Al A Bama]

"What EVENT prompted the NORTHERN STATES (after the Revolution, they were no longer colonies) to begin ABOLISHING slavery while the Southern states would maintain slavery until they were forced to abolish it in the 1860s? You must be very specific here."

Was it that the Northerners could still get rich selling slaves to Southerners, but make their conscience feel better by not owning any of what they were selling?

 

[seebell]

Why was seebell not included as one who knows more history than you, Selma?:mad2: You mention Tide-Hsv because he the Big Boss and Tidewater because he has memorized the entire works of John Randolph? :eek2:. I will deprive you of my unique perspective!!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Just wondering where you were living when you were taught that. It was never taught that way here.

I took American history three times (and was the top student all 3 fwiw): 1982, 1983, and 1986. I'm SLIGHTLY exaggerating, but I took the first and last in MS and the middle one in Germany at a DODDs school. Granted, we're talking 7th, 8th, and 11th grades here, not PhD material.

In the 7th grade I got a lot of the mythical American history in the sense that the Americans were the good guys who wanted religious freedom AND were against taxation w/o rep. But in general it was a war primarily over slavery (no economic mention) and the "good guys" won.

Actually, it wasn't until I was an adult and did reading on my own that I became aware of some of Lincoln's "less than liberal' views on slavery.

In 8th grade in Germany, it was better - 11th still better. I took Western Civ in college so no US history there.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Why was seebell not included as one who knows more history than you, Selma?:mad2: You mention Tide-Hsv because he the Big Boss and Tidewater because he has memorized the entire works of John Randolph? :eek2:. I will deprive you of my unique perspective!!

If you can point me to a source, go ahead. Share away. It's an open question, I just included them because they're history buffs. If it was WW2, I have included crimsonaudio, which doesn't mean I think he's stupid on the Civil War - just that I've followed his postings on WW2.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

The real answer was in the different economies. The South needed them to grow cotton. As the North grew more industrialized, there was less and less demand for them, except as body servants. Slaves have never worked well in industry, anyway. The Germans learned that during WWII, when the slave labor devoted about an equal amount of time in trying to sabotage what they were ordered to build. Also, the moral angle can't be ignored. There was always a sizable portion of the population of the North which regarded the institution as immoral. That finally became a majority. I'm sure that Tidewater can add more...

 

[Tidewater]

Hey, y'all can help me point someone in the right direction here. I have a girl I work with who's sort of 'almost special ed' doing a History thing for college. I was hoping maybe Tidewater or Tide-HSV or one of you "knows more about history than Bill does" guys or girls could help me out a tiny bit here. It's not so much I want you to do it 'for' her as to give a point in the right direction. (If you give sources, I have a Master's and look stuff up - I don't just take anyone's word for it).

So here's the basic question as it is laid out:

"There were 13 colonies in the territory that became the US as a result of the American Revolution. During the colonial period, slavery was legal in every one of the 13 colonies. By the time the revolution ended, states in the North began abolishing slavery.

What EVENT prompted the NORTHERN STATES (after the Revolution, they were no longer colonies) to begin ABOLISHING slavery while the Southern states would maintain slavery until they were forced to abolish it in the 1860s? You must be very specific here."


help? I honestly don't know, I was taught the mythical Civil War concept, where the North was pure and virgin white and the South was evil.

Every state in the Union was a slave state in 1776. By the end of the 1780s, slavery ended in Massachusetts. Gradual emancipation schemes (children born after a certain date would be set free at a certain age, which varied from state to state) were adopted in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania.
The states that enacted gradual emancipation schemes later discovered that slaveowners were selling their slaves south before that age to avoid having to emancipate them, so they later amended the law to include a "no selling south" provision. Slavery was outlawed in the Old Northwest (e.g. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin) by Virginia's mandate when ceding the territory to the United States.
The impetus in the north was environmental and philosophical. The environment did not allow the growing of labor-intensive crops like cotton, tobacco, sugar and hemp. These do not grow well in northern climes. (Heck, I can barely get cotton to grow at my home in Virginia).
Philosophically, almost all the Founders were squeamish about slavery, generally, citing the Golden Rule as the moral justification for the opposition. They would not want to be slaves themselves, so many felt it was wrong to do to others. The Founders avoided using the word in the Constitution, opting for "other persons" and "persons held to labor."
As is common to human nature, when there's money to be made, lots of sins can be overlooked. Slavery is no different. Northern shipowners liked being able to profit off the trans-Atlantic slave trade until it was outlawed in 1808 (and many shipowners thereafter, who simply changed their ports of debarkation from Charleston & New Orleans to Havana & Sao Paolo. This, by the way went on until after the Civil War).
Southern slaveowners saw the mountains of money to be made off of tobacco, sugar and (after the invention of the gin) cotton, and turned a moral blind eye to the institution, eventually claiming it was a "positive good" (because it exposed Africans to Christianity and made them economically productive, something they would not be if they had remained in Africa).
Three works for further reading: Complicity by Farrow and Lang (journalists, not historians)
Disowning Slavery by Joanne Pope Melish (historian at Kentucky last I checked) and
North of Slavery by Leon Litwack.

As for the one event that was the impetus for the start, I would say it was Independence from the Crown. Royal governors had routinely vetoed bills outlawing the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Virginia's House of Burgesses had passed lots of such bills only to have the royal governor veto them (at the King's behest, who in turn, acted at the behest of London businessmen engaged in the slave trade). Anyway, once the colonies no longer had royal governors (i.e. 1776), passing bills outlawing the trans-Atlantic slave trade was easier.

 

[uafan4life]

The subject of slavery and abolition in the North is a very interesting one.

First, most Republican and virtually all Democratic politicians in Northern, non-slave States who espoused abolition obviously did so based upon financial as opposed to moral interests. This is seen by looking at, first, who were their political backers and, second, at the legislative actions which they supported that only served to repress freed slaves - such as ensuring no voting privileges, preventing or limiting the ability to live and/or own property in their States, etc.

Also, just looking at Delaware itself is quite telling. In the final State elections during the Civil War, pro-slavery Democrats won the State - ensuring the refusal of Delaware to ratify the thirteenth amendment. In fact, troops were assembled in Delaware after the amendment's ratification to ensure its enforcement. The rhetoric surrounding the refusal centered around the foreseen "absurd" claims of racial equality, by which certain political elements of the Federal Government would attempt to force through laws declaring the equality of "inferior" blacks and "superior" whites - either "incorrectly" elevating the black race or depressing the white race to the same level.

There are a couple of books that detail a lot of Delaware's dealings with Slavery which are mostly fairly written. They, I believe, are titled along the lines of "Delaware, a House Divided" and "Delaware, the First State Divided".

Finally, a look for the answer as to why slaves in the Northern States weren't freed until after the thirteenth amendment was ratified as opposed to being freed by the Emancipation Proclamation - the wording of which was completely within Lincoln's control - shows by itself that the political abolitionist movement was motivated much, much more by purely financial concerns than by any moral arguments.


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Bamaro]

"What EVENT prompted the NORTHERN STATES (after the Revolution, they were no longer colonies) to begin ABOLISHING slavery while the Southern states would maintain slavery until they were forced to abolish it in the 1860s? You must be very specific here."

Was it that the Northerners could still get rich selling slaves to Southerners, but make their conscience feel better by not owning any of what they were selling?

I dont think that anyone involved in the slave trade had a clear conscience (or should have).

 

[mittman]

I don't think that anyone involved in the slave trade had a clear conscience (or should have).

The machinations people use to justify their actions, and absolve themselves, never ceases to amaze me. I would not be surprised at all to find clear consciences, or those seared so much that there is no longer a possibility of feeling guilt.

Thanks Tidewater. I have read North of Slavery. Very good.

 

[Tidewater]

I dont think that anyone involved in the slave trade had a clear conscience (or should have).

If we were somehow to find out in ten years that babies really are fully human at the point of conception (however one wants to define that term), then there will be a lot of people looking back at the Democrat party and shaking their heads that Democrats could have been so morally obtuse.

 

[Tidewater]

The machinations people use to justify their actions, and absolve themselves, never ceases to amaze me. I would not be surprised at all to find clear consciences, or those seared so much that there is no longer a possibility of feeling guilt.

Thanks Tidewater. I have read North of Slavery. Very good.

There was some moron-journalist on Vox.com (I believe) who actually made the argument that were should be ashamed on Independence Day because the British had abolished slavery first.
The only thing the moron-journalist failed to notice was that the Brits abolished slavery in the British Isles. The British kept slavery in parts of the Empire into the 1830s (and de facto slavery in the Empire until the end of the raj).
The moron-journalist had been fed a heaping helping of "the US is the source of all evil in the world" and it blinded him to historical facts. He concluded that if the United States had not seceded from the British Empire the colonies would have gotten rid of slavery by the end of the war or some such nonsense.

 

[Al A Bama]

The machinations people use to justify their actions, and absolve themselves, never ceases to amaze me. I would not be surprised at all to find clear consciences, or those seared so much that there is no longer a possibility of feeling guilt.

Thanks Tidewater. I have read North of Slavery. Very good.

I am NOT saying the South was not GUILTY. Far from it!!!!!!! No human being should ever enslave another human being! What goes around in one century or millennium could come around in another. That's the reason we need to learn the lessons of history instead of revising history to make certain people feel good. We all need to learn lessons from history so that the ills and evils of the past will not be repeated. With revisionist history, I guess some people will feel no part in the GUILT that they greatly deserve.

If a Christian of the Civil War period and prior to that as well as during the time of Jim Crow and even after that had to confront Jesus Christ at the Pearly Gates after speaking to St. Peter, would he be able to justify owning slaves, having segregated facilities, etc.? I think NOT! How did a plantation owner, someone who shipped enslaved people from Africa to the Americas, etc. who considered themselves Christians even go to church on Sunday and feel good about themselves and even pass that on down to future generations? How could they look at themselves in a mirror and not feel GUILTY of inhumane behaviors. I just don't know and can't justify it.

My first job was picking cotton. If I had had to do that everyday of my entire life, I think suicide would have been appropriate or at least see if Harriet Tubman could have helped me escape to Canada. Or maybe just running away or trying to whether some fool thought they owned me or not!

I'm just emphasizing that there were GUILTY persons on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. The North can't puff their chests out in arrogance to claim they were innocent in this disgraceful practice! The same goes for the South!

 

[Tidewater]

I'm just emphasizing that there were GUILTY persons on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line. The North can't puff their chests out in arrogance to claim they were innocent in this disgraceful practice! The same goes for the South!

If the people of the northern states had taxed themselves, and used the money to purchase slaves from southern slave owners, moved the freedmen to their (northern) states, bought them enough farmland to make a living, given them some farm implements and draft animals, set up schools to teach them to read and made them voters, then northerners would have the moral high ground, and they would have my unqualified approval. Oddly, if they had done that, there would never have been any serious talk of secession.
Instead, they went to killing innocent southerners (the first person murdered by John Brown's henchmen was a free black man named Hayward Shepherd), and when southerners objected to being murdered, northerners screamed "You're defending slavery!" Just like they do today. It is merely sanctimonious cant.

 

[Elefantman]

I was having diner with a friend who is a history buff the other night and he was telling me about a historic house in his township outside of Philadelphia. He said it was part of the underground railroad where they hid escaping slaves. I was surprised, I ask why they would they need to hide, were they not safe in the north? He said no, there were plenty of Pennsylvanians willing to take the slaves back south for the reward.

 

[Bamaro]

If the people of the northern states had taxed themselves, and used the money to purchase slaves from southern slave owners, moved the freedmen to their (northern) states, bought them enough farmland to make a living, given them some farm implements and draft animals, set up schools to teach them to read and made them voters, then northerners would have the moral high ground, and they would have my unqualified approval. Oddly, if they had done that, there would never have been any serious talk of secession.
Instead, they went to killing innocent southerners (the first person murdered by John Brown's henchmen was a free black man named Hayward Shepherd), and when southerners objected to being murdered, northerners screamed "You're defending slavery!" Just like they do today. It is merely sanctimonious cant.

You're not asking for much are you? If that is all it would have taken, why then was there always an argument when new states entered? That didn't cost existing slave owners anything,

 

[mittman]

If the people of the northern states had taxed themselves, and used the money to purchase slaves from southern slave owners, moved the freedmen to their (northern) states, bought them enough farmland to make a living, given them some farm implements and draft animals, set up schools to teach them to read and made them voters, then northerners would have the moral high ground, and they would have my unqualified approval. Oddly, if they had done that, there would never have been any serious talk of secession.
Instead, they went to killing innocent southerners (the first person murdered by John Brown's henchmen was a free black man named Hayward Shepherd), and when southerners objected to being murdered, northerners screamed "You're defending slavery!" Just like they do today. It is merely sanctimonious cant.

John Brown, another in a LONG line who espoused the notion that they were the instruments of God's wrath. If bible history is any indicator, those used as instruments of wrath are not (or at least rarely) aware of it.

 

[Tidewater]

You're not asking for much are you?

Well, the moral high ground is a pretty expensive piece of real estate. If you really want to own it, you gotta pay for the privilege. Northerners were more than willing to "free the slaves" as long as somebody else paid the bill and dealt with the consequences. I, for one, ain't giving antebellum northerners Beverly Hills real estate for Perry County prices.

If that is all it would have taken, why then was there always an argument when new states entered? That didn't cost existing slave owners anything,

Well, I'll tell you what. If a Republican Congress were to enact a law, and a Republican President sign it and a SCOTUS accept it, declaring that no ballot containing a vote for any pro-choice candidate would count at all, because a pro-choice candidate would not represent a "republican form of government" (Article IV, Section 4, US Constitution). Any ballot containing any vote for a pro-choice candidate would just be thrown out in its entirety, and see how Democrats would appreciate that. That wouldn't cost Democrats anything either, but I dare say they might be a little ticked off, and rightfully so.

The analogy holds because Republicans did not want any slaves going into the territories so they could get reliably Republican Congressmen from the new states such as Kansas or Nebraska, once admitted. It had nothing to do with affinity for black people (moving a slave from Missouri to Kansas would not add or subtract a single slave from the census). They did not want any black people around in the territories. On December 12th 1855, the Free State voters of Kansas (pro-slave state voters boycotted the vote) adopted a new territorial constitution. They also overwhelmingly (like 76% in favor) adopted a plank in that constitution making it illegal for any black people, free or slave, to move into the territory.

There is a distinction between the white man and the black races, made by Omnipotence himself. I do not believe these two races can live happily and pleasantly together, or enjoy equal rights without one domineering over the other, and therefore I advocate the policy of separating these races by a system which shall rid the country of the black race, as it becomes free.

December 12th, 1859, Congressional Globe, 36th Congress, 1st Session, pg. 102.

The ‘negro question,’ as we understand it is a white man’s question, the question of the right of free white laborers to the soil of its territories. It is not to be crushed or retarded by shouting ‘Sambo’ at us. We have no Sambo in our platform. … We object to Sambo. We don’t want him about. We insist that he shall not be forced upon us.

Columbus Gazette, May 20, 1859.

There are many other quotes, but these capture the gist. Note, for the record that I do not endorse either of these. It is just that this is why I find the sanctimonious cant so insufferable. People today act like the dadgum Republicans of 1860 were like Freedom Riders or something. The overwhelming majority were (by today's standards) knuckle-dragging racists, just like the Democrats of the day.

If the northerners had adopted anything near what I described then slaveholders would have found it impossible to rally their non-slaveholding neighbors to support secession. It is just that simple.