Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently got my hands on a book called Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank of The Hartford Courant. What most surprised me about this book was how surprised the authors said they were about how deeply rooted slavery was in the North's development on all levels of society. It sort of blew my mind that they didn't know about this. Perhaps because I'm from the South, where slavery is an inescapable fact of the past, is why it seemed so absurd to me that people from the North were so scandalized by the fundamental role slavery played in their own regional past/success.
Or maybe these authors were especially sheltered from it? I don't know. It seems surreal to me that there are so many Northerners who would be unaware of this. Is it because they have their own version of a Lost Cause mythology or something? Are Northerners really that unaware of slavery's role in their own region and seriously think it was a Southern only phenomenon...?
I recently got my hands on a book called Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank of The Hartford Courant. What most surprised me about this book was how surprised the authors said they were about how deeply rooted slavery was in the North's development on all levels of society. It sort of blew my mind that they didn't know about this. Perhaps because I'm from the South, where slavery is an inescapable fact of the past, is why it seemed so absurd to me that people from the North were so scandalized by the fundamental role slavery played in their own regional past/success.
Or maybe these authors were especially sheltered from it? I don't know. It seems surreal to me that there are so many Northerners who would be unaware of this. Is it because they have their own version of a Lost Cause mythology or something? Are Northerners really that unaware of slavery's role in their own region and seriously think it was a Southern only phenomenon...?
Northerners don't tend to be aware of this. Keep in mind that your typical Northerner's family doesn't even seem to predate the Civil War (that obviously can't be completely true, but it seems that way).
Slavery wasn't as much a cultural institution in the North as it was in the South (keep in mind that South Carolina was founded as essentially a slave-based economy), but slavery was quite present in the North. But owning slaves is expensive and that's one reason it died out in the North. It would have died out in Virginia and Kentucky except that it was profitable to raise and sell slaves down the river. But Delaware had some slavery up until the Civil War and New Jersey had de facto slavery for almost as long (they changed the name of it). New York and Boston heavily profited from the early slave trade and New York continued to profit from the interstate slave trade until right up till the Civil War.
I recently got my hands on a book called Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank of The Hartford Courant. What most surprised me about this book was how surprised the authors said they were about how deeply rooted slavery was in the North's development on all levels of society. It sort of blew my mind that they didn't know about this. Perhaps because I'm from the South, where slavery is an inescapable fact of the past, is why it seemed so absurd to me that people from the North were so scandalized by the fundamental role slavery played in their own regional past/success.
Could you give examples of this, OP, so we can have a clearer idea of what you're referring to? It sounds interesting.
As to how "Northerners" could not be aware of this, I guess it's easy to sweep inconvenient truths under the rug when one is benefitting indirectly, that is when overt slavery isn't happening in the region. But also bear in mind that the entire "North" isn't one monolithic entity. For example, Washington and Oregon territories were settled later than the East and the Midwest, so families with a lineage from there would have a different history than families from regions farther east. The same with California; one branch of my family came to CA when it was part of Mexico. 2 other branches immigrated to the US after slavery. So we have no historical awareness of the role the economic benefits of slavery may have played east of the Mississippi.
If you liked Farrow's book, I'd recommend "How the Irish Became White", which deals with how slavery or indentured servitude started out with Whites as slaves, and how the descendants of those people used labor unions to separate themselves from the descendants of Black slaves, gain legitimacy, and lose the stigma of slavery that was once associated with them. This explains why for a long time African Americans were shut out of unions.
The steady influx of European imigrants provided cheaper labor to Northern industries, as they didn't have to be purchased, fed, clothed or housed.
This is true, but even in areas without heavy immigration (take Maine, e.g.), slavery grew out of practice. Also, the earliest attempts at banning slavery occurred before heavy immigration took place and before heavy industrialization. There was a good economic argument for ending slavery in the North, but it wasn't from industrialization. It's just that the long winters made labor-intensive agriculture less important and slaves were a financial drain in the winter. Slaves were more of a status symbol.
The normative argument seems to have mattered more. Pennsylvania was the first to free slaves, but in a way that took a long time. Massachusetts, on the other hand, freed slaves almost immediately and the Yankee states followed suit. New York state was controlled by Yankees, but New York City was not. So, the state outlawed slavery and the rich New Yorkers simply moved their slaves to New Jersey. New Jersey had slavery until 1865, although they changed the name to "servitude for life" well before that. There were only 20 or so slaves left in Jersey at that time, though.
I don't doubt the authors of this book. I've been shocked at the history I've learned about the USA since I left HS. I just recently heard that possibly one of the biggest reasons the Union fought the secession of the Confederacy as that about 3/4 of federal revenue came from taxes on cotton exported to Europe. I makes sense. People don't usually go to war in order to end the suffering of others. Its almost always to get rich or save their own lives and their own property.
I don't doubt the authors of this book. I've been shocked at the history I've learned about the USA since I left HS. I just recently heard that possibly one of the biggest reasons the Union fought the secession of the Confederacy as that about 3/4 of federal revenue came from taxes on cotton exported to Europe. I makes sense. People don't usually go to war in order to end the suffering of others. Its almost always to get rich or save their own lives and their own property.
Well, no, that's not quite right. There was no export tariff on cotton. There were high import tariffs on European goods (which were down from earlier in the century). That meant that Southerners were forced to buy from more expensive New England manufacturers (trade diversion). 60% of all exports were from Southern cotton, not 75% of revenue.
Northerners also controlled the shipping, so Southerners had some of their trade diverted to Northern manufacturers (who paid less than European ones). The North was dependent on Southern cotton.
pgm. I'll take your word for it. The bottom line is though, that the North didn't want the Confederacy walking away and leaving them to pay more taxes. Its a never ending story. People let others sacrifice their lives for their money, career, job, promotion, ego, whatever. Just like legal abortion, Johnson getting in deeper in Vietnam, slavery, killing of the American Indians for land, and Bush(43) starting a war with Iraq over Oil.
It wasn't taxes, but raw materials. It was about preserving the Union, which also means preserving it as an economic union with the same relationships. The North would continue with its protected industry and the South would provide the raw materials. However, some, like Lincoln did see slavery as a moral issue and it was important. Most soldiers weren't fighting for that, of course.
I recently got my hands on a book called Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang and Jennifer Frank of The Hartford Courant. What most surprised me about this book was how surprised the authors said they were about how deeply rooted slavery was in the North's development on all levels of society. It sort of blew my mind that they didn't know about this. Perhaps because I'm from the South, where slavery is an inescapable fact of the past, is why it seemed so absurd to me that people from the North were so scandalized by the fundamental role slavery played in their own regional past/success.
Or maybe these authors were especially sheltered from it? I don't know. It seems surreal to me that there are so many Northerners who would be unaware of this. Is it because they have their own version of a Lost Cause mythology or something? Are Northerners really that unaware of slavery's role in their own region and seriously think it was a Southern only phenomenon...?
Perhaps you would consider getting down off your high horse for a moment. Since most Americans do not have a particular interest in history, why would it surprise you that a lot of people lack a sophisticated understanding of the Civil War era and of the history of slavery before that? And most of us who are college graduates were not necessarily history majors, either. So we had our American History in high school, and once again in a survey course in college. We learned about the Civil War, and about slavery, in those courses, but at the same time we were learning other academic disciplines. Then we got out of college, went on to grad school or not, and pursued our careers. Why would we have reason to come back to slavery unless we happened to come across an interesting book or article about it? I recently came across, and read, "The Fall of the House of Dixie", a wonderful new (2013) book. But I don't conclude from that that I should feel smug and superior to anyone who hasn't thought much about slavery since college.
It is a real mistake to think that our area of interest is somehow all-important and should trump other people's area of interest. I happen to be a World War II history buff, but I am not at all surprised at what the average person does not know about World War II. I don't start theads lamenting, and wondering about, people's ignorance on the subject.
So, it seems "surreal" to you what people don't know. What seems surreal to me is your hyperbole and your sense of superiority.
Could you give examples of this, OP, so we can have a clearer idea of what you're referring to? It sounds interesting.
As to how "Northerners" could not be aware of this, I guess it's easy to sweep inconvenient truths under the rug when one is benefitting indirectly, that is when overt slavery isn't happening in the region. But also bear in mind that the entire "North" isn't one monolithic entity. For example, Washington and Oregon territories were settled later than the East and the Midwest, so families with a lineage from there would have a different history than families from regions farther east. The same with California; one branch of my family came to CA when it was part of Mexico. 2 other branches immigrated to the US after slavery. So we have no historical awareness of the role the economic benefits of slavery may have played east of the Mississippi.
If you liked Farrow's book, I'd recommend "How the Irish Became White", which deals with how slavery or indentured servitude started out with Whites as slaves, and how the descendants of those people used labor unions to separate themselves from the descendants of Black slaves, gain legitimacy, and lose the stigma of slavery that was once associated with them. This explains why for a long time African Americans were shut out of unions.
Slavery was, whether the latter-day moralists will admit it or not, interwoven into the development of the new World, and for that matter, into the fabric of the Old, from time immemorial. The imporant point here is that better-educated and more compassionate huiman beings, who saw the inherent wrongs, evolved -- uulally in the more-entreprenurial and fastest-growing porions of the best-developed societies.
So it never fails to amaze me how the people who bemoan the evils of free enterprise never recognize that that selfsame pursuit of autonomy allowed a greater portion of humanity to free itself, until (at least) government-sanctioned slavery disappeared. Remember that, assuming the pockets of pure but non-legitimized brutality in Africa are not counted, the last vestiges of the slave trade ran from East Africa to (suprise!?) the sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
