Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Tim, I have long been curious about one thing, and maybe you know, or someone else on the board does. What percentage of the slaves in the northern states that enacted gradual emancipation statutes were sold south? Most northern states passed laws to the effect that, all children born to slaves after a certain date would be free on their 18th or 21st birthdays. I am not familiar with the provision of these laws, but it seems possible that a particularly tight-fisted owner could avoid emancipation by simply selling his slaves before the law freed them, unless the statue forebade such a practice.
Any thoughts?
Some, particularly early on, but not a really large number. They did pass laws against selling slaves out of state, so obviously it was being done. I think they took a few years to pass the anti-sale laws, probably more years in NJ than in NY or PA, and probably with at least a little wink-and-a-nod. Here in NJ, we had the usual politician razzle-dazzle.
One particular trick was to emancipate minor children. This made them, in effect, wards of the state of NJ. Then the local county government had to arrange for their care -- which included a payment from the state. So the former slaveowner took them back into "foster care", got paid for raising them, and got to put them to work until they came of age. Pretty cute, eh?
Tim, not trying to make excuses for bad behavior, but in 1820, Pennsylvania had 211 slaves, and 30,413 free black people, which represented 2.9% of her population. In NY the % was the same (2.9%). New Jersey was the highest in 1820, with 7.2% of her population black. Black people were always a distinct minority in every northern state that ended slavery. In South Carolina and Mississippi, in 1860, 58.6% and 55.3% respectively. Louisiana was 49.5%, Alabama 45.4%, Florida and Georgia were 44%. That is a big population to absorb.
Yes, there were larger numbers and percentages in the South. That is still not a reason for ignoring a viable example close at hand to concentrate on horror stories from abroad.
Actual census totals showing the pattern for reduction in slaves in these states (clearly, PA moved far more quickly than NJ and NY; NJ also started later.)
New York
Year..Slaves
1790..21,193
1800..20,613
1810..15,017
1820..10,088
New Jersey
Year..Slaves
1790..11,423
1800..12,422
1810..10,851
1820..7,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnTaylor
Now slaveholders and secessionists played to racial stereotypes that blacks were lazy and ignorant and wouldn't work, and would simply steal for a living. In fact, in the newspapers I have read, one sees, from time to time, articles about how defenseless and abused northern freedmen were, unable to make a living because of northern bigotry, and lack of opportunity etc. In some cases, there were articles about emancipated slaves coming back to the south and looking for their old “situations” again. Of course, secessionists played such cases up, to show how humane southern slavery was, and how hard life was for freed blacks.
Yes, I have seen them as well. I am even sure some of them are true. How well do you think they reflect average reality for freed slaves?
If we look around, we will also find articles in ante-bellum Southern papers telling us that the average white small farmer in the South didn't need to know how to read and write, so why fund such wasteful public education? I doubt that was an average view, and would not believe someone like Lee believed it, but there were those who did. Not trying to be difficult, just noting that a lot of strange ideas were floated about in newspapers in those days.
Thank you John and Tim. It's so pleasant to read a debate in which no one is grinding axes with which to do partisan battle. Sometimes we get so caught up in defending or attacking one side or another, that we miss the mutual goal of examining the actual.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Tim, I have long been curious about one thing, and maybe you know, or someone else on the board does. What percentage of the slaves in the northern states that enacted gradual emancipation statutes were sold south? Most northern states passed laws to the effect that, all children born to slaves after a certain date would be free on their 18th or 21st birthdays. I am not familiar with the provision of these laws, but it seems possible that a particularly tight-fisted owner could avoid emancipation by simply selling his slaves before the law freed them, unless the statue forebade such a practice.
Any thoughts?
John, I've been curious about this also, so reading anything I can find.
Its believed that a considerable number were sold South. And very quickly after the statues were voted on.
As to actual numbers, so far, I've found nothing but still looking. If I find anything will try to remember to post in here.
Another way owners managed to Keep slaves was to trick them into signing on as indentured servants. They were able to do this because many 'freedmen' had no idea of where to go, or what work they could do, so were inticed to work for the former owner, under this contract.
I know of 1 that signed on for Life, whether he understood this or not I have not idea, but suspect he wasn't the only one to fall for it.
Anyway, the result being that 'slavery was set on the path to freedom in the North' On paper that is.
Chuck in IL.
PS:Welcome to the group Ken!
John, I've been curious about this also, so reading anything I can find.
Its believed that a considerable number were sold South. And very quickly after the statues were voted on.
As to actual numbers, so far, I've found nothing but still looking. If I find anything will try to remember to post in here.
While I am sure there was some (why else were they passing laws to make it illegal after they instituted emancipation), but the evidence is that it could not have been a very large number. Here, for example, is how the slave/free numbers went in NJ:
New Jersey
Year..Slaves..Free
1790..11,423..2,762
1800..12,422..4,402
1810..10,851..7,843
1820..7,557..12,460
1830..2,254..18,303
1840..674....21,044
1850..236....23,810
1860..18......25,318
There simply isn't a lot of room in there to ship large numbers of slaves South. Slavery was officially abolished in 1846. It was in 1818 that a law was passed forbidding "the exportation of slaves or servants of color." The 18 "slaves" in the 1860 US Census were officially "apprentices for life" in New Jersey law.
I too am enjoying the discussion. I'd always assumed that many slaves were sent south as northern states enacted post-nati emancipation laws, but I've never seen any studies with numbers.
It's hard to tell what the census figures mean, however. If I recall correctly, the total number of slaves nationwide roughly quadrupled between 1800 and 1860, roughly 1MM to 4MM. From that, you'd have to deduct the number of slaves imported 1800 through 1807.
But using the 4x figure as a general guide, that would suggest that in northern states the total number of blacks -- slave and free -- would have quadrupled in that period. But looking at Trice's NJ figures, for example, the number very roughly doubled rather than quadrupled. Does that mean the other half are "missing" -- with the hypothesis that they were sold south?
I too am enjoying the discussion. I'd always assumed that many slaves were sent south as northern states enacted post-nati emancipation laws, but I've never seen any studies with numbers.
It's hard to tell what the census figures mean, however. If I recall correctly, the total number of slaves nationwide roughly quadrupled between 1800 and 1860, roughly 1MM to 4MM. From that, you'd have to deduct the number of slaves imported 1800 through 1807.
But using the 4x figure as a general guide, that would suggest that in northern states the total number of blacks -- slave and free -- would have quadrupled in that period. But looking at Trice's NJ figures, for example, the number very roughly doubled rather than quadrupled. Does that mean the other half are "missing" -- with the hypothesis that they were sold south?
ET, I'd have to say that there are "leakages" in the system that are difficult to isolate. Slaves emancipated in Delaware who move to New Jersey, slaves in New Jersey sold south, etc. Plus there are no masters impregnating slave women in the north. Crude, but it might help explain the greater increase in the black population in the south.
And finally, how many freedmen in the north went to Canada to escape "accidentally" being accused of being an escaped slaves, and sent south. That couldn't happen in Canada.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
By no means was I trying to be definitive. I was only suggesting that, say, a doubling of the black population does not, by itself, tell us much. To the contrary, as you point out, there are all sorts of variables and possibilities that would have to be explored and taken into account. For example, I assume a typical northern slaveholder circa 1800 would have owned one or a few slaves at most -- houseservants, coachmen, and the like. Assuming that to be the case, would an owner be less likely to sell a slave he knew personally (vs. an anonymous field hand)?
If this issue really hasn't been explored, it looks like a great PhD topic to me. Apart from the pure statistics, one could spend years looking for evidence of slave sales and/or manumissions in northern states, newspaper discussions, advertisements, diaries, etc.
I recall that Freehling discusses northern post-nati laws a bit, and I remember being left with the general impression that such sales were not uncommon, but I don't recall any statistics. I may go back and take a look over the weekend to see what, if anything, he cites.
ET, I'd have to say that there are "leakages" in the system that are difficult to isolate. Slaves emancipated in Delaware who move to New Jersey, slaves in New Jersey sold south, etc. Plus there are no masters impregnating slave women in the north. Crude, but it might help explain the greater increase in the black population in the south.
And finally, how many freedmen in the north went to Canada to escape "accidentally" being accused of being an escaped slaves, and sent south. That couldn't happen in Canada.
The entire issue of runaways is vastly overdone, IMHO, particularly if we are looking at the "average slave".
For example, in a recent paper I read it was stated that the five northernmost slave states (DE-MD-KY-MO-VA) in 1860 had approximately 25% of the slaves and approximately 50% of the runaways. The obvious reason is physical proximity to a haven (i.e., the ability to get to a free state). The logical conclusion would be that Upper South slaveowners would be those most concerned with the issue.
Yet Deep South states such as SC were clearly agitated about such matters, even though the chance of a slave escaping in 1850 was estimated as .03 percent and in 1860 .02 percent. While estimates range as high as 50,000 runaways/year, this includes everything from slaves who were recaptured and slaves who came back on their own to successful escapes. Actual data from the US Census Office says that 1011 escaped in 1850 and 803 in 1860. Given the increase in the overall population, that decline indicates a significant increase in enforcement under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. If the 1850 rate had been the same as the 1860 rate, you would expect 1248 runaways to be reported, but only 803 were.
The same paper noted that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 had actually been quite effective in resolving cases. One study of 332 cases in the 1850s found that 22 accused slaves had been "rescued" (i.e., broken out of custody and escaped thereafter), 11 had been released as free men, and 1 had escaped on his own. The other 298 had been returned to the South, by Federal order, or by the slaveowner/his agent personally apprehending the escapee.
That paper also notes the real problem behind the uproar: the slave most likely to run was the most valuable slave, the "prime field hand". Infants, children, women and the aged generally did not run. In Delaware, this seems to have meant a 5.68% chance the "prime field hand" would run in 1850 and in 1860 3.34%; in South Carolina it was literally 1/100th of that. This was yet another reason that the price of a "prime field hand" was less in the Upper South/Broder States than in the Deep South.
Combined with ongoing changes due to economic growth and immigration, this led to a dwindling chance the Border States would remain slave states. New York was supposedly 10-12% slave at the time of the Revolution and had long since freed their slaves. In 1860, DE(1.61%), MD(12.69%), and MO(9.72%) were all at or below that and falling, while KY had just fallen below 20%. This, of course, would have been a fatal blow to Southern slaveowners in their own eyes, dooming their veto power in the Senate as these states changed to "free".
JT,
If this issue really hasn't been explored, it looks like a great PhD topic to me. Apart from the pure statistics, one could spend years looking for evidence of slave sales and/or manumissions in northern states, newspaper discussions, advertisements, diaries, etc.
I recall that Freehling discusses northern post-nati laws a bit, and I remember being left with the general impression that such sales were not uncommon, but I don't recall any statistics. I may go back and take a look over the weekend to see what, if anything, he cites.
e
There has been a book relatively recently, Disowning Slavery, about the ending of slavery in the northern States. It is an interesting work, but, unfortunately, the author, Joanne Pope Melish, spends too much time engaging in what I call academia-speech, hyper-elevated language that lacks clarity. Melish does address the issue of the concern of local communities that freedmen might become a burden on the community if they couldn't find gainful employment. Interesting work, but, if I were to add one critique, it would be some better analysis of numbers. This may not have been possible. The records may not exist.
__________________ "In this Constitution, the citizens of the United States appear dispensing a part of their original power in what manner and what proportion they think fit. They never part with the whole; and they retain the right of recalling what they part with." James Wilson of Pennsylvania, October 28th, 1787
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
