Restricted Debate Notes on Northern Slavery

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,261
By that title alone, the authors are either ignorant or declaring an agenda. I hope it's the first one.

Otherwise how DARE it be characterized that the "North" was involved in those things, when in truth it was never more than a fraction of them.

An HONEST title would have been something like "Yankee Dualism: Northerners who promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Southern Slavery." But no.

(Anyway we're on to it. If it can be sold that both sections were equally guilty of slavery, then "the section that chose to retain and expand slavery was no more guilty than the section that had banned slavery." Back to Lost Cause).
Thanks for explaining the Yankee Lost Cause. We just did it for a little while, got no benefit from it. Oh, it was only a few. You left out, Hey, we taught em Bible Verses and Job Skills.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
Thanks for explaining the Yankee Lost Cause. We just did it for a little while, got no benefit from it. Oh, it was only a few. You left out, Hey, we taught em Bible Verses and Job Skills.
We've only ever seen that Lost Cause is a legacy secession/Confederate thing, but ok, let's have something called "Yankee Lost Cause."

Then let's dump both of those -- lose the attitude -- and take history for what it was.

Edited
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,763
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Honestly I don't necessarily support this CWTer's views but I have a few books that are relevant:
New England Bound: Slavery and Colonization in Early America by Wendy Warren
Dawn of Detroit: A Chronicle of Slavery and Freedom in the City of Straits
Detroit was considered in the West and I believe that slavery in Detroit and Michigan Territory was introduced when the French controlled the area and remained with their French owners after the British took over the territory and a few handful still remained with the French residents as "grandfathered" when the United States took control of Detroit and Michigan as part of the Northwest Territory. There are records of the slave owner's names from Detroit and the surrounding area and from what I remember was that every single owner was French.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
Thanks for explaining the Yankee Lost Cause. We just did it for a little while, got no benefit from it.
You're actually attempting to sell the idea that the South just did slavery "for a little while," and "got no benefit from it" !!??

Oh, it was only a few."
You're actually attempting to sell the idea that only a "few " white Southerners were engaged in slavery !!??

...Hey, we taught em Bible Verses and Job Skills.
You're actually attempting to sell the idea that "we " (Southern whites) "taught 'em " (slaves) bible verses and "job skills " !!!???

I sure as heck hope you're just pulling our collective leg -- funnin' with us -- about these and that I'm just too dim to catch the joke.
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
Detroit was considered in the West and I believe that slavery in Detroit and Michigan Territory was introduced when the French controlled the area and remained with their French owners after the British took over the territory and a few handful still remained with the French residents as "grandfathered" when the United States took control of Detroit and Michigan as part of the Northwest Territory. There are records of the slave owner's names from Detroit and the surrounding area and from what I remember was that every single owner was" French.
As in Illinois, the fur trade was yet significant and neither state (as it became a state) wanted to lose the benefits of the fur trade. Both states hedged on outlawing slavery to accommodate ("grandfather in") the French fur traders, who for business had immersed themselves, married into, the Native American tribes and ethic, whereby obtaining and owning slaves was usual. The slaves were primarily captured in raids and not ethnically African-American.

There's no excusing Illinois or Michigan for their legal duplicity, but it was not nearly systematic chattel slavery.
 
Last edited:

BlueandGrayl

First Sergeant
Joined
May 27, 2018
Messages
1,596
Location
Corona, California
Detroit was considered in the West and I believe that slavery in Detroit and Michigan Territory was introduced when the French controlled the area and remained with their French owners after the British took over the territory and a few handful still remained with the French residents as "grandfathered" when the United States took control of Detroit and Michigan as part of the Northwest Territory. There are records of the slave owner's names from Detroit and the surrounding area and from what I remember was that every single owner was French.
Well I'd say that like the South (Upper and Lower), the North was comprised of two sections: East (the commercial, industrial-oriented part) and West (the agricultural, river-based part). What I define as "North" is any state above the 36-30 line and/or free soil

As for Detroit slave owners well I've managed to find some non-French/Anglo-Americans who owned slaves:
* Lewis Cass (second governor of Michigan): Though against the institutuion there is a record of him owning a slave.
* John R. Williams: Owned slaves.
* George McDougall: One-time owner of nearby Belle Isle. Owned slaves.
* Elijah Brush: Although he did fight for a slave woman's freedom nevertheless he was a slave owner himself

According to Tiya Miles (the author who wrote the Detroit book I mentioned) she noted in an interview with Michigan Radio that although slavery was banned from the Michigan Territory there were loopholes that allowed people to hold their slaves and the new American settlers were able to rent or lease slaves as well as marry into slaveholding families.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,763
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Well I'd say that like the South (Upper and Lower), the North was comprised of two sections: East (the commercial, industrial-oriented part) and West (the agricultural, river-based part). What I define as "North" is any state above the 36-30 line and/or free soil

As for Detroit slave owners well I've managed to find some non-French/Anglo-Americans who owned slaves:
* Lewis Cass (second governor of Michigan): Though against the institutuion there is a record of him owning a slave.
* John R. Williams: Owned slaves.
* George McDougall: One-time owner of nearby Belle Isle. Owned slaves.
* Elijah Brush: Although he did fight for a slave woman's freedom nevertheless he was a slave owner himself

According to Tiya Miles (the author who wrote the Detroit book I mentioned) she noted in an interview with Michigan Radio that although slavery was banned from the Michigan Territory there were loopholes that allowed people to hold their slaves and the new American settlers were able to rent or lease slaves as well as marry into slaveholding families.
Yes, we had a prior thread here a year or so ago discussing that author and her book and now I do recall that those individuals were slave owners. Her list was based on Detroit and surrounding county records as well as a list compiled by a Quebec historian that had records of slave owners in New France. I'm not sure how Lewis Cass got on the list unless he hired a slave or two at the time it was noted in some local government record.
 
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
6,763
Location
About 47 miles Northwest of the Canadian border
Well I'd say that like the South (Upper and Lower), the North was comprised of two sections: East (the commercial, industrial-oriented part) and West (the agricultural, river-based part). What I define as "North" is any state above the 36-30 line and/or free soil

As for Detroit slave owners well I've managed to find some non-French/Anglo-Americans who owned slaves:
* Lewis Cass (second governor of Michigan): Though against the institutuion there is a record of him owning a slave.
* John R. Williams: Owned slaves.
* George McDougall: One-time owner of nearby Belle Isle. Owned slaves.
* Elijah Brush: Although he did fight for a slave woman's freedom nevertheless he was a slave owner himself

According to Tiya Miles (the author who wrote the Detroit book I mentioned) she noted in an interview with Michigan Radio that although slavery was banned from the Michigan Territory there were loopholes that allowed people to hold their slaves and the new American settlers were able to rent or lease slaves as well as marry into slaveholding families.
Each one of the names listed above has a major street in the City of Detroit named after him and one person who I had forgotten about, William Macomb, has a county just north of Detroit named after him.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
By that title alone, the authors are either ignorant or declaring an agenda. I hope it's the first one.

Otherwise how DARE it be characterized that the "North" was involved in those things, when in truth it was never more than a fraction of them.

An HONEST title would have been something like "Yankee Dualism: Northerners who promoted, Prolonged and Profited from Southern Slavery." But no.

(Anyway we're on to it. If it can be sold that both sections were equally guilty of slavery, then "the section that chose to retain and expand slavery was no more guilty than the section that had banned slavery." Back to Lost Cause).
The Connecticut Department of Education seemed impressed with their scholarship. It good to know that some of the people up that way are finally getting the historical facts.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
The Connecticut Department of Education seemed impressed with their scholarship. It good to know that some of the people up that way are finally getting the historical facts.
Anyone "up this way" is already aware that some Southerners were profiting from slavery. No one up this way has ever contested it. Historical facts were never held from anyone up this way to begin with.

The devil is in the book's title, where the use of the word "North" is far too large a projection to represent the actual segment: some Northerners who profited from slavery.

It's like saying that some Southerners who were anti-slavery, anti-secession and anti-Confederate were the "South."

Better yet, let's just say that Southerners who were black were the "South," which at least is bit more legitimate.
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
...I was reading The Rise and Fall of the Southern Confederacy by Jefferson Davis last night on Amazon. From the few pages I reviewed, he appears to have put the moral temper and the legal aspects of slavery in proper perspective...
...in proper, white, secesssionist, Confederate perspective.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
Then why not stop ignoring it, do a little research, dig into these books and share excerpts like various posters have done in other resources.

I'm seeing some people share some references but doing little work or research in this area. For all the talk of "ignored" history I see little effort from those making such a claim to not ignore it.
Believe me, I'm doing my best with available resources out there.
As in...anyone up this way was already aware that some Southerners were profiting from slavery. As in...no one up this way has ever contested it. As in...the historical facts have never been held from anyone up this way to begin with.

The devil is in the title (which you actually know), with it's ridiculous implication that the "North" means some Northerners who profited from slavery. Conscience ok with that?

If so, let's read books about some Southerners who were anti-slavery, anti-secession and anti-Confederate and acted on it. Then let's just say that they were the "South." Still ok?

Better yet, let's just say that Southerners who were black were the "South," actually a somewhat more legitimate claim.

Still ok?
Fine, but let's not let those diversions cause us to shy away from discussing the North's profits from, and complicity in the African slave trade.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
From the inner book flaps of Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank, How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery:
Let's actually consider what the book is actually about: slavery in the North before the United States; the Union; existed.

To burst the bubble, the book, despite its misleading title, provides little basis on which to compare slavery in the Union North with the much worse condition of continuing slavery as it was promoted and practiced in the secession/Confederate states.

Here's the co-author of the book, Anne Farrow, from a recorded interview:

"It began--you know, in Massachusetts, it faded out after the American Revolution. Really, by 1820, there were not significant numbers of captive people in the North." *





- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5042377
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
Fine, but let's not let those diversions cause us to shy away from discussing the North's profits from, and complicity in the African slave trade.
...in that period some thirty years before secession occurred (the African slave trade having ended well before that, in 1809).

If the attempt here is to equate secession/Confederate slavery with slavery in the Northern U.S. by the time of secession -- well it doesn't fly.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,709
Location
Laurinburg NC
...in that period some thirty years before secession occurred (the African slave trade having ended well before that, in 1809).

If the attempt here is to equate secession/Confederate slavery with slavery in the Northern U.S. by the time of secession -- well it doesn't fly.
The thread
...in that period some thirty years before secession occurred (the African slave trade having ended well before that, in 1809).

If the attempt here is to equate secession/Confederate slavery with slavery in the Northern U.S. by the time of secession -- well it doesn't fly.
The thread title is: Notes on Northern Slavery
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,608
Location
Midwest
I did.
I remember while doing research for a seminar paper in graduate school coming across something like the Boston night sky was alight from distilleries make rum for the African slave trade.
...in that period 30 years or more before secession, before there was a Union. May as well be talking about slavery in the Crown territories anywhere in the world at that time. Not that relevant to culpability for slavery by the time of the CW, at which time the secession/Confederate south was way more culpable for its continuation and intended expansion of slavery.
 
Last edited:

trice

Lt. Colonel
Joined
May 2, 2006
Messages
11,625
All the Northern States had voted or acted to end slavery by 1804, IIRR (NJ-NY-PA doing it by gradual emancipation). NJ was the last to complete the process (in the 1860 Census there are still a few listed -- all but one of them seem to be above the age of sixty -- but NJ said there were none at that point, calling these people "apprentices for life".) I have never seen anyone on this forum who denied this. Am I missing something?

In "the South", emancipation movements died out over the decades (Virginia in the 1830s, KY and TN in the 1840s). Generally, this seems to have been related to expansion driven by the Louisiana Purchase, the Annexation of Texas and other territory plus the fortunes being made in cotton and sugar plantations. Maryland and Virginia particularly found they could make a great deal of money by selling surplus slaves to the deeper South as prices rose continually.

This, in a nutshell, is the difference between "the North" and "the South" on slavery in 1860. In one part of the country slavery was considered gone. The other section wanted to see slavery continue and expand.
 
Last edited:


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top