Just a few thoughts.
I often see these comparisons of Northern slavery and racism, with Southern slavery and racism. Simply put, the two experiences are not the same.
You say, correctly, "I see ALL slavery as it is and was !!!!! Bad, cruel, Immoral, evil, and vile." This is fair, and we all agree. But I think there is a fair pushback when people criticize the notion that when it comes to slavery, the North and the South were the "same".
As has been noted, the North did in fact abolish slavery over time, and unevenly. But it did happen, and it is momentous that it happened. It was not only important for African Americans themselves. If there had not been "free" states, there would not have been a conflict between the "free" states and the "slave" states... the existence of free states explains why there was a civil war in the first place. I could talk about this in pages and pages and pages, but suffice it to say, the fact that slavery did end in the North is HUGE. If Northern Slavery was about "cruelty, evilness, and vileness," as you correctly state, then the North deserves credit for ending it.
Having said that, I think it's fair to say that while I was in grades k-12, there was almost no discussion of slavery in the North or discrimination against African Americans (I'm in my early 60s) in most Northern schools, although by that time there was some discussion about the fact that Native Americans were getting a rotten deal from the British and Spanish immigrants. (As an aside, many people don't know that the famous Sojourner Truth was a freedwoman from New York. I have seen where she's been re-enacted with a Southern accent.)
It is fair to critique the antebellum North for its racism. At the same time, it is fair to pushback against the notion that racism in the North was as bad as racism in the South. I have made the point many times that racist behavior exists on a continuum, and that, while ALL RACIST BEHAVIOR IS BAD, some behaviors are objectively worse and more consequential than others.
Historian Leon Litwack, in his book,
North of Slavery, states:
The position of the Negro in the antebellum North invites obvious comparison with that of the slave in the South. Indeed, many publicists and politicians in both sections repeatedly made and exploited the comparison, claiming that slaves and free Negroes shared an identical existence. Such a position, however, is as gross an oversimplification as is the traditional contrast between northern racial benevolence and southern intolerance.
For as this study suggests, important distinctions did exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves, just as there were fundamental differences between the condition of northern white industrial workers and southern bondsmen.
Above all, the northern Negro was a free man; he was not subject to the whims and dictates of the master or overseer; he could not be bought and sold; he could not be arbitrarily separated from his family. Although a victim of racial proscription, he could - and on several occasions did - advance his political and economic position in the ante bellum period; he could and did organize and petition, publish newspapers and tracts, even join with white sympathizers to advance his cause; in sum, he was able to carry on a variety of activities directed toward an improvement of his position.
Although subjected to angry white mobs, ridicule, and censure, he made substantial progress in some sections of the North and, at the very least, began to plague the northern conscience with the inconsistency of its antislavery pronouncements and prevailing racial practices. And although confined largely to menial employments, some Negroes did manage to accumulate property and establish thriving businesses; by 1860, northern Negroes shared with white workers the vision of rising into the middle class. Finally, on the eve of the Civil War, an increasing number of Negroes were availing themselves of educational opportunities, either in the small number f integrated schools or in the exclusive and usually inferior Negro schools.
As Litwack states, "
important distinctions (that) exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves." He acknowledges that there was racism in the North/Free States. But clearly, life for enslaved people in the South differed markedly from life for free people in the North, much to the detriment of enslaved people.
To the extent that the existence of slavery in the North, and the existence of racism in the North, is not acknowledged, or not covered in adequate detail, then it is fair to complain about that. I would opine that, not enough is made of the fact that free blacks in the North ~ who, by population, were over-represented in the Union army ~ stated quite often that were fighting not just to end slavery, but also, to gain full equality. That is not really discussed much, much of the focus in civil war discourse has been on anti-slavery, not pro-equality.
But I do think people are right to push back by saying that the North deserves acknowledgement for ending slavery, albeit gradually, in the antebellum era; that they ended slavery without war; that the existence of free labor North was key to the North/South conflict; and that despite racism, life for free blacks in the North was preferable to that for enslaved blacks in the South. That is: people are right to push back against the notion or
implication or allusion that the North and South were the "same" when it comes to race and slavery.
Now: I don't know if you were saying that the North and the South were the "same" with respect to these things; bu I think it can be taken that way. In any event, I am trying to put these ideas in a way that I think is the proper way to interpret the history.
- Alan