Which Northern States barred freed slaves/blacks from coming to live there

Goodpal

Private
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
The legislative reaction to Prudence Crandall's opening of a school for black girls in Canterbury CT in the early 1830's was based on preventing out-of-state free blacks coming into CT for education without local consent, which Crandall certainly didn;t have in Canterbury. It was this so-called Black Law under which she was convicted. Her conviction was overturned on a minor technicality, although the law was upheld as constitutional. She eventually closed the school because of vandalism but not because of the law, which wasn't successfully enforced. A funny thing happened, though. The legislation was widely held to be overreaction, even among many racists. Crandall's most determined prosecutor, Andrew Judson, later became a federal judge and was among the most important figures in deciding that the Amistad mutineers were free and not slaves. The distaste in which Crandall's treatment was held may also have contributed to New England's disgust with to the Fugitive Slave Laws of the early 1850s. Crandall is Connecticut's state heroine. Mine too.
Thanks for sharing this information. I have never heard of Prudence Crandall and all she did to help black girls receive an education. I think her story would make a good movie.
 

brass napoleon

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Member of the Year
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
Ohio
What were these states' reasons for not allowing free blacks to come and live there?

Racism was the biggest reason - the belief that blacks couldn't live in civilized society. The slaveholding states also put a lot of pressure on the southern tier of free states to exclude and discriminate against free blacks, because it would make it harder for slaves to escape there. For example, Kentucky lobbied Ohio hard to maintain its "Black Laws", even getting Ohio to pass its own fugitive slave law in 1839. The law was commonly referred to in Ohio as "the Kentucky law" and was ultimately repealed in 1843 and replaced with an anti-kidnapping law.

Ohio's bond law, which was mentioned earlier, was also largely about keeping escaped slaves out of Ohio, by requiring any black person who entered the state to post a bond certifying that they were legally free. This too was ultimately repealed, over Kentucky's strong objection, in 1849.
 
Last edited:

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Location
Central Massachusetts
What were these states' reasons for not allowing free blacks to come and live there?
Many people didn't believe they could be good, loyal, "useful" citizens. They were also "different," and for many that was enough.

In 1835, Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, had observed that prejudice against blacks was worse in the non-slaveholding states than in the states with slavery. The reason for this is that blacks had a well-defined role in southern society; a subservient role, certainly, but still a recognized "place." So long as they knew, and kept to their "place," they were recognized as part of the fabric of society. They had no such recognized role in northern society, and relatively few whites believed they were capable of "fitting in," but would remain a disruptive, "degrading" influence. Even where there was no outright hatred and bigotry, very few Americans believed in "equality," in the modern sense. Blacks and whites simply could not live peacefully together unless one race was firmly under the control of the other, or so it was sincerely believed. This is why so many of the anti-slavery people were so concerned about "what to do with" former slaves once they were free -- like sending them back to Africa. It would be unsafe for them and for us, if they remained in America.

It came as a hard lesson, but in time, we learned otherwise.
 

Goodpal

Private
Joined
Feb 27, 2014
Many people didn't believe they could be good, loyal, "useful" citizens. They were also "different," and for many that was enough.

In 1835, Tocqueville in his Democracy in America, had observed that prejudice against blacks was worse in the non-slaveholding states than in the states with slavery. The reason for this is that blacks had a well-defined role in southern society; a subservient role, certainly, but still a recognized "place." So long as they knew, and kept to their "place," they were recognized as part of the fabric of society. They had no such recognized role in northern society, and relatively few whites believed they were capable of "fitting in," but would remain a disruptive, "degrading" influence. Even where there was no outright hatred and bigotry, very few Americans believed in "equality," in the modern sense. Blacks and whites simply could not live peacefully together unless one race was firmly under the control of the other, or so it was sincerely believed. This is why so many of the anti-slavery people were so concerned about "what to do with" former slaves once they were free -- like sending them back to Africa. It would be unsafe for them and for us, if they remained in America.

It came as a hard lesson, but in time, we learned otherwise.
Very well said, John!
 

NCFisher

Cadet
Joined
Feb 29, 2020
Ooo, it happened already! A reference to Slavenorth, the web site that has been proven wrong multiple times on this forum. , a hundred and thirty years before George Wallace blocked the doorway of the University of Alabama. Here's what slavenorth said about that Ohio college:

In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes," but the controversy continued.
When we examine slavenorth's sources, we see that the source is in fact a reasonably objective account of the situation, showing both sides of the story. But we also see how blatantly slavenorth cherry-picked only the opposition, and completely, totally, shamelessly, unabashedly, irresponsibly omitted the vast bulk of the story and completely altered the meaning of what its own source said:
Shipherd expressed deep disappointment at the trustees' previous decision--"surprising & grievous to my soul." "I did not desire you to hang out an abolition flag," he continued, "or fill up with filthy stupid negroes; but I did desire that you should say you would not reject promising youth who desire to prepare for usefulness because God had given them a darker hue than others." It was generally agreed, he pointed out, that emancipated Negroes ought to be educated in order to prepare them for the proper exercise of their freedom. He reminded the trustees that other institutions had admitted Negroes to full privileges: Western Reserve College, Princeton and even Lane Seminary. Students who were so pharisaical as to object to association with Negroes would not be forced into their company, and the danger of "amalgamation" (intermarriage between white and colored students) he declared to be wholly illusory. Besides, Shipherd held that the admission of students irrespective of color was eternally right and he would insist upon it for that reason despite any considerations of "worldly expediency."
But slavenorth didn't stop there. It went on to say this:

A Massachusetts girl wrote home from the school in 1852, assuring her family, "that we don't have to kiss the Niggars nor speak to them," and anyway only about six "pure Niggars" were a the school, the rest looked like mulattoes, and anyway they dressed better than most of the white students.

That's ONE racist Massachussetts girl saying she wasn't forced to kiss "Niggars". Gosh, what a racist Northern school it must have been not to FORCE white girls to kiss "Niggars"! :nah disagree:

Sorry for the zombie thread resurrection.
I do not think Douglas Harper, author of Slavery in the North, mischaracterized the events regarding Oberlin's open race policy.

First, the premise that brass napolean will "start by addressing Slavenorth's condemnation of an Ohio college for being the first college in the country with a formal policy of race blind admissions" is entirely unwarranted; no where does Harper condemn or hint condemnation of Oberlin's policy, but rather the opposite, remarking:
"The college did survive integration, however, mostly because before 1860 only a token handful of blacks were admitted. In 1860, the figure for black students was 4 percent. Still, the school was shocklingly integrated by Northern standards." Further, to accept the claim one must entirely discount Harper's 50-year teaching career at CUNY - an odd place for a Confederate agenda - as a historian and economics professor, and of published works. And the fact that his website Slavery in the North references other CW historians' work that have been published by university presses of Cambridge, Oxford, Princeton, Columbia, Cornell, Syracuse and Chicago.

Second, the claim that Harper blatantly, etc. misquotes the "chief proponent" and founder of Oberlin John Jay Shipherd by not using an entire quote (see above). In context, here's Harper:

"In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes," but the controversy continued. The board of trustees tried to table the plan, but by now the abolitionists were aroused and would accept no retreat. In the end, in 1835, the trustees punted the decision to the faculty, which was assured of allowing black students to attend the school.

The move threatened the very existence of the college. From New England, the quarter from which much of the school's student body and money came, the college's financial agent wrote predicting disaster. "For as soon as your darkies begin to come in in any considerable numbers, unless they are completely separated ... the whites will begin to leave -- and at length your Institute will change colour. Why not have a black Institution, Dyed in the wool -- and let Oberlin be?"[4]

Harper is rendering a synopsis of the Oberlin open race chronicle, not recreating the source book or the entire era, but leading into Oberlin's episode noting the introduction of public education to Ohio. Nor is he casting aspersion on Shipherd, but noting the obstacles he faced from trustees, students, faculty, and the community. The quote "that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes," is no more or less demonstrating that Shipherd was mollifying opposition by assuring them that type "negroes" would not be filling the school, but a more select few that (Shipherd) "I did desire that you should say you would not reject promising youth who desire to prepare for usefulness because God had given them a darker hue than others."

What Harper lays out it in concise form, without embellishment or agenda, is that the board of trustees had rejected Shipherd's proposal, it was sent to the faculty, and passed by one vote, overcoming much opposition. And this was in a community that had a substantial abolition presence and very much progressive by the day's standards. As brass napolean notes in another post, Ohio was not lacking for racism. Harper gives an unbiased account of the turmoil and simply does not warrant the accusation. Slavery in the North is an excellent primer on the subject, is objectively written and should be regarded in that vein, not as an the tome of a closet Confederate.

Harper died in 2012, with no opportunity to defend his work when this was posted. Perhaps he and brass have cleared the air where they both now reside.
 
Last edited:

mrinfo

Cadet
Joined
Nov 12, 2017
Location
Oakland CA
One of my readers wrote to me "that prior to and during the War many northern states, Illinois for example, passed laws forbidding freed slaves from settling." I am familiar with the Illinois example. What other states had laws barring the entrance of blacks or freed slaves? I am not trying to start an argument, just want the facts and anything that will help me direct my reader to the info in more depth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Codes_(United_States)Before the war, Northern states that had prohibited slavery also enacted Black Codes: Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan,[2] and New York enacted laws to discourage free blacks from residing in those states.
 
Top