The focus pointed at the South on the subject of Slavery usually ignores the North’s complicity and benefit from Slavery. This selective condemnation can create a skewed understanding of American history, suggesting a moral high ground that is definitely not deserved.
The history of Slavery in Colonial America is often simplified to focus only on the Southern Plantations, but the reality is that Slavery was a national institution with very deep roots in the North. The Labor of Slaves in Northern cities and farms was critical to the economic development of the region. Acknowledging this history is essential for a comprehensive understanding of America’s past and the pervasive impact of Slavery across the entire country.
The condemnation of the South for its role in Slavery, more often than not, overlooks, intentionally or not, the fact that many Northern institutions profited significantly from the Slave Trade and Slavery itself. This perspective highlights the complex and often hypocritical nature of historical narratives around Slavery in the United States.
In Colonial America, the institution of Slavery was not confined to the Southern colonies. More than 40,000 enslaved people labored in bondage in the Northern port cities and on small farms, a fact often overshadowed by the more extensive plantations of the South.
Slavery was a pervasive part of life in the Northern colonies, although it was generally on a smaller scale compared to the South. Enslaved people were used for a variety of tasks, including domestic work, skilled labor, and farming.
Northern port cities like New York, Boston, and Newport were hubs of the transatlantic Slave Trade. Ships from these ports played significant roles in transporting enslaved Africans to the Americas. Slaves in these cities worked in homes, shops, docks, and factories.
While Northern agriculture did not rely on large plantations, although there were several, many small farms used enslaved labor for farming and tending livestock. Additionally, many Northern households had enslaved domestic workers who performed household chores and childcare.
In 1740, enslaved individuals made up about one-fifth of New York City’s population. This significant proportion highlights how integral Slavery was to the city’s economy and daily life. Slaves in New York City performed a wide range of jobs, from skilled trades such as blacksmithing and carpentry to unskilled labor on the docks and in warehouses. They were also employed as domestic servants in the homes of the wealthy.
Connecticut, like much of New England, was deeply entangled in the transatlantic Slave Trade. Historical research has revealed that there were over 1,100 documented voyages of slave ships from New England, a significant portion of which originated from Connecticut ports. This involvement in the Slave Trade had lasting economic and social impacts on the region.
With over 1000 documented Slave ship voyages from New England highlight the region’s extensive participation in the transatlantic Slave Trade. These ships were primarily involved in transporting enslaved Africans to the Caribbean, where they were sold to work on Plantations producing sugar, rum, and other lucrative commodities.
Key ports such as New London, New Haven, and Middletown in Connecticut were active in outfitting and sending ships to Africa. These voyages were part of the larger triangular trade, where New England merchants exchanged goods such as rum, iron, and guns for enslaved people in Africa, who were then transported to the Caribbean and the American South.
While many enslaved Africans were transported to the Caribbean, a significant number were brought back to New England. Estimates suggest that at one point, there were more than 5,000 African-American Slaves in Colonial Connecticut. These individuals were forced to work in various capacities, from domestic servants and skilled artisans to laborers on farms and in maritime industries.
The labor of Slaves in Connecticut contributed to the prosperity of the colony. They worked in households, on farms, in shipyards, and in shops, supporting the economic infrastructure and enabling the growth of industries such as shipbuilding and agriculture.
The Hartford Courant, one of the oldest continuously published newspapers in the United States, has documented Connecticut’s involvement in Slavery. Its historical research provides estimates and detailed accounts of the number of enslaved people in the colony, illustrating the extent of Slavery’s presence in Connecticut.
The presence of a significant Slave population in Connecticut influenced the social and cultural landscape of the colony. Connecticut’s involvement in the transatlantic Slave Trade and the presence of a substantial enslaved population within the colony reveal the deep roots of Slavery in New England.
The region’s economic development was closely tied to the profits and labor derived from Slavery, contradicting the common perception that Slavery was solely a Southern institution. Acknowledging this history is crucial for understanding the full scope of Slavery’s impact on the United States.
Slaves were bought and sold in public markets, and advertisements for Slave sales were common in newspapers. The economic benefits of this Trade enriched many Northern merchants and traders.
The labor of Slaves contributed significantly to the Northern economy. Northern industries such as shipbuilding, textiles, and rum production were closely tied to the Slave Trade and the labor of enslaved people.
Many of the most prominent families and institutions in the North accumulated wealth through their involvement in Slavery. This wealth laid the foundations for future economic prosperity and institutional growth that remains economically significant even today.
While the Institution of Slavery is often primarily associated with the Southern United States, it’s crucial to understand that Northerners also played a very significant role in the economic and social dynamics of Slavery. Some of the largest Slave Plantations in the South were, in fact, owned by Northern individuals and Northern Syndicates. This involvement complicates the simplistic North-South dichotomy often portrayed in discussions of American Slavery.
Wealthy individuals and businesses from the North invested in Southern plantations as profitable ventures. The North’s industrial economy required vast amounts of raw materials like cotton, which were produced on Southern plantations. By owning Southern Slave Plantations, Northerners ensured a steady and cost-effective supply of these essential materials for their factories.
Many Northern owners were absentee landlords, meaning they did not live on the Plantations they owned. Instead, they hired overseers to manage the day-to-day operations. This absentee ownership allowed Northerners to benefit economically from Slavery without directly engaging with its moral realities.
The lucrative nature of Plantation agriculture, particularly cotton, tobacco, and rice, attracted Northern investors. The profits from these Plantations contributed to the wealth and growth of Northern industries and financial institutions, creating a complex interdependence between Northern capital and Southern Slave Labor.
The involvement of wealthy Northerners in Southern slave plantations is well-documented, but their investment in Caribbean plantations extends this economic entanglement further, demonstrating a broader and more persistent engagement with the Institution of Slavery and Plantation economics. This involvement persisted even after the War, reflecting the enduring allure of Plantation profits and the complex interplay between Northern capital and global Slavery agricultural production.
Wealthy Northerners owned significant Plantations in the South. The largest Plantation in Alabama was owned by a Northerner. These individuals reaped massive financial benefits of Slave Labor without directly engaging in the day-to-day management of their estates. This practice allowed them to maintain a degree of separation from the moral realities of Slavery while still profiting immensely.
Northern industries were heavily reliant on the raw materials produced by Southern plantations. Cotton, tobacco, and rice, primary products of these plantations, were essential to Northern textile mills and other industries. The symbiotic relationship between Northern capital and Southern Slave Labor underpinned the economic structure of the United States during this period.
Even long after the War and the Abolition of Slavery in the United States, Northern investors continued to seek profits from Slave Plantation economies. The Caribbean, with its ongoing reliance on Slave Labor in some areas until late into the 19th century and even beyond, offered lucrative opportunities for investment.
The Caribbean plantations were major producers of sugar and rum, commodities that were in high demand globally. Northern investors, recognizing the profitability of these ventures, invested heavily in Caribbean Slave Plantations. This investment often continued well into the latter part of the 1800s, demonstrating a persistent pattern of seeking profit from Slave Plantation economies.
Wealthy Northern families and business magnates such as the Brown family of Rhode Island (associated with Brown University) and the DeWolf family were deeply involved in both Southern and Caribbean Plantations. These families not only owned Plantations but also participated in the transatlantic Slave Trade, further entangling their fortunes with the Institution of Slavery.
After the War, some Northern investors shifted their focus to the Caribbean. For instance, New York financier Moses Taylor invested heavily in Cuban sugar plantations. Taylor’s investments in Cuba’s sugar industry illustrate how Northern capital continued to support and benefit from plantation economies even after the passage of the 13th Amendment abolishing Slavery in the United States.
The investments in Southern and Caribbean plantations highlight the global nature of capital networks in the 19th century. Northern investors were part of a broader economic system that exploited enslaved labor across the Americas, reinforcing the interconnectedness of regional and international economies.
The continued investment in Caribbean plantations after the War reflects a moral ambiguity among Northern investors. While some Northerners supported abolitionist causes and condemned Slavery, many were willing to overlook these principles in favor of profitable investments. This dichotomy underscores the complexity of moral and economic considerations during this period.
The involvement of Northern investors in both Southern and Caribbean plantations reveals a deeper and more persistent engagement with the institution of Slavery and Plantation economics than is often acknowledged. This involvement persisted well into the latter part of the 19th century, reflecting the enduring allure of plantation profits and the complex interplay between Northern capital and global agricultural production. Understanding this broader context challenges simplistic narratives and highlights the intricate economic and social dynamics that shaped the United States and the broader Atlantic world during this period.
The economies of the North and South were deeply intertwined. The North’s textile mills, shipping industries, and financial institutions were all reliant on the raw materials produced by Slave Labor in the South. This economic interdependence meant that Northern interests were vested in the continuation of Slavery, even if they were not directly involved in the daily operations of plantations.
The social and political climates of the North and South were also interrelated. While the North developed a growing abolitionist movement, many in the North were indifferent or even hostile to the immediate Abolition of Slavery due to the economic benefits they derived from it. This ambivalence reflects the complex social dynamics of the period.
Northern involvement in Southern plantations also had political implications. Northern investors and politicians often had a stake in maintaining policies that protected their economic interests in the South. This influence was evident in various legislative and judicial decisions that favored the continuation of Slavery.
Robert Livingston was a prominent figure from New York, Livingston owned extensive plantations in the South. His investments in Southern agriculture exemplify how Northern capital was deeply embedded in the system of Slavery.
Ezra Cornell, the Founder of Cornell University, Ezra Cornell invested in Southern plantations. His profits from these investments helped fund the establishment of the University, highlighting the direct link between Northern institutions and Southern Slavery.
Understanding the role of Northern individuals and Syndicates in the ownership and operation of Southern Slave Plantations provides a more nuanced view of American Slavery. It is well-documented that the cruelest of Slave Masters were Northern Plantation owners. It challenges the simplistic narrative that Slavery was solely a Southern Institution and reveals the economic and social complexities that underpinned the entire nation’s reliance on Slave Labor. Recognizing these connections is essential for a comprehensive understanding of American history and the pervasive legacy of Slavery.
The North’s economy was intricately linked to the institution of slavery. Northern banks, insurance companies, and businesses provided the financial backbone for the slave trade and the plantation economy of the South.
Many prestigious universities received substantial donations and endowments from individuals and families whose wealth was derived from the slave trade or from industries that profited from slavery. For instance:
– Harvard University:
Benefited from donations from wealthy benefactors who were involved in the Slave Trade.
– Yale University:
Received funds from slave traders and Northern plantation owners in the South.
– Brown University:
Founded by a family with deep ties to the Slave Trade.
-Georgetown University:
In 1838, the University sold 272 Slaves to pay off debts.
Insurance and Financial Institutions:
– Aetna, Inc.:
Sold policies that insured Slaves as property and profited greatly on the Trading of Slaves.
– New York Life:
Sold insurance policies on the lives of Shaves for immense profits.
– JPMorgan Chase:
Acknowledged that predecessor banks had accepted Slaves as collateral and owned them when clients defaulted.
– Bank of America:
Traced its roots to banks that were involved in financing the Slave economy.
Railroads and Companies:
– CSX Railway:
Built on infrastructure that benefited from Slave labor.
– Norfolk Southern:
Benefited from the labor of Slaves in constructing railroads.
– Tiffany and Co.:
Started with capital from a cotton mill that processed cotton picked by Slaves
-Brooks Brothers:
Sold clothing made from cotton harvested by Slave Labor.
It’s notable that Massachusetts was the first colony to legalize slavery in 1641, highlighting that the practice was not only a Southern institution but was embedded in the early history of Northern colonies as well.
The wealth accumulated through the Slave Trade has had a lasting impact on these institutions, contributing to their enduring prestige and financial stability. Many of these institutions are grappling with their histories and considering reparative measures.
Modern consumers and businesses may unknowingly engage with institutions that have historical ties to the Slave Trade. This raises ethical questions about accountability.
Acknowledging the North’s role in profiting from Slavery complicates the extremely simplistic narrative that vilifies the South while exonerating the North. It reveals a shared national complicity in the exploitation and suffering of those captured by Northern Slave Traders, not merely Southerners. Understanding this complexity is essential for an honest reckoning with American history of Slavery.
-cmcateer
The Old Revolutionary 