Because of the fact that the North ended slavery soon after the Revolution and fought for emancipation in the Civil War, one would think that the North was opposed to racism and saw blacks as equals. Although the North realized the paradox between fighting for freedom and enslaving blacks, it is inaccurate to say that the North didn’t have anti-black sentiments. Even people who were against slavery still thought that blacks an inferior group of people. According to In Hope of Liberty, blacks were “a society regarded as particularly vulnerable to social disorder” (Horton 101). Also, some people “who had supported immediate emancipation…later feared that ‘many [free blacks were] in a far worse condition than when they were slaves, being incapable of providing for themselves the means of subsistence’” (101).
Many laws prevented blacks from voting, testifying in court, or holding public office. Other laws tried to restrict the number of blacks that came into their state, going so far as to threaten lashings and bondage for any black that tried to permanently live in the state. Some Northern states, such as Ohio, gave fines to companies that hired black workers. They thought that blacks were bad for the economy because they were a drain to welfare systems. However, this was a self-fulfilling belief, because the economic sanctions against blacks caused them to not have a job, thus causing them to drain the welfare system. Another justification for these laws (and for the belief that blacks were inferior), was the fact that blacks represented a large majority of criminals in jail. Whites used this as evidence that blacks were more prone to criminal behavior. However, this, too, is a self-fulfilling belief. “…The racially restricted system of employment practically guaranteed that many free blacks would become poor, dependent and, perhaps, criminal” (110). If it weren’t for the suppression of blacks and the low-income jobs that they were forced to take, perhaps blacks wouldn’t have been so poor and wouldn’t have felt the need to steal in order to sustain themselves. Sure enough, “the most common crimes were inextricably linked with poverty” (108).
In fact, the North benefited from slavery in the South, even though they denounced it. As slavery helped the South grow and cultivate cotton, slavery helped the cotton mills in the North that produced and sold the cotton. A part of the reason that the North started to push for abolition in the South is because they were afraid that the South would start to outperform them economically by building, for instance, cotton factories near the cotton fields. Since the South had a practically endless supply of free labor, the idea of the North of being passed up was very possible. Another reason for the North’s opposition to slavery is because they resented the enormous power that the South had in Congress because of the 3/5 act. If the slaves weren’t citizens and had no rights, why should they have representation in Congress? Although some opposed slavery on a racial and judicial basis, many opposed it for personal economic and political reasons. Thus, the idea that the Northerners, even after emancipation in their states, were “color blind” is incorrect.
I also found it interesting that Northerners were against slavery for mostly economic reasons, rather than moral or religious. Having been raised in the South, I got a very one-sided view in high school of slavery, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement. Growing up in the South and attending Southern public schools, I heard and learned a lot about what happened to former slaves in the South and all the obstacles they had to overcome in the fight for civil rights, but no one ever really focused on what was going on for former slaves in the North. It was easily assumed that people in the North were against slavery simply because owning other human beings is morally wrong, since no other alternative was taught. This class, and particularly this reading from "In Hope of Liberty," proved incredibly informative and made me realize the gaps that needed to be filled in with respect to this subject.
ReplyDeleteNow being an economics major, it is easy for me to see why the North was ok with slavery existing in the South since they benefitted from it. However, it is even easier to understand the North’s reasons to take on the South in the Civil War since competition with Southern industry would ruin Northern industry and business: higher labor costs in the North meant less production and less profit, and literally no labor costs in the South meant higher production and higher profits.
I couldn't agree with your first sentence more. And I think that's the reason why I wrote on this. The North, in history textbooks that I've read, is portrayed as the heroic and just region where everyone was treated equally. But in reality, the North was guilty of racism as well. And I think that many Northerners were more interested in the effects of slavery on them as businessmen than they were in the rights of blacks. That's not to say that churches and women's groups didn't oppose slavery from a religious standpoint. But that is to say that the reasons that ultimately made slavery such a huge debate related to economic and political power.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason that racism in the North prevailed was due to blacks in the North being more passive because they were already technically free. Since racism was more prevalent in the South due to slavery, there was more resistance against the oppression of blacks. Therefore, after the Civil War and during the modern civil rights movement, people were only caught up in the racial injustices of the South; no one was worried about the North because they were mostly “free” blacks. While people in the South fought against segregation in schools and restaurants, it became worse in the North because no one was protesting it. Free blacks in the North did support the movement in the South but they were not expanding and bringing it to the North like they needed to in order to achieve racial equality.
ReplyDeleteYou defiantly bring up a bunch of good points. I can remember when I was young and my class first learned about the Civil War. We were always taught that the North was the 'good' side that successfully fought against slavery. Another irony that I thought of while reading your post was about the connection between Northern slave owners and their slaves. We talked in class about how many times slaves had the opportunity to work closely to doctors, lawyers and other skilled labors in the north. This allowed them to become more skilled in their work and gain a better relationship with their owners. It almost made it seem like being a slave in the North was more along the lines of being an intern.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a very important and I think often overlooked aspect of African American life in the North. I definitely also fall into the category that Meredith mentioned earlier. I was also raised in the South and in my history classes we did not talk at all about blacks living in the North. All that I was ever told was that North opposed slavery in the war. Of course, this being the only information I ever received on the subject, I believed that the North was a wonderful, tolerant sanctuary for blacks because everyone in the North believed that blacks should be free. However, we have obviously learned that this is not the case, and the same ideologies that existed about blacks in the South, existed in the North as well. The reason for the North's stance against slavery was almost purely to prevent the South from becoming to economically powerful. It seems like almost every decision that has been made on the issue of slavery can be traced back to economics. I sincerely doubt that the institution of slavery would have lasted at all if it had not been so incredibly beneficial for America economically.
ReplyDelete