Slavery: Not Just Something For The South

Slavery: Not Just Something For The South

Part XIII

While it's true that most cases of blacks owning blacks has centered around spouses buying spouses and children, I have often wondered why Southerners didn't pick up on this theme more. Perhaps because the evidence of it has been so deeply buried and quite frankly, Southerners spend so much of their time trying to defend their "farmer soldiers" that perhaps they don't have the time to delve into the cases of blacks owning blacks.
 
In the cases where I have seen it the blacks mention it so casually, without any hint of the "guilt" that slave owners are supposed to feel that the subject is just overlooked because there is so much else that can be heaped on Southerners.
 
But with more emphasis being placed now on what the North had been up to before the war, perhaps more historians will search more diligently to uncover slavery in all forms and also look to see who owned them without automatically thinking slavery was mostly a Southern "thing".

I would venture to say that in another 60-70 years there will be a wealth of information coming forth without that tinge of "do goodism" (I think I just made up a new phrase!) that we see in the writings now.
 
If more people would look at that era and come to terms with the fact that blacks were NOT looked at as equals by anyone in the world it would go a long way towards healing feelings in the United States.

 
Very early in the 1700s New York City's economic growth stemmed from ships heading to the Caribbean with loads of pork, lumber, beef, flour, corn:(N.Y.'s flour was considered the finest in all the colonies). In return equal numbers of ships came back loaded with sugar, molasses, & island products: cocoa, indigo, port, and Madeira.
 
Earlier in the century the census figures show the population: about 4,000 whites & about 600 blacks (most of the blacks were slaves). The percentage of slaves would grow, especially as commerce with the Caribbean increased in the decades that followed; but by 1712 slave ownership had already seeped into the culture of the New York colony.
 
Some of the richest men owned slaves: wealthy merchant Adolphus Philipe; a tradesman baker, Gysbert Vaninburgh; Thomas Stoutenburgh, bricklayer, and carpenter, Captain William Walton.

The bedrock of the city's burgeoning economy was slavery, and the labor of Africans who hauled wood, water, who worked on the waterfront, in warehouses, bakeries, and in cooperages making barrels and casks, was fundamental in making the young colony prosper.
 
1712: April 6, a few hours after midnight 2 dozen black men, many newly arrived from Africa, congregated in an orchard a few blocks from the East River. Most were Coromantees (named for the Coramantine slave fortress on the west coast of Africa, what is now Ghana). The Coramantees: exceptional workers, considered brave and warlike, were more in demand than other slaves. This evening they were living up to their reputation: preparing for battle.
 
They'd sworn a blood oath, dusted their clothes with a conjurer's magic powder, and armed themselves with axes, hatchets, guns, & pistols. While others watched, 2 set fire to an outhouse that belonged to the baker who owned one of them. The plan was to cut down the white men who came out to fight the fire, and then flee the city to freedom.
 
White men did rush out: 8 were slaughtered almost instantly--one was killed when his slave drove a knife into his chest---7 were wounded. Outnumbered, the Coramantees fled into local forests, thinking the witch doctor's dust made them invisible, but within a day, most were captured. Rather than be taken, 6 killed themselves, one Coramantee leader cutting his wife's throat before he cut his own.
 
When this threw the city into a panic, 70 blacks were arrested at once, and the Boston Weekly News-Letter said that the uprising had put the "whole town....under arms."
 
Gov. Robert Hunter said that the men had revolted against their masters in retaliation for "some hard usage." Of the 39 men indicted, 23 were convicted, and 19 of them were executed. None had received legal counsel.
 
Capital crimes called for hanging, but because a slave resurrection posed such a threat to the social order, courts had almost unlimited latitude in deciding punishment. Hunter knew the rebels couldn't get off lightly, the consequences of their acts must serve as a warning to other slaves.
 
Three slaves: Clause, Robin, and Quaco were found guilty of murdering Adrian Hoghlandt, Robin's master. Clause was tied to a wheel and, over a period of hours, his bones were smashed, one by one, with a crowbar, until he died. Robin was chained, strung up, and kept hanging without food or water until he died. Quaco was burned alive. Another slave, owned by Nicholas Roosevelt, was also burned alive, in a slow fire so that his death took hours.
 
Gov. Hunter, now satisfied that justice had been done, reprieved some of the others. "I am informed that in the West Indies where their laws against their slaves are most severe, that in the case of a conspiracy in which many are engaged a few only are executed as an example," he wrote to the Lords of Trade.
 
Even though Hunter had not flinched from inflicting horrible punishment he understood that the main problem in 1712 was not the slaves' rebellion, but slavery itself. "The Late Hellish Attempt of yor Slaves," he warned colonists showed they needed to stop importing Africans and build up the white working class. He predicted New York would contend with slave revolts as long as it had black slaves.
 
Most of the colonies, New York included, had lived with slavery from the earliest settlement. Fort George, also called Fort Amsterdam when the city was a Dutch colony, was built in the late 1620s with the labor of some of the very first slaves brought to the colony.
 
1712-1741 saw the number of slaves living in N.Y. more than doubled, and the laws curtailing their freedom got tougher. Brutal acts against blacks became more common, more acceptable, and families were routinely separated. 1735: A slave violated his curfew, was horse-whipped to death by his owner and an all-white jury declared the cause of death was not the beating but "Visitation by God!"

More slave markets, named after prominent city slave traders, sprang up on Wall Street near the East River; by 1741, one-fifth of the city's population consisted of black slaves--nearly 1,800 amid a total population of about 10,000. Blacks were one-third of the city's workforce; they were rapidly replacing its white indentured servants.

  Black men continued to gather illegally at taverns, "tippling houses" during their few leisure hours, despite the already-strict black codes. New York's small constabulary could only enforce the codes sporadically..
 
Let me say at this point that I believe there are certain segments of society who will deny to the bitter end that these things happened in "their" states.  But I am giving you evidence that it did.  It's a bitter pill to swallow but the South didn't just spring forth with millions of slaves.  They had to get here somehow, and along the way, they were used in other states too.
 
I, like you, don't believe the New England states, et al will ever WILLINGLY reveal the depth of their involvement in the slave trade. Why? Because it is much more pleasant to be thought of as the "Good Guys": the ones who brought you the Underground Railway, who tried valiantly for years to stop slavery.
 
They were still profiting from the slave trade in so many ways. And in truth, the harsh facts of slavery have been pushed so far into the backs of minds that it takes very little effort to simply wish them away and blame the South for all of it. It would be impossible to ignore the role of Northern states in slavery if they have ever been taught in school: whether in junior high, high school or college. The true facts, which involve names that still are quite prominent in this country & who made their fortunes on the backs of their black brethren should nudge a conscience or too.
 
With all the apologies being made by Southern politicians to gain the black vote it would certainly go a long long way to help ease that nagging "wart" that stands between the South and those who would look down their noses at her and snicker. Let's see: some have investments through the Lehman Brothers (think Smith/Barney among others), or you've seen Audrey Hepburn and wanted to buy something, anything from Tiffany's. Those gorgeous mansions that the rich and famous called summer homes that are now open to the public, with their 18 karat faucets, etc. were the "homes away from the summer heat" of the rich Biltmores, and others like them.
 
Frankly, I think it would help race relations if Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts, etc. would issue blanket statements of fact showing their involvement in the slave trade. Blacks would then understand that you have to be disgusted with other states besides just the Southern states. It's hard for me to understand why no one bothers to think: Gee, those slaves had to get here somehow! And the South didn't have ships. Also I would like to ask the average "man on the street" in Atlanta, Montgomery, or Nashville how do you think slaves came to the United States if the South had no ships?
 
More emphasis should also be placed on the fact that blacks in Africa sold their fellowmen without a backward glance. Furthermore, in this country there were blacks who owned blacks themselves.
 
For example, in the pre-Revolution years that I spoke of earlier, when Newport, Rhode Island launched 70 percent of all American slave ships, is this found in a single chapter of any school book anywhere in the United States? I don't believe so and if I'm wrong, I would gladly issue a blanket apology.

The Reverend Samuel Hopkins, one of his era's most famous theologians was one of the few who dared to preach against the slave trade. After the Revolution, on reflecting about his own state he had this to say: "The inhabitants of Rhode Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the greater share of this traffic, of all these United States. This trade in human species has been the first wheel of commerce in Newport, on which every other movement in business has chiefly depended." Surely, surely, this is as great a condemnation of a state as those issued unto this very day about the entire South, not just the plantation owners, who were but a small fraction of each state. Yet the South is continually bombarded with dwelling on slavery and the Northern states which benefitted equally well for the period of time they were involved get no P.R. constantly in every damned newspaper and apparently never will. Naturally, they're perfectly content to let this distorted version of history stand.
 
It would help tremendously if all the "put downs" stopped: the sit-coms that aren't the least bit funny to Southerners because they are filled with Bubbas, and their friends with obvious IQs of a house-fly. Why not dwell on the facts that are real: that the South has produced more beautifully written prose from a vast variety of authors than any other region of the United States.What other part of the country can claim as many Faulkners, Capotes, Weltys, Kings (MLK and Stephen), etc. per square inch.  I believe the South has also produced more Presidents of the United States.
 
Blacks are catered to by politicians in every conceivable way and in the learning process in our school system, it is absolutely to everyone's detriment to have each class course "dumbed-down" so that more kids will actually graduate. Never mind that some of these famous football/and or basketball players can't even READ, they graduated from high school and that's the important thing....or is it? What a disservice we do to children, especially when it's obvious all over this country that there are too many un-wed mothers, too many single parent households, and truly the saddest thing of all, at least in the South, is the black on black crime: gang violence where the leader of a gang (and I speak here about the entire United States) becomes a surrogate father to young blacks who have no father figure. And for all the mothers who drag their children into church at a young age desperately trying to keep them from joining gangs, no one bothers apparently to emphasize to these kids that once you're dead from a bullet, a knife, or any weapon at hand, you're still DEAD: you aren't coming back, you are gone, you're life is over and even your fifteen minutes of fame last just that: fifteen minutes. And like part of a news program I watched the other night, a young black boy who'd been brought up oh so carefully STILL managed to get himself killed by trying to protect a young girl on the forty-five minute bus ride to his grandparent's store: the only time of day that his mother or father were not with him or he was in school. The lyrics from a song he was writing haunt me, as they should haunt us all: "They won't stop until they see my mother grievin'".
 
Continuing with the chronology:
 
1863: The Emancipation Proclamation takes effect on Jan. 1, declaring slaves held in the Confederate States free. (Of course, since the South was no longer part of the Union, this didn't have any effect on the South. You'll notice Lincoln didn't free any slaves still held in the North. He didn't want to make those states mad. He needed them to fight against the Confederacy.) Draft rioters in New York City turn against blacks, killing scores and setting fire to the Colored Orphan Asylum.
 
Thus ends the chronology of the years pertinent before the WBTS, concluding with the Emancipation Proclamation. Any further participation on this thread would be appreciated. I know a lot of this material strikes a nerve but it's only the beginning;. I think if we are going to continue to carve up the Southern states, by all means, let's leave no stone unturned. At least on a message board such as this the entire truth should be told. This all happened so long ago. Why should anyone wish to leave all the blame at the South's doorstep when we all know it simply isn't true.
 
The South has accepted their "role" as whipping boy because of the massive push of the Civil Rights Movement and politicians in the South are so eager for the black vote that very very few will say the slightest thing. At the very least it could be told, I believe, without fear of losing votes, that in the 1800s everyone was a racist. Even Lincoln stated that he would prefer that his own race be superior . He also had a pipedream of getting all the blacks completely out of this country and transporting them to a place "more suited to them", a tropical climate. AND he also stated that he wanted to open up the new territories for free white men.
 
If the truth about ALL the states had been told a long time ago perhaps we wouldn't have the idiocy of slavery apologies now. Personally apologizing for something I didn't do to people who didn't have anything done to them borders on lunancy and only underscores the need for REAL race relations, not this constant harping on the South. What was done is over with, but we are still living with the aftermath. And if we're going to do that, then I think it best that we ALL live with every last bit of it, not just the South!
 
Slavery was a national sin, this is certainly true, although most history books don't write very much about Northern involvement. And if, as you seem to think, I have lopped off large chunks of history to make a point, then it must also be true that the points that I am making have been lopped off FOR YEARS. I say this because it seems that some readers here are enjoying hearing this "side of the story". Actually it sounds as if they have never heard these things before. I wonder why.
 
In the past it has always appeared that the South was disproportionately at fault concerning slavery.
I disagree with this because this began within the North, the North profitted from it, and continued to do so for many many years. But nobody ever wants to dim the "shining star" that is represented as the North in most books.
 
Also I notice that certain  quotes here are usually a "black eye" for the South but never the North. Would that be called lopping off large portions of history or merely presenting your own point of view? Also, wouldn't it be easier to put several quotes in one post or is this done so that it would appear that certain people on this board post a lot more than others?  Rather I see these one- line quotes from newspapers that decidely show only the "South" in a disfavorable light. (You have a perfect right to your one-liners and I have a perfect right to present my quotes, too, it just seems easier to write two or three quotes at once rather than one at a time.

Of course if that is the preferred way to post quotes here and I didn't know that, I apologize profusely.  Indeed, in future, I will post one liners.  I just thought that for people on isps like AOL it just clutters up their mail box and something really important (like family business) might get thrown out because of all these quotes.

By Allen (Piewacket1861) He is member in the forum