Saturday, June 20, 2015

On the Book, "Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery" by Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jennifer Frank

I dare anybody to read this book (and/or listen to its authors) and continue to say that the North was the more enlightened and more innocent region of the country during the slavery era. I double-dog dare ya'.......And, no, BB, it wasn't penned by southerners (who you could call, "neoconfederates") but by a trio of my fellow nutmeggers.

5 comments:

Rational Nation USA said...

The implication being the south was the innocent and enlightened region?

BB-Idaho said...

Certainly in colonial times, New England was the home to slave traders/sailors
and N. cotton merchants indirectly profited from the practice of mass slavery in
the south. We note however, that the north banned slavery: VT-1777, PA-1780, MA &NH-1783, CT & RI 1784, NY-1799 and NJ-1804 and that congress banned slavery in the
NW territories (what became the upper Midwest) in 1787. These dates are at or shortly after the conclusion of the revolutionary war. There are a number of reasons, such as no plantations in the north, racial prejudice, simple humanity, mfg, etc and probably some combination thereof. Whatever their past and whatever their reasons, the North became entrenched after the Fugitive Slave Act. After the Nat
Bacon slave rebellion in VA, that state's legislature came very close to banning
slavery. But they did not, and history moved on. (yeah, Will, that book is popular
among the neo-rebs. I guess they can point fingers a bit.)

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

No, Les, just that both regions were racist (states like Indiana wouldn't even let black people enter).............And the north benefited from slavery well past the colonial era, BB; bankers, textile manufacturers that needed cotton, shipping, etc. - to the point that New York City even considered seceding itself. And there was slavery in NY and NJ past the dates that you mentioned. It was just called something else.

Rational Nation USA said...

No one with their wits about them would say racism didn't exist absence instutionalzed sanctioned slavery.

BB Idaho is right though about the neo rebs.

As they continue to fly the Confederate Battle Flag high in South Carolina.

BB-Idaho said...

In defense of the "nutmeggers" we civil war buffs would note that Connecticut sent
55,000 volunteers to fight for the USA-30 infantry regiments, 3 artillery units and even a cavalry regiment. (2 of the regiments were all black) 4,000 of those gave their lives in the Civil War. Connecticut produced Andrew Foote, the naval officer
critical to Grant's capture of Forts Donelson & Henry, General John Sedgewick, the
highest ranking Union officer killed (while commanding VI Corps, right after he
admonished his staff "why are you ducking, they couldn't hit an elephant from there"
at the battle of Spotsylvania.
General Joseph Mansfield led the XII Corps at Antietam, where he was killed leading
from the front. IMO, Connecticut school kids should know that the 14th Connecticut regiment began with over 1000 men, fought in several major battles and by the time
they were sent into the line at Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg there were only 165
left to line up against Pickett's charge. Down to 100 men, the 14th became the first US civil war regiment to have replacements, a bunch of volunteers from New
Haven county. So, unless you are a big Nathan Bedford Forrest and Quantrill's Raiders fan, don't be so hard on your state.