I’m barely old enough to remember when we drove to Florida once, and at a gas station in Alabama the washroom door said “Whites Only”. Being from Canada, which was very white at the time, I had no clue what that meant until my dad explained it.
The idea of slavery in ancient times had a certain sense. In the good old days (like Roman times) there was no welfare, there was no social safety net. Slavery for some was the slave-driving work-to-death we imagine, for others it was just a means to ensure that everyone was fed and house by someone, so as to avoid the sort of desperate street-people mob that could be the result. Many laws about slaves were written to prevent that result.
The North had slaves - but it was seen as “not good” and even by 1800 was on the way out. Massachusetts for example between 1783 and 1790 effectively eliminated slavery. But it was never a useful arrangement for agriculture or industry, the way it was in the South, so it was not a critical part of the states’ social arrangements, and there was never anywhere near the level of slave population found in the South - although freed and escaped slaves were allowed to live free. (Not to say they were embraced as equals - nobody was free of racism and xenophobia).
Jim Crow is another good example - I spend many times in places like New York and never saw “Whites Only” signs. I suspect there were some, and there was social pressure enforced segregation in many cases, but it was not the institution enforced by laws and signage the way it was in the south, AFAIK. (I am open to correction). I assume much of the more egregious exampled arrived with the migration north of freed slaves at the turn of the century.
The central question of this discussion, however, is to what extent did anti-black racism direct the social and political activity of the states? My suggestion is that it was not the front-of-mind issue in the North, especially at the time of the Revolution, that the 1619 Project book suggests. That it was the preoccupation of the Southern states, I have no doubts. .
I’m pretty sure my parents, aunts, uncles who grew up with Jim Crow would vehemently disagree with you. This thread is still in “Factual Questions” so I would love to see some evidence that no one cared about segregation and instead everyone decided all at once to change laws out of the kindness of their hearts.
It also ignores the massively contentious disputes about the legitimacy of slavery that continued to rage in the US from its founding right up through the Civil War, especially in the North.
Even after slavery had been outlawed in northern states, there was still profound disagreement about whether southern states should be allowed to continue permitting it.
topologist–historian saying that about 18th century Bill Clinton who was known to sleep with married and single women, Black or White–Really? too “feminine”?
? Are you questioning Topologist’s claim that for a long time many historians denied that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings? Because right there in Topologist’s link it says:
However ready you personally might be to believe that Thomas Jefferson was more sexually promiscuous/adulterous than Bill Clinton and Donald Trump combined, the fact remains that a lot of people in the past were very unwilling to consider it credible, due to their belief in Jefferson’s “integrity”.
and theres ample documentation of a whole industry in the north that helped logistically support slavery like wholesale clothing ads where you could buy 200 pairs of cheap no quality overalls and dresses and companies that shipped low-quality food items like dried meat and such
“Well known” to some, at least in the sense of “strongly and credibly believed although without conclusive documentary evidence”, but nonetheless vehemently denied by others.
AFAICT the denial of the Jefferson-Hemings connection goes back as far as the first rumors about the Jefferson-Hemings connection.
So many businessmen in the north put profits ahead of principles. Again, I’m sure glad we don’t do that today.
Again, someone making a profit off of something reprehensible does not mean they wholeheartedly support its moral basis. I doubt many sex workers think it is a noble profession that should come out of the shadows, for example.
Perusing a list of presidential elections - for example, 1808 the controversy was the Embargo Act against the European powers, the impressment of American sailors by Britain - which was significant to the trade in the north. 1812, there was a war and northerners had designs on expansion into Canada. By 1816 there was the national bank, protective tariffs, and the peace treaty finalized in 1815.
It was by 1820 that slavery became a major dispute - the status of Missouri became an issue, and the free vs. slave issue became important in American national politics. But that does not mean it mattered inside the northern states which by then had effectively ended slavery.
That’s a hell of a jump you’re making there from “slavery was not one of the three or four most important issues in US national elections before 1820” to “slavery didn’t matter inside northern states”. The former does not imply the latter.
This study by itself does not establish that Hemings’s father was Thomas Jefferson, only that Hemings’s father was a Jefferson. …There remained eight out of the twenty-five for whom age and proximity warranted further documentary investigation. These include Randolph Jefferson and his five sons (Isham, Thomas, Jr., Field, Robert, and Lilburne) as well as two grandsons of Field Jefferson (George and John Garland Jefferson). While each of these individuals had some interaction with Thomas Jefferson and some spent time at or in the vicinity of Monticello, most had no documented presence at Monticello during the times when Sally Hemings conceived her children
So, other fathers are possible- but comparing diaries and such, Thomas is the most likely. However, there is no certainty. Saying Thomas Jefferson is the most likely Jefferson is correct. But one can argue several other possibilities without being a crank.
I have to disagree about the “Revolution” part, or at least post-Revolution. Slavery was very important throughout the Constitution framing (note the 3/5 man designation of Blacks)
while there may not have been “White only” signs, in the 1930-1970s the Midwest and California had restricted covenants that prevented you from selling or renting to Blacks, Jews, etc
My point was that the 1619 Project purports that slavery was a major and driving issue in the entire USA at the time of the framing of the constitution and for years afterward. I’m suggesting that for the northern states, it was one of many issues and not the foremost one, not “it did not matter”. The elimination of slavery (by steps) does not have appeared to excite a great deal of discussion in the North at that time.
Obviously, slavery was a really big deal to the south. Really big deal. So the northern states compromised. The fact that they even settled on a lesser number suggests the north was not willing to accept the same point of view as the south. However, the states needed to stick together or Britain might return to pick them off one by one so a compromise was called for.
According to her son Madison’s memoir, Hemings became pregnant by Jefferson in Paris. She was about 16 at the time.
According to Madison Hemings, Sally’s first child died soon after her return from Paris.
Sally was Jefferson’s daughter’s maid (or whatever) and accompanied her to Paris for 2 years. She returned to America from Paris (where she was legally free) on condition any of her children all be freed at age 21.
That arrangement suggests that (a) Jefferson had a reason to treat her special, and (b) she expected to have more children that Jefferson would also treat special. Plus, (c) it’s unlikely that all the other possible culprits were around when Jefferson was in Paris. We start the story with a 44-year-old widower and a lively 15yo in a foreign country - what do we think happened? Also, in case Jefferson was a lingering racist, Sally was 3/4 white and looked a lot like his late wife, according to reports. Not surprising, considering her father was also Jefferson’s late wife’s father.
To quote O Henry - “The race is not always to the swiftest, nor the contest to the strongest… but that’s the way to bet.” Occam would agree.
Whoah. If I may be so bold as to offer more information on the previous attribution, I just Googled it because I thought it was by Damon Runyon The original non-cynical version is from Ecclesiastes 9:11, but the more current version…