Month: February 2026

Categories
History

There Were No Slaves in the “Northern States”

American Civil War 1864 Map

By northern states, I mean states loyal to the United States of America during the Civil War. The answer is yes, there were slaves in the North. In fact, there were more than 450,000 in 1860. Eight northern states and Washington DC practiced slavery while the seven confederate states did so.

The reason was that the states each chose their path toward abolition, and each plan progressed at its own rate. It was much easier for many northern states because their land did not lend itself to plantations, and by the time of the Civil War, all tobacco and cotton plantations had moved to the south. The North could deal with the economic effects much easier than the South. Still, even while progressing on a plan, some states, such as Delaware, had not legally declared abolition of their slaves.

The South knew that abolition was coming, but its path was much more difficult economically. Still, the number of plantation owners was quite small compared to the overall population—but those were the people in the legislature.

As the South continued to look for a path out of slavery, the Civil War erupted and slavery was, of necessity, tabled because of the overall need for defense measures.

Meanwhile, the North’s virtue signaling intensified through the Abolitionists who did not take the North-South differences into consideration and demanded immediate abolition everywhere, although the South was elected to play the bogey-man.

Categories
History

Slaves Had No Protection against Cruelty

gavel

First, the accusation of cruelty to slaves is greatly overemphasized. Even in Uncle Tom’s Cabin there are kind masters and cruel masters. One of the best things in the DVD series North and South, in my opinion, is that it pointed out that cruel masters were cruel men—to everyone in their dominion, and that the North had its share of cruel masters in its industries.

Legally, every southern state had anti-cruelty laws to protect slaves (“servants”) by the early 1800s. Cruelty included abridgement of rights. Rights listed in these laws included:

  1. the right to marry
  2. the right to sue another and to give evidence in certain cases
  3. the right to have days off
  4. the right to hire themselves out
  5. the right to receive care from these temporary masters as from a permanent master
  6. the right to write up and sign their own work contracts
  7. the right to practice and receive religious instruction
  8. the right to receive food, clothing, shelter, and a small piece of land adjacent to the cabin to grow their own crops
  9. the right to receive care in times of illness, disability, and childbirth
  10. the right to child care until the child is old enough to work
  11. the right to be cared for in old age until death.

Please understand that these are laws and had to be popular enough to pass when voted on. Remember that until the Nat Turner Rebellion, black people were not only allowed but encouraged to read and write, as well as learn skills and professions that were open to them.

Were these laws enforced? Yes. There are records of warnings, fines, time served in jail, and one white person was shot! (I don’t know if he resisted arrest or was executed.)

I have to admit there were difficulties in enforcement, however. The idea that “a man’s home is his castle” was strong in the South, so neighbors did not interfere unless the cruelty was horrendous. Next, some plantations were as large as a European country and some were far from officers of the law. It would almost take an inspection—which was illegal without a complaint—to gather enough evidence against a white man to arrest him.

Do you see what is missing? I have not discovered anti-cruelty laws in northern slave states or Washington (D.C.).  And why do we hear no screams of protest against cruel slave masters in the north? It stretches credibility that they were all kind.

Categories
History

The United States Wallowed in the Slave Trade Longer Than Other Nations

colonial illustration

We had stated the belief that “all men are created equal.” After that, the Revolutionary War took all of our efforts. In 1782-1790, a wave of voluntary emancipation swept the states, but this was only encouraged by conscience, not law.

In 1794, the United States was the first country in the world to pass a law that impeded the slave trade. The building and outfitting of slave ships in American harbors was outlawed.

Yes, I know. This is a far cry from the emancipation of all slaves. But remember that gradual movement toward emancipation was by far the preference of the American people.

This law ended slavery for no one, but it immediately impacted the slave trade itself. American harbors were closed to building and outfitting slave vessels.

This immediately cut the demand for slaves in Africa, where slavery had increased exponentially because of foreign demand. It also cut American cruelty during the middle passage.

The only Americans who continued the trade had to buy and outfit ships in other harbors, which was an extreme nuisance. The American slave trade was almost erased without making slavery itself illegal.

What were other results within the United States?

Southern states were fine with the law. As would be seen in later years, there were plenty of slaves already in the South to procreate more for future needs.

New Englanders who were involved in the slave trade were screaming. They had been making fortunes in the slave trade: building and outfitting slave ships then running the slave trade in those ships. However, most New Englanders were not in the slave trade and approved the law.

Categories
History

Reconstruction Was the First Plan to Solve the “Negro Problem”

road to the future

Wrong again.

What to do about slavery and the resulting free Negroes was never far from the minds of the public and politicians.

Fernando Fairfax, a prominent Virginian, was the first known individual to write a proposal. It was called the “Plan for liberating the negroes within the united states.” (Notice the capitalization choices.) It is dated “Richmond March 6, 1790.” The text can be found in Encyclopedia Virginia.

Fairfax first reviews the arguments.

Pro-emancipation friends claim their basis on natural right and justice, considering this claim “paramount” to all other considerations. (This will be the stand of abolitionists of the Civil War era.)

The other party agrees with the claim of natural right and justice, but insists on a cohesive policy that also considers “the inconveniences which would result to the community and to the slaves themselves.” These included the right to property legally obtained at the time of purchase.

And in this explanation, we see the conflict of liberal and conservative thinking that continues today.

Liberals see in black and white, and can therefore demand something be done immediately. The results are always “unintended consequences.” Conservatives see in color, considering all shades of the problem. Therefore, they proceed slowly and often offer step by step solutions. They rarely see unintended consequences, because they have foreseen outcomes.

This is why our best government is when liberals and conservatives actually talk to each other. But liberals have no time for thoughtful consideration. They live in the present.

Fairfax next says that the general opinion is for gradual emancipation. So, there are few who agree that slavery should exist perpetually. As a conservative, Fairfax points out the unfairness and illegality of taking a person’s property by force or legislation. Therefore, the states would be required to reimburse the owners. We know that the states, at this point in time, were still struggling with debt incurred by the Revolutionary War and could not reimburse immediate emancipation.

Fairfax says that “it is equally agreed, that, if they be emancipated, it would never do to allow them all the privileges of citizens: they would therefore form a separate interest from the rest of the community.”

Fairfax provides no proof for that statement. He has not explored this from the black point of view at all.

He also states that the one thing that could form a common community would be intermarriage between whites and blacks. He asks which owner, upon freeing a male slave, would allow his daughter to marry that man.

This is faulty logic, but it does show white thinking that would exist in many places well into the 1960s. To Fairfax, this is the final determinant in his argument.

The Fairfax plan is gradually to emancipate slaves, first on a voluntary basis and then, as the states become financially secure, by reimbursement to the owners. All former slaves would be exported to a colony in Africa, to be governed by whites until the blacks show the educated ability to rule themselves thanks to schools established for that purpose.

Fairfax then repulses the argument that England tried this and failed by insisting that the plan did not accomplish the policy. From what Fairfax says, England failed because the slaves were not required to operate within a capitalistic society. What we know as a socialistic society failed, just as it did in the initial years at Jamestown, according to Fairfax.

This plan would actually remain the most popular choice among whites all the way to the Civil War and would be the personal opinion of Abraham Lincoln, as he stated himself on a number of occasions.

https://encyclopediavirgina.org/primary-documents/ferdinando-fairfax-plan-for-liberating-the negroes-within-the-united-states-december-1-1790