Slave labor in NYC

[Crow]

When we think of slavery in the US, New York City isn't usually the first thought that springs to mind. This afternoon a long forgotten African burial ground in New York City is being dedicated as a national monument. Because the people in this graveyard weren't considered terribly important, their graves were built upon, ironically preserving their remains for future generations to examine. Some of the things that have been noted are that the Africans enjoyed far better health in "heathen Africa" than they did on American soil. Slave children born in this country were rife with physical retardation associated with inadequate food and being used for hard labor before their bodies were mature enough to withstand the rigors.

A couple of links for those interested in this aspect of American history~

http://newyork.tribe.net/event/NYC-Memorial-Dedication-African-Burial-Ground-National-Monument/new-york-ny/14804373-d17e-48d9-a941-29e36afb1f4b


http://www.huarchivesnet.howard.edu/0008huarnet/blakey8.htm

[Teallaura]

Actually, that's because we've sterilized Northern history - we teach very little about the history of slavery unless it concerns the antebellum South. Few know that Wall street originally housed a slave market - even fewer about the insurrection hysteria of 1741 (http://www.carman.net/the_dark_side.htm) - hysteria that made Salem look sane in comparison (to be fair, this wasn't something I'd known of previously, either).

Every nation on earth - and every region of our fair land - has a darkness in their past. Injustices and evils have occurred throughout history in every spot on Earth and in every people, race, nation and even creed. We shouldn't sterilize any of it but neither should we wallow in the falsity of 'sack cloth and ashes' for our ancestors. Our job isn't to whitewash their sins, or to condemn every past sin. Our job is to deal with our own sins - to try to do better than our ancestors but more importantly to strive to be better than our natures.

Condemning the past is easier than learning from it.

[Crow]

I know that there were slaves in PA from family history. One of my great, great (about 3 or 4 greats here--too lazy to drag out the papers) grand uncles was read out of meeting (Quaker, which he apparantly rarely attended anyway) for possessing a slave. I think it was when he wanted to marry her to legitimize his two kids that might have been the final straw.

It existed, we moved away from it, and hopefully we learned to never repeat it. No one living today bears either the responsibility for slavery nor owns any credit for ending it.

[Teallaura]

There were probably no slaves in our family history but there's no actual record one way or the other. The reason I think probably not is our family never had any records of any large land holdings. Slaves weren't common outside the plantation system so while there could have been it's not as likely.

Not that it matters - my family tree has a dark enough side.

[Crow]

Yup. That's kinda why slavery didn't take hold in the North. There were anti slavery folks in the South as well as the North, but slavery wasn't as economically feasable up here.

Had the Civil War not taken place, I believe that slavery would have died out in the South as well. That's one that you can argue either way, but with mechanization begining to take over some of the heavy labor slaves would have become less of an asset over time. It's the same reason you don't see people farming with horses often. One tractor can do the job more cheaply than the number of horses that would be required to produced the same amount of work.

[rogue06]

I remember reading awhile back that at one time New York City had the second highest per capita of slaves of any city in the country outside of Charleston, South Carolina.

[The Curtmudgeon]

There were probably no slaves in our family history but there's no actual record one way or the other. The reason I think probably not is our family never had any records of any large land holdings. Slaves weren't common outside the plantation system so while there could have been it's not as likely.

That's not quite exact, Teal. House slaves were very common even where there were not plantations involved. Of course, when I say "very common" I mean to restrict that to a certain range of wealth, as it costs money to buy, house, feed & clothe slaves, so you had to be in a certain wealth range, but it didn't have to be "plantation-wealthy". Even at the height of the Antebellum South, the majority of slave owners owned 5 or fewer slaves.

Of course, even at the height of the Antebellum South, the majority of Southerners were not slave owners. Very few people today seem to realise that. Too many people take Gone with the Wind as being typical of the Antebellum South, with every house a Tara and every family holding a dozen or more house servants and scores of field hands (no, Teal, I'm not saying that's true of you).

I remember reading awhile back that at one time New York City had the second highest per capita of slaves of any city in the country outside of Charleston, South Carolina.

I've recently finished reading a two-volume history, The Road to Disunion by William W. Freehling. Volume 1, in particular, which covers the period 1776-1854 (the second volume covers "only" the period 1854-1861 and is still just as thick!), talks about the existence and extent of slavery in the Northern states, but of course most of them had eliminated slavery prior to the Civil War crisis of the 1860s. Since the main topic of that history is disunion, rather than slavery per se, it doesn't talk a lot about Northern slavery, but it does give some statistics for comparison purposes, and it especially talks about the process(es) that those states took in eliminating slavery (comparing them to processes that were discussed and rejected by Southern states). It was very interesting reading.

The (Freehling, btw, is a Southerner himself, and has won the Jefferson Davis Award for some of his Civil War histories [he's written extensively on it], but he's not pro-Confederacy) Curtmudgeon

[Teallaura]

That's not quite exact, Teal. House slaves were very common even where there were not plantations involved. Of course, when I say "very common" I mean to restrict that to a certain range of wealth, as it costs money to buy, house, feed & clothe slaves, so you had to be in a certain wealth range, but it didn't have to be "plantation-wealthy". Even at the height of the Antebellum South, the majority of slave owners owned 5 or fewer slaves.

Of course, even at the height of the Antebellum South, the majority of Southerners were not slave owners. Very few people today seem to realise that. Too many people take Gone with the Wind as being typical of the Antebellum South, with every house a Tara and every family holding a dozen or more house servants and scores of field hands (no, Teal, I'm not saying that's true of you).

...Which was why I said 'system' not 'plantations'. The South's economy was largely built on the plantation/cotton and its supporting occupations (everything from suppliers to export proper and one heck of a lot of commercial freight transport) - which was where you would find most of the wealth associated with slave ownership including that not directly on a plantation. Basically, there was a reason it was called King Cotton. Since wealth and land holdings are also closely tied (both as cause and effect) a lack of land wealth is an indicator of a lack of slave holding of either type.

[Teallaura]

Yup. That's kinda why slavery didn't take hold in the North. There were anti slavery folks in the South as well as the North, but slavery wasn't as economically feasable up here.

Had the Civil War not taken place, I believe that slavery would have died out in the South as well. That's one that you can argue either way, but with mechanization begining to take over some of the heavy labor slaves would have become less of an asset over time. It's the same reason you don't see people farming with horses often. One tractor can do the job more cheaply than the number of horses that would be required to produced the same amount of work.I agree. Plus slave uprisings did happen (albeit rare). Giving a tractor to a slave was probably not gonna be in your longterm best interest...