The Truth Behind The Northern Role In American Slavery

Every February, America celebrates Black History Month, remembering the hardships, losses and successes of African-Americans throughout our history. America's involvement in slavery, particularly during the late 18th and 19th centuries, is draw back into the light. The infamous Civil War, a deadly battle between North and South to free the slaves. As most people remember it, the Northerners were the "good guys", with proper morals, always believing that slavery was wrong. But was that really how it always was? Were those living in the North always so against slavery that they were willing to wage a war for its abolition?

The answer to this question is twofold. The first step we took towards answering this question was looking into what role the North played in slave trade itself. The DeWolf family was one of the most powerful families in Bristol Rhode Island before the Civil War. They also held one of the biggest secrets. Despite the illegality of their actions, the DeWolfs managed to run the largest slave trading business in America's history, transporting over 10,000 slaves to America. This Northern family would trade rum, hats, fish and molasses for slaves from Ghana. From Ghana, the DeWolfs transported their newly acquired slaves to their plantations in Cuba. Here the slaves farmed sugar for the Dewolf distilleries in Bristol or were held until slave prices rose in the southern states. Clearly, Northerners weren't totally innocent when it came to playing a part in America's slave trade.

Well what about the rest of them? Surely not all Northerners supported slavery? Well, that assumption is correct. However, for a long time, they believed that the economic benefits of slavery outweighed the immorality of the situation. On August 21, 1835, two meetings were held in Boston and Lowell to declare their anti-abolitionist stances. The following names were published in a Lowell newspaper; they were all present at the anti-abolitionist in Lowell. They were all against abolitionism for one reason: the benefit of the economy.

There was a clear connection between the amount of cloth produced in the mills and the number of slaves in the South. In 1834, Lowell produced only 753,270 yards of cloth and the US Slave Population was 2,300,000. By 1858, the slave population had risen to 3,953,696 and the yards of cloth produced in Lowell had more than doubled to 2,394,000 yards. It was clear that, more slaves meant more cotton which meant more cloth could be made. This provided jobs for many people in New England and was a major source of income for the Northern states. Not only were the slaves important when it came to picking the cotton that supplied the mills up North, their owners would often buy the produced cloth in order to clothe their slaves. One plantation, the Evans Plantation in Louisiana, bought 2,164 yards of cloth during 1858 and 1859. 

The abolition of slavery would not only negatively impact the amount of cloth the mills could produce, it would also take away a considerable portion of the mills' customers. Therefore, the mill owners of the North were more against abolition than they were for it.

All of this being said, it does not mean that the Northerners thought the treatment of the slaves was morally right. An anti-abolitionist meeting was held in Lowell to discuss their stance on leaving Southern states alone. They claimed that they were maintaining the Southern states' Constitutional right to own property by allowing them to own slaves. They did, however say, "While we go for Southern Rights, we go against the Southern Lynch-Law, and Southern mobs, and Southern threats." Both abolitionist and non-abolitionist groups disapproved of the inhumane treatment of slaves in the Southern States.

While the Northerners may not have always been completely against slavery and willing to wage war for the freedom of the slaves, they never morally approved of slavery in the South. They did, however, depend on slavery to support their economy almost as much as Southern plantation owners did. This factor prevented them from acting on any of their moral disapproval of slavery.