Harriet Tubman rescued slaves from the deep south and brought them to the free north… right?
It’s a subtle bit of US propaganda that that’s the impression American schoolchildren are given.
In actuality, in the prewar years, Tubman operated entirely within what later became the “northern side” in the Civil War—because the “free north” actually had several slave states of its own.
And the destination of many slaves wasn’t actually the free states at all. That’s the other bit of propaganda.
See, because the south was opposed to state’s rights (contrary to what they later claimed), southern legislators passed federal laws that required northern authorities to cooperate in hunting down and returning enslaved people to their owners.
So the only “really” safe place to go was Canada, especially to St. Catharines (right by Niagara Falls). Even Tubman herself lived in Canada for awhile.
Tubman was a badass and a hero, and I have nothing negative to say about her. My point is that the true story is that Tubman rescued slaves from the North and brought many of them to Canada, not that she rescued slaves from the backwards South and brought them to the enlightened North. Her story doesn’t reflect well on the northern US at all; her story is actually an illustration of how complicit the northern US was in protecting slavery.
Enter the singularly great John Brown. Who intuitively knew and dedicated himself to this as the great cause of his life, for which he gave it. Was a great admirer of Tubman naturally.
Brown consistently railed against Northern cowardice and indecisiveness regarding slavery.
On the morning of his execution Captain Brown accurately prophesied, “ I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood. I had, as I now think vainly, flattered myself that without very much bloodshed it might be done.”
Was a great admirer of Tubman naturally.
Dude, John Brown literally asked Harriet Tubman to come with him to attack Harper's Ferry. She actually helped him plan the attack and recruit soldiers for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Tubman#John_Brown_and_Harpers_Ferry
Our history textbooks are full of holes. Looks like a weasel burrowed through them.
If it makes the weasel happy let it have as many textbooks as it wants. Much better way to use them.
The more you look at the history from antebellum north to civil war to ‘reconstruction’ the more you realize how little the north really gave a shit about rights and freedom of slaves and black Americans. The north as a liberator is something it kind of fell into ass backwards and is greatly played up in retrospect but they definitely weren’t doing it on moral grounds.
The north was largely racist they just had their economic eggs in different baskets than the south and kind of thought the superior white man would just out-compete black Americans out of existence
Northern elites didn't think they'd outcompete slavery, they were dependent on it. If you've got a factory that processes cotton, you're not competing with slavery.
Meanwhile abolitionism was becoming increasingly popular among the working class, all the way up to the civil war. Even more people became abolitionists once the war meant seeing what slavery actually looked like.
Depends on who specifically Were talking about. There are quotes from people like Lincoln’s vp, talking about how black people won’t be able to compete with whites and basically how they’d fade out bc of completion whether returning to Africa or who knows what grim shit he thought.
Part of the industrialist industries in the north meant they weren’t reliant on slavery in that way and there was plenty of push to give those jobs to white people over blacks which is a whole other struggle people of color had to deal with even up there
My point is I wouldn’t paint the north as overwhelming concerned about being liberators, there was a wide range of stances on it. Surely there were people there who felt that way but I think there is a huge anti historical effort to play up how many were that is largely revisionist
I genuinely think that a great part of the reason the lost cause myths persist and take hold as much as they do is that its basically undeniable we don't teach or discuss the civil war in an honest way. Maybe in early elementary history class its enough to teach kids that the civil war was about the morally repugnant and indefensible institution of slavery but I have to believe by the highscool level its time to get into some fucking nuance and outline that the north and Lincoln's opposition to slavery was less outrage on behalf of our black brothers and sisters and more about the political and economic power slavery presented.
But oh no...can't have that, America has to always be the righteous heroes.
I remember being taught that the Underground Railroad was to Canada, but not that it operated in the North.
I think I remember the Canada part was optional, like it was less legal for bounty hunters/slave catchers the further north you went in general.
This reminds me of the time I found out Florida was actually under British rule during the American Revolution, but didn't join the 13 colonies because it was a state filled with former slaves and they'd kill the local authorities if the state tried to join an independent country with slavers at the head. Went to uni for history and only learned this randomly in my late twenties.
lol I went to go brush up on this and found a "Florida Humanities" website about Florida choosing the "wrong" side in the revolution. notably they do not mention the slaves as contributing to this decision
https://floridahumanities.org/decisions-and-destiny/
If you're interested in learning more, I can't recommend The Counter-Revolution of 1776: Slave Resistance and the Origins of the United States of America by Gerald Horne enough!
I've got that on my list. I also hear really good things about Reconstruction, America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 by Eric Foner.
Seminal work in the field for sure. I'd add Black Reconstruction by DuBois to that list, since Foner's work is heavily based on DuBois' thesis.
The Counter-Revolution of 1776 is actually pretty bad, here's a good article on how it's flawed, revisionist history.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/03/18/horn-m18.html
The trouble is this: Horne’s scholarship does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Horne’s work is worse than inaccurate: it is, in large measure, a work of fiction. His interpretation of source material is so inaccurate as to be fanciful: quotes are truncated to invert their meaning, sources are misattributed, and even elementary facts are misrepresented—or are just plain wrong.
Horne builds his argument around a few quotes from letters and newspapers, completely takes them out of context to fit his narrative. The American revolution was a bourgeoisie revolt against the remnants of feudal aristocracy in Britain. The abolitionist movement in Britain hadn't become mainstream enough to be considered a threat to slave colonies in America. Horn pins the main argument around the Somerset case, but there is little no evidence people in the US were concerned with the Somerset case. Also revolutionary fervour had been growing in Mass and the colonies years before the case was ruled.
I would definitely be interested in reading this, thanks for the link! I did get the sense that Horne was vastly overstating his case, but I think his point that much of the slave holding class was concerned about British intervention is well taken. Definitely not the main or even top three reason for the revolution as Horne makes it, though.
maybe in the USA, but in Canada the CBC made short vids that they showed during commercials about Tubman's underground railway heading to Canada.
We'd also learn it in history class, and it would be discussed during black history month assemblies. Of course the truer version is taught in Canada, we look like the good guys in it!
Exactly. We got our own sorrid history that they lied to us about :michael-laugh:
History classes directly lied and said she brought them to the Northern states
i remember the canada part. maybe when they said "brought them north" they just meant the direction. It was called the Union not "the north." it probably very much matters where you learned this stuff since education varies state to state, city to city.
I was definitely taught this. I think it’s pretty commonly taught that slave catchers worked in free states. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a northern state and like local history focuses a lot on Underground Railroad stops nearby.
Huh, good post. Like it, never knew this :stalin-approval:
So is this shift in education recent in the last decade or so? Cuss I was taught from my US history books (they were meh compared to what I eventually would read in college) that the only option for escaped slaves to flee to Canada.
It's also for the white drivers on plantations that cracked whips
