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.
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.
Added, thank you!
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
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.