Customer Reviews

North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

North of Slavery marked the first comprehensive scholarly effort to explore the meaning of race in the northern states before the Civil War. It many ways, it remains -- almost forty years after its publication -- the single best starting point for examining the lives of Northern free blacks. It focuses on a region traditionally neglected by other studies of race relations, a problem being rectified in the scholarship only now. Challenging the myth of the North as a bastion of racial liberalism, Litwack portrays a North beset by segregation, racial pogrom, legal stricture, and -- above all -- a system of informal proscription which rendered black people there anything but "free." Written during the early stages of the Civil Rights Movement, the book had a chilling and prophetic understanding of the struggles which would confront the CRM as it moved out of the South and into the nation. North of Slavery was, and still is, a stunning antidote to the attitudes of those who tell themselves "it doesn't happen here." As is his style, Litwack peppers his history liberally with compelling first-hand accounts; the writing is exceptional: clean, hard-hitting, dark, compelling, and courageous.

Published in 1961, time and events have aged Litwak's rhetoric somewhat, but his approach to antebellum racial matters is still historically valid and highly readable. It is a must for Civil War students, although you should balance it with other views. (P. J. Staudenraus's The African Colonization Movement puts a slightly different hue to that 19th century movement, inane though such thinking seems today.) I am bothered, however, by Litwak's approach because I am always bothered by activists who allow their personal views to creep into their work. (I also know how tough it can be to prevent it from happening.) UC Berkley trained and still teaching there today, Litwak could hardly epitomize even a moderate approach, much less conservatism. Interviews and stories about him show that even today his classes retain a '60s radical flavor (although this book predates all that.) Nonetheless, he is a good historian who has his facts straight if not always balanced. He does attempt on occasion to be fair and balanced, as when he points out that Frederick Douglass was as prejudiced toward Irish and Catholics (the former inevitably implying the latter) as whites were to him. A book of this nature tends to ring a negative tone by its nature. It always risks unfairly criticizing white men for holding attitudes of a bygone era. His book-closing, one-sided critique of Abraham Lincoln, while not offering one untrue statement, can be and often has been debated. Whatever you may think, read this book.

This book is a remarkably readable and documented narrative on slavery in the North. As one learns US history in school as a child, one is led to believe in the evil of the south and the abolitionist good of the north. This book will shed much needed light on the role that slavery played in the north. It will demystify preconceived ideas of the past, and provide valuable insight on the enduring character of the northern states in the present.
We had borrowed and read this book before, and it was so good we had to get it again.

No one could take pleasure from reading the disgraceful statistics of racism in America, but sometimes one must read unpleasant truths. Honest recognition of our national guilt is, I think, a necessary preliminary to becoming the beacon to the world that we proclaim ourselves to be.
I read this book decades ago in college, and again this week. It's still a classic, a starting point for more recent studies in African-American history.

This is an excellent book. Professor Leon Litwack documents his assertions with footnotes throughout his book.

One learns:

a. At times slavery existed in the North prior to 1860.

b. In the North, Negroes were usually not allowed to:

1. vote and/or
2. serve on juries where a white person was involved as one of the parties, and/or
3. attend schools, at higher and lower education, and/or
4. own land, and/or
5. engage in professions, and/or
6. etc.

c. There was an anti-fugitive law (I believe it was federal) in which Negroes could be reclaimed by whites as slaves.

d. Segregation by law was generally the rule.

It is a sad chapter in this country's history. I find it interesting that many politicians such as Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas stated that Negroes were an inferior race. If Negroes had been granted the same rights and opportunities as whites then the Negro's way of life would have been very much improved. This would have changed the perceptions of the white man that the Negroes were of an inferior race. Racism was the cause of the Negroes being inferior. The white man, including the great Abraham Lincoln, had circular reasoning.

This book is decidedly current, brilliantly lucid, extremely well researched.

That it was written in the 1960s is irrelevant. [Ignore reviews that claim it matters.]

It is, and certainly was, an antidote to the Orwellian "Ministry of Truth" historical lies spewed by the Dunning school of unethical whitewash and denial.

All Americans should read "North of Slavery."

Leon F. Litwack's "North of Slavery" was originally published in 1961. The book deals with the position of Blacks in those US states that had abolished slavery.

It's not a very pretty story.

Blacks in the North were, of course, free. Despite this, their freedom was limited by racist legislation, negative public opinion and adverse economic conditions. In many states, Blacks weren't considered citizens. They were not allowed to testify against a White person in court, which meant that Whites could mistreat Blacks with impunity. Only a few Northern states allowed Blacks to vote. When the franchise was extended to all White males, Blacks were often stripped of their right to vote. Even the free states had "Jim Crow" legislation segregating street cars, railway carriages or steamers. De facto, most of Northern society was segregated in this fashion. White mob violence was frequent, educational opportunities slim to non-existent, and it was often impossible to find other than menial jobs. White labour unions saw Blacks as competitors, enemies and scabs, and often refused to co-operate with them. Even churches segregated or excluded Blacks, eventually leading these to form their own denominations. Some Blacks escaped racist oppression in the United States by moving to Canada.

Interestingly, Blacks tended to support the more "patrician" political parties: Federalists, Whigs and Republicans. The more plebeian Democrats were associated with the slave-holding South, popular racism and disenfranchisement of Blacks. However, no White political party was consistently anti-racist. Many Northern opponents of slavery wanted the new Western states to be "free" in the sense of being reserved for Whites! Lincoln, who eventually became the Great Emancipator, originally called for the total separation of the two races and the removal of all Blacks (or all free Blacks?) to Central or South America.

"North of Slavery" tells the story of life under the North Star in great detail, and the book is filled with appalling examples of racism, including bizarrely prejudiced quotes from various contemporary White sources. Naturally, Southern politicians used the racist sentiments in the North as proof of Northern hypocrisy. They had a certain point, although it's less clear in what way this justified their own conduct (which was even worse).

The author ends his story shortly before the Civil War, when the tide had begun to turn. The Dred Scott decision led to an upsurge of pro-Black, anti-Southern sentiment in the North. The Civil War inaugurated a new period in the history of American race relations, albeit one that would prove to be short-lived: Radical Reconstruction.

But that is another story.

The condescending down-their-nose racism and bigotry of the Yankee-b@st@rds is exposed as it really is. Then and now.

Nothing very special about this book. It was more of an encyclopedia rather than a history book. Leon F. Litwack failed to state his opinions which most history books contain. There isn't nothing else to write about since it was just like an encyclopedia but with more words. There is interesting facts here though. If readers are interested in the life of slavery before the civil war, this is the right book for you.