Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery


$16.20 $18.00 Save 10% Current price is $16.2, Original price is $18. You Save 10%.
View All Available Formats & Editions
Choose Expedited Shipping at checkout for guaranteed delivery by Thursday, February 20
22 New & Used Starting at $3.16


Slavery in the South has been documented in volumes ranging from exhaustive histories to bestselling novels. But the North’s profit from–indeed, dependence on–slavery has mostly been a shameful and well-kept secret . . . until now. In this startling and superbly researched new book, three veteran New England journalists demythologize the region of America known for tolerance and liberation, revealing a place where thousands of people were held in bondage and slavery was both an economic dynamo and a necessary way of life.

Complicity reveals the cruel truth about the Triangle Trade of molasses, rum, and slaves that lucratively linked the North to the West Indies and Africa; discloses the reality of Northern empires built on profits from rum, cotton, and ivory–and run, in some cases, by abolitionists; and exposes the thousand-acre plantations that existed in towns such as Salem, Connecticut. Here, too, are eye-opening accounts of the individuals who profited directly from slavery far from the Mason-Dixon line–including Nathaniel Gordon of Maine, the only slave trader sentenced to die in the United States, who even as an inmate of New York’s infamous Tombs prison was supported by a shockingly large percentage of the city; Patty Cannon, whose brutal gang kidnapped free blacks from Northern states and sold them into slavery; and the Philadelphia doctor Samuel Morton, eminent in the nineteenth-century field of “race science,” which purported to prove the inferiority of African-born black people.

Culled from long-ignored documents and reports–and bolstered by rarely seen photos, publications, maps, and period drawings–Complicity is a fascinating and sobering work that actually does what so many books pretend to do: shed light on America’s past. Expanded from the celebrated Hartford Courant special report that the Connecticut Department of Education sent to every middle school and high school in the state (the original work is required readings in many college classrooms,) this new book is sure to become a must-read reference everywhere.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9780345467836
Publisher: Random House Publishing Group
Publication date: 08/15/2006
Edition description: Reprint
Pages: 304
Sales rank: 271,770
Product dimensions: 5.55(w) x 8.22(h) x 0.68(d)

About the Author

Anne Farrow, Joel Lang, and Jenifer Frank are veteran journalists for The Hartford Courant, the country’s oldest newspaper in continuous publication. Farrow and Lang were the lead writers and Frank was the editor of the special slavery issue published by Northeast, the newspaper’s Sunday magazine.

Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham is the Victor S. Thomas Professor of History and of African and African American Studies at Harvard University. She is co-editor with Henry Louis Gates, Jr., of African American Lives.

Read an Excerpt

Chapter One


“The ships would rot at her docks; grass would grow in Wall Street and Broadway, and the glory of New York, like that of Babylon and Rome, would be numbered with the things of the past.”

The answer given by a prominent Southern editor when asked by The Times (London), “What would New York be without slavery?”

Fernando Wood thought his timing was perfect.

The election of an antislavery president had finally forced the South to make good on years of threats, and the exodus of 11 states from the Union had begun. Militant South Carolina was the first to secede, after a convention in Charleston five days before Christmas of 1860. Within weeks, 6 more states had broken off from the Union, and by the end of May, the Confederacy was complete.

As the most profound crisis in our young nation’s history unrolled, Wood, the mayor of New York, America’s most powerful city, made a stunning proposal: New York City should secede from the United States, too.

“With our aggrieved brethren of the Slave States, we have friendly relations and a common sympathy,” Wood told the New York Common Council in his State of the City message on January 7, 1861. “As a free city,” he said, New York “would have the whole and united support of the Southern States, as well as all other States to whose interests and rights under the constitution she has always been true.”

Although many in the city’s intelligentsia rolled their eyes, and the mayor was slammed in much of the New York press, Wood’s proposal made a certain kind of sense. The mayor was reacting to tensions with Albany, but there was far more behind his secession proposal, particularly if one understood that the lifeblood of New York City’s economy was cotton, the product most closely identified with the South and its defining system of labor: the slavery of millions of people of African descent.

Slave-grown cotton is, in large part, the root of New York’s wealth. Forty years before Fernando Wood suggested that New York join hands with the South and leave the Union, cotton had already become the nation’s number one exported product. And in the four intervening decades New York had

become a commercial and financial behemoth dwarfing any other U.S. city and most others in the world. Cotton was more than just a profitable crop. It was the national currency, the product most responsible for America’s explosive growth in the decades before the Civil War.

As much as it is linked to the barbaric system of slave labor that raised it, cotton created New York.

By the eve of the war, hundreds of businesses in New York, and countless more throughout the North, were connected to, and dependent upon, cotton. As New York became the fulcrum of the U.S. cotton trade, merchants, shippers, auctioneers, bankers, brokers, insurers, and thousands of others were drawn to the burgeoning urban center. They packed lower Manhattan, turning it into the nation’s emporium, in which products from all over the world were traded.

In those prewar decades, hundreds of shrewd merchants and smart businessmen made their fortunes in ventures directly or indirectly tied to cotton. The names of some of them reverberate today.

Three brothers named Lehman were cotton brokers in Montgomery, Alabama, before they moved to New York and helped to establish the New York Cotton Exchange. Today, of course, Lehman Brothers is the international investment firm.

Junius Morgan, father of J. Pierpont Morgan, arranged for his son to study the cotton trade in the South as the future industrialist and banker was beginning his business career. Morgan Sr., a Massachusetts native who became a major banker and cotton broker in London, understood that knowledge of the cotton trade was essential to prospering in the commercial world in the 1850s.

Real estate and shipping magnate John Jacob Astor—one of America’s first millionaires and namesake of the Waldorf-Astoria and whole neighborhoods in New York City—made his fortune in furs and the China trade. But Astor’s ships, like those of many successful merchant-shippers, also carried tons of cotton.

Cotton’s rich threads can even be traced to an ambitious young man who dreamed of opening a “fancy goods” store in New York. The young man’s father, who operated a cotton mill in eastern Connecticut, gave his son the money to open his first store, on Broadway, in 1837. But more important than the $500 stake made from cotton was the young man’s destination and timing: Charles L. Tiffany had begun serving a city in extraordinary, and enduring, economic ascent.

As with any commodity, trading in cotton was complicated and risky. Businessmen, even savvy ones, lost fortunes, but some made their mark on the city nonetheless.

As cotton was becoming a staple in the transatlantic trade, Scotsman Archibald Gracie immigrated to New York after training in Liverpool, Great Britain’s great cotton port. Gracie became an international shipping magnate, a merchant prince, building a summer home on the East River before losing much of his wealth. His son and grandson left the city to become cotton brokers in Mobile, Alabama, but their family’s summer home, today called Gracie Mansion, is the official residence of the mayor of New York.

But beyond identifying the individuals who prospered from the South’s most important product, it’s vital to understand the economic climate—the vast opportunities for wealth that the cotton trade created, and that linked New York City so tightly to the South. Before the Civil War, the city’s fortunes, its very future, were considered by many to be inseparable from those of the cotton-producing states.

Secession was not even an original thought with Wood, a tall, charming, three-term scoundrel of a mayor and multiterm congressman. For years, members of New York’s business community had mused privately, and occasionally in the pages of journals, that the city would be better off as a “free port,” independent of tariff-levying politicians in Albany and Washington. As America unraveled over the issue of slavery, many Northern politicians and businessmen became frantic to reach out to their most important constituency: Southern planters.

New York was not the only area in the North whose future was threatened by the growing secession crisis. In Massachusetts, birthplace of America, and the center of an increasingly troublesome movement called abolitionism, the Southern states’ frequent threats to secede had become an ongoing nightmare for the leaders of the powerful textile industry.

By 1860, New England was home to 472 cotton mills, built on rivers and streams throughout the region. The town of Thompson, Connecticut, alone, for example, had seven mills within its nine-square-mile area. Hundreds of other textile mills were scattered in New York State, New Jersey, and elsewhere in the North. Just between 1830 and 1840, Northern mills consumed more than 100 million pounds of Southern cotton. With shipping and manufacturing included, the economy of much of New England was connected to textiles.

For years, the national dispute over slavery had been growing more and more alarming to the powerful group of Massachusetts businessmen that historians refer to as the Boston Associates. When this handful of brilliant industrialists established America’s textile industry earlier in the nineteenth century, they also created America’s own industrial revolution. By the 1850s, their enormous profits had been poured into a complex network of banks, insurance companies, and railroads. But their wealth remained anchored to dozens of mammoth textile mills in Massachusetts, southern Maine, and New Hampshire. Some of these places were textile cities, really—like Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts, both named for Boston Associates founders.

As the nation lurched toward war and the certainty of economic disruption, these industrialists and allied politicians wanted to convince the South that at least some in the North were eager to compromise

on slavery. A compromise was critical, for the good of the Union and business.

On the evening of October 11, 1858, a standing-room-only audience of politicians and businessmen honored a visitor at a rally at Faneuil Hall, long the center of Boston’s public life. The wealthy and powerful of New England’s preeminent city lauded the “intellectual cultivation” and “eloquence” of the senator from Mississippi, and when Jefferson Davis walked onto the stage, the Brahmins of Boston gave him a standing ovation.

Other American staples, such as corn, wheat, and tobacco, have a charged or even exalted status in our nation’s narrative. And other resources—whale oil, coal, and gold—were the main characters in defining chapters of American history.

But cotton was king.

On the cusp of the Civil War, the 10 major cotton states were producing 66 percent of the world’s cotton, and raw cotton accounted for more than half of all U.S. exports. The numbers are almost impossible to grasp: in the season that ended on August 31, 1860, the United States produced close to 5 million bales of cotton, or roughly 2.3 billion pounds. Of that amount, it exported about half—or more than 1 billion pounds—to Great Britain’s 2,650 cotton factories.

By then, the Industrial Revolution had spread throughout Europe. Although small compared with Great Britain’s, France’s textile industry, centered in Lille, was also fed almost entirely by U.S. cotton, 200 million pounds’ worth in 1858. And Southern cotton was important to textile industries in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Russia, Italy, Spain, and Belgium.

But most of the world’s cotton went through Liverpool, the port nearest Manchester in Lancashire, the heart of textile manufacturing. Up until the end of the 1700s, Great Britain had imported most of its cotton from the Mediterranean, its colonies in the West Indies, and India and Brazil. But in 1794 Eli Whitney, the son of a Massachusetts farmer, patented his cotton gin (invented the previous year), and it changed the world.

The problem with cotton is its seeds. Nestled deep in the fibers of every fist-sized boll of upland cotton—the predominant type grown in America—are 30 to 40 impossibly sticky green seeds that must be removed before the white, fluffy fibers can be used.

Before Whitney patented his gin, it took one person an entire day to remove the seeds from a pound of cotton. The gin both mechanized and accelerated the process. The teeth of a series of circular saws “captured” the seeds, allowing the fibers to be pulled away from them. The device increased the production of cleaned cotton an astonishing fiftyfold. In seeking a patent for his invention, Whitney wrote to Thomas Jefferson, then secretary of state, explaining that by using the gin, “one negro [could] . . . clean fifty weight (I mean fifty pounds after it is separated from the seed), of the green seed cotton per day.” Jefferson was one of the first plantation owners to order a gin.

Growing cotton suddenly became hugely profitable. Farmers across the South switched over to cotton, and within only about 15 years they were supplying more than half of Great Britain’s demand for the product. Well before 1860, the relationship between Great Britain and the South had become ironclad.

A lot of cotton required a lot of slaves. In 1850, some 2.3 million people were enslaved in the 10 cotton states; of these, nearly 2 million were involved in some aspect of cotton production. And their numbers, and importance, just kept growing.

As early as 1836, the secretary of the treasury told Congress that with “less than 100,000 more field hands” and the conversion of just 500,000 more acres of rich Southern land, the United States could produce enough raw cotton for the entire world.

By the eve of the Civil War, Great Britain was largely clothing the Western world, using Southern-grown, slave-picked cotton.

In 1850, the South was home to about 75,000 cotton plantations. Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia each had over 14,500. The cotton states produced a staggering 2 million bales that year. Even people who saw the trade in action struggled to describe it.

In December 1848, Solon Robinson, a farmer and writer from Connecticut who became agriculture editor for the New York Tribune, visited the nation’s largest cotton port. “It must be seen to be believed,” Robinson wrote of the “acres of cotton bales” standing on the docks of New Orleans. “Boats are constantly arriving, so piled up with cotton, that the lower tier of bales on deck are in the water; and as the boat is approaching, it looks like a huge raft of cotton bales, with the chimneys and steam pipe of an engine sticking up out of the centre.”

From New Orleans and the other major cotton ports—Savannah, Georgia; Charleston, South Carolina; and Mobile, Alabama—most of the cotton was shipped to Liverpool. If it did not go directly to Liverpool, it was sent to the North: to Boston for use in the domestic textile industry, or to New York City. From New York, it generally went to Liverpool, or elsewhere in Europe.

But this gives only the slightest hint of the role New York City and the rest of the North played in the cotton trade, or of the lengths the New York business community was forced to go to protect its franchise.

The Union Committee of Fifteen had called a meeting at the offices of Richard Lathers, a prominent cotton merchant. The organizers had planned to invite 200 people, and by written invitation only. But the group that thronged outside of Lathers’s offices at 33 Pine Street, a block over from Wall Street, surpassed 2,000. In fact, offices across the street had to be quickly commandeered to accommodate the crowd, and even then the merchants, bankers, and others who gathered that Saturday afternoon spilled into the street.

This was hardly the first time that the worried business community had met to discuss strategies to smooth relations between North and South. But the Pine Street meeting on December 15, 1860, may have represented the group at its most panicky. South Carolina’s probable secession vote was days away, and there was talk of Alabama following South Carolina. After that, who knew? The South had to be persuaded to stay in the Union until some kind of compromise in the slavery controversy could be found.

The very spine of nineteenth-century money and power attended the meeting. These “merchant princes” included:

•A. T. Stewart, a cotton merchant who opened the nation’s first department store, called “the marble palace,” on Broadway. Stewart was thought to be the wealthiest man in New York.

•Moses Taylor, sugar importer, banker, and coal and railroad magnate, whose extensive enterprises made him, for nearly half a century, one of the most influential businessmen in New York City.

•Abiel Abbot Low, whose A. A. Low & Brothers was the most important firm in the new and booming China trade.

•William B. Astor, son of fur and real estate mogul John Jacob Astor, the nation’s first millionaire.

•Wall Street banker August Belmont, American agent for the Rothschilds of Germany, who married the daughter of Commodore Perry and whose passion for horse breeding led to the creation of the Belmont Stakes.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery 3.9 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 7 reviews.
dougwood57 on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Three journalists from the Hartford Courant attempted to expand a series of newspaper articles into a book-length examination of `the North's' complicity in slavery. They partially succeed. The book's early chapters explore slavery as it existed in the North, the connections between Northern industry and Southern slavery, New York City's particular role in the slave trade and the `triangular trade' (involving the US, Europe and Africa), and a `reverse underground railroad' involving the kidnapping of free blacks and their sale in the South. These chapters all supply useful information to fill the interstices of history, although much of it struck this reader as much less surprising than it did to the authors. The book first goes seriously off its rails in the concluding chapters when it ventures into the stories of Elijah Lovejoy and John Brown. Their familiar stories are so well known that they seem out of place in a book that strives to deliver journalistically fresh content. Certainly nothing new is added to the reader's knowledge about these men and the hatred they generated North and South. A chapter about the 19th century Philadelphia scientist Samuel George Morton who developed a `scientific' theory of the `races' that `proved' the inferiority of Africans and their descendants adds less than it might have and seems like an afterthought, a rather disorganized one at that. The chapter reaches its nadir when the authors elect to cherry pick quotes from Rev. Theodore Parker and Abraham Lincoln affirming the superiority of whites. They might have at least added Parker's quote predicting the success of abolition: "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one... And from what I see I am sure it bends toward justice." The book's final chapter is also its oddest. It concerns the undeniably horrid consequences of the ivory trade especially on the African slaves forced to transport the tusks long distances. The tusks were particularly used to make piano keys. Undeniably, Northerners made pianos and played them, but they were hardly alone in these endeavors. Like the preceding chapter, this one seems like it was added in order to satisfy the publisher's idea of how long a book should be. In a brief afterword, the authors assert that America's `extraordinary ascent into the world arena' would have been much delayed had the country, North and South, not benefited from the unpaid labor the slaves. This assertion is necessary to undergird the author's next assertion that the North was complicit in allowing this to happen and benefited from it. As a matter of labor economics, the authors' assumption that the US economy would have suffered if it had had to rely on free labor is doubtful. Indeed, the assumption flies in the face of the `free soil, free labor' ideology of Abraham Lincoln's nascent Republican Party, which argued that free men would work harder in a free labor society and that slavery undermined the free workers of the South. The authors also disavow any intent to `debunk the myth of a virtuous North'. Perhaps so, but to this reader their failure to place the undeniable negative facts about the North in a broader context gives the book an unbalanced sensationalism. A reader might be excused for thinking that the only abolitionists were the few heroic leaders and not the thousands of members of a Northern mass movement. The authors cite statistics that New York State still had 20,000 slaves within its borders in 1790. True enough, but the authors neglect to relate that Maryland, North Carolina and South Carolina each already had over 100,000 slaves while Virginia had over 290,000 slaves. `Complicity' fills in gaps in general knowledge about specific ways in which many Northerners benefited a little and a few Northerners benefited enormously from slavery. The book at least implicitly suggests an equivalency between the North and the South in responsibility for slavery that the facts do not support.
libri_amor on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Complicity provides a very illuminating view of the history of Connecticut during the US Civil War period. With the arrival of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War this year, it appears many historians are trying to take a fresh look at the Civil War from a more objective view point. Complicity is revealing for anyone that has grown up north of the Mason Dixon line and was taught that the north were the good guys and uniformly anti-slavery. And, similarly the south were the bad guys who created and perpetuated slavery. After reading Complicity you'll never have these simplistic views again.In Complicity, the authors, all journalists with the Hartford Courant newspaper, take the premise that the industrial north, particularly Connecticut were aiders and abettors of slavery. In fact slavery has a long history in New England starting with the Puritans. In 1627, Henry Winthrop, son of the Pilgrim founding father, landed in Barbados to found a sugar empire that imported over 19.000 slaves between 1640 and 1650 alone. During the King Philip's war, the Massachusetts colony sent whole families of "unruly" native Americans into slavery in central and south America.Several New England ships captains were directly involved in the slave trade transporting the human cargo between west Africa and the Americas.However, the main basis of northern complicity is based on economics of raw materials such as cotton and ivory. The southern slave states produced nearly 60% of the worlds cotton. In th early 19th century, cotton made up 40% of all New York city exports. And while much of the cotton was exported to England and France; southern cotton was the life build of the mills of the industrial north. The economic influence can easily be seen by the efforts of wealthy northern businessman to advert war at almost any cost.One surprising element of Connecticut's history was the ivory industry. Connecticut factories were the US center for the processing of ivory for piano keys and billiard balls. Ivory was harvested in east Africa by killing herds of elephants and then transported by slaves to the African coast. Once at he coast the ivory was loaded on ships and the slaves (the ones that survived) were also sold.
AngelaG86 on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
Very interesting, and very informative. Has chapters on Northern investors, bankers, slave codes, and the North's involvement in the cotton and ivory trades.
James_Durney More than 1 year ago
This is history for people who do not read history and have little intention to change. The authors are reporters who were horrified to find slavery existed in Connecticut. After that startling discovery, they proceeded to establish that slavery was common in America. Next, they made the equally startling discovery that Northerners profited from both the slave trade and dealing with slaveholders. I feel that this was news to educated people is the most upsetting part of the book. This book attempts to be several things at once. First, the book wants to expose slavery in Northern America. The first five chapters present an account of this. The author's wishing to make their abhorrence of slavery clear, never missing a chance to "flog a dead horse". That very few are in favor of slavery never seems to occur to them. The second part of the book deals with the international slave trade and New England and New York's role. In the years prior to the Civil War, New York City has very close ties to the South and to an illegal international slave trade. The chapter on kidnapping and selling free Blacks is one of the best in the book. The last part of the book overreaches trying to prove Northern complicity in "race science" and the Ivory Trade. By this time, most readers of history will have serious doubts about the book and recognize they are reading for enjoyment not solid information. The book will appeal to those who wish to prove their anti-slavery credentials, those who wish to show America to be a raciest society and Lost Cause Tradition adherents. This last group will use the information to say there was "no difference" between North & South on slavery. The book is not footnoted. Notes, based on direct quotes, may be found in a notes section. These notes are so poor as to be useless. The best they do is direct you to the bibliography, where you find the majority of books are contemporary works. The major value of this book is in being a quick read and inexpensive.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Excellent reading. It is about time that the other side was brought out into the open. Another few things my teacher did not tell me.
Guest More than 1 year ago
Although filled with many interesting stories about Northern, American Slavery, I found this book to be, in some places, highly biased--to the point of being reparationist propaganda--and overly sarcastic. It takes on a preachy-style similar to 19th C. abolitionist literature. From an academic standpoint, I don't recommend this one.
Guest More than 1 year ago
We always hear about the North as the abolitionist center of the United States. The authors use primary sources and clear text to bring the truth behind the economic practices in the North that not only turned a blind eye to slavery, but promoted the system as well.