Hi, I’m John Green. This is Crashcourse U.S. history and today we’re gonna to talk

about slavery, which is not funny. Yeah, so we put a lei on the eagle to try

to cheer you up, but, let’s face it, this is going to be depressing.

With slavery, every time you think, like, “Oh, it couldn’t have been that bad,”

it turns out to have been much worse. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, but what about--

Yeah, Me from the Past, I’m gonna stop you right there because you’re going to embarrass

yourself. Slavery was hugely important to America. I

mean, it led to a civil war. And it also lasted what at least in U.S. history counts as a

long ass time—from 1619 to 1865 And, yes, I know there’s a 1,200 year old

church in your neighborhood in Denmark, but we’re not talking about Denmark!

But slavery is most important because we still struggle with its legacy. So, yes, today’s

episode will probably not be funny. But it will be important.

INTRO So, the slave-based economy in the South is

sometimes characterized as having been separate from the market revolution, but that’s not

really the case. Without southern cotton, the north wouldn’t

have been able to industrialize, at least not as quickly, because cotton textiles were

one of the first industrially produced products and the most important commodity in world

trade by the 19th century. And ¾ of the world’s cotton came from the

American South. And, speaking of cotton, why has no one mentioned

to me that my collar has been half-popped this entire episode, like I’m trying to

recreate the flying nun’s hat? And although there were increasingly fewer

slaves in the North as northern states outlawed slavery, cotton shipments overseas made Northern

merchants rich, northern bankers financed the purchase of land for plantations. Northern

insurance companies insured slaves, who were, after all considered property and very valuable

property. And, in addition to turning cotton into cloth

for sale overseas, northern manufacturers sold cloth back to the south where it was

used to clothe the very slaves who had cultivated it.

But certainly the most prominent effects of the slave-based economy were seen in the South.

The profitability of slave-based agriculture, especially “King Cotton,” meant that the

south would remain largely agricultural and rural.

Slave states were home to a few cities, like St. Louis and Baltimore, but with the exception

of New Orleans, almost all southern urbanization took place in the Upper South, further away

from the large cotton plantations. And slave-based agriculture was so profitable

that it siphoned money away from other economic endeavors. Like, there was very little industry

in the South – it produced only 10% of the nation’s manufactured goods, and as most

of the capital was being plowed into the purchase of slaves, there was very little room for

technological innovation like, for instance, railroads.

This lack of industry and railroads would eventually make the south suck at the civil

war, thankfully. In short, slavery dominated the south, shaping

it both economically and culturally. And, slavery wasn’t a minor aspect of American

society. By 1860, there were 4 million slaves in the U.S., and in the South, they made up

1/3 of the total population. Although in the popular imagination, most

plantations were these sprawling affairs with hundreds of slaves, in reality the majority

of slave-holders owned five or fewer slaves. And of course, most white people in the south

owned no slaves at all, although if they could afford to, they would sometimes rent slaves

to help with their work. These were the so-called “yeoman” farmers

who lived self-sufficiently, raised their own food and purchased very little in the

market economy. They worked the poorest land and as a result were mostly pretty poor themselves.

But even they largely supported slavery, partly perhaps for aspirational reasons and partly

because the racism inherent to the system gave even the poorest whites legal and social

status. And southern intellectuals worked hard to

encourage these ideas of white solidarity and to make the case for slavery. Many of

the founders, a bunch of whom you’ll remember held slaves, saw slavery as a necessary evil.

Jefferson once wrote, “As it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold

him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.”

The belief that justice and self-preservation couldn’t sit on the same side of the scale

was really opposed the American idea and, in the end, it would make the civil war inevitable.

But as slavery became more entrenched – and as ideas of liberty and political equality

were embraced by more people – some Southerners began to make the case that slavery wasn’t

just a necessary evil. They argued, for instance, that slaves benefited from slavery.

Because, you know, their masters fed them and clothed them and took care of them in

their old age. You still hear this argument today, astonishingly.

In fact, you’ll probably see asshats in the comments saying that. I will remind you,

it’s not cursing if you are referring to an actual ass.

This paternalism allowed masters to see themselves as benevolent, and to contrast their family

oriented slavery with the cold mercenary capitalism of the free labor north.

So, yeah, in the face of rising criticism of slavery, some Southerners began to argue

that the institution was actually good for the social order. One of the best-known proponents

of this view was John C. Calhoun who, in 1837 said this in a speech on the Senate floor:

“I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished

by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together,

the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an

evil, a good — a positive good.” John: Now, of course, John C. Calhoun was

a fringe politician and nobody took his views particularly seriously …

Stan: Well, he was secretary of state from 1844 to 1845.

John: Well, I mean, who really cares about the Secretary of State, Stan …

Danica: Ehh, also Secretary of War from 1817 to 1825.

John: Alright, but we don’t even have a Secretary of War anymore.

Meredith: And he was Vice President from 1825 to 1832.

John: Oh my God, were we insane? We were, of course. But we justified the insanity—with

biblical passages and with the examples of the Greeks and Romans and with outright racism,

arguing that black people were inherently inferior to whites and that NOT to keep them

in slavery would upset the natural order of things, a worldview popularized millennia

ago by my nemesis, Aristotle. God, I hate Aristotle. You know what defenders

of Aristotle always say? He was the first person to identify dolphins. Well, okay. Dolphin-identifier.

Yes, that is what he should be remembered for, but he’s a terrible philosopher.

Here’s the truth about slavery: It was coerced labor that relied upon intimidation and brutality

and dehumanization. And this wasn’t just a cultural system,

it was a legal one. I mean, Louisiana law proclaimed that a slave “owes his master…a

respect without bounds, and an absolute obedience.” The signal feature of slaves’ lives was

work. I mean, conditions and tasks varied, but all slaves labored, usually from sunup

to sundown, and almost always without any pay.

Most slaves worked in agriculture on plantations and conditions were different depending on

which crops were grown. Like, slaves on the rice plantations of South Carolina had terrible

working conditions but they labored under the task system, which meant that once they

had completed their allotted daily work, they would have time to do other things.

But lest you imagine this as like how we have work and leisure time, bear in mind that they

were owned and treated as property. On cotton plantations, most slaves worked

in gangs, usually under the control of an overseer or another slave who was called a

driver. This was backbreaking work done in the southern sun and humidity and so it’s

not surprising that whippings or the threat of them were often necessary to get slaves

to work. It’s easy enough to talk about the brutality

of slave discipline, but it can be difficult to internalize it. Like, you look at these

pictures, but because you’ve seen them over and over again, they don’t have the power

they once might have. The pictures can tell a story about cruelty,

but they don’t necessarily communicate how arbitrary it all was. As for example in this

story told by a woman who was a slave as a young girl.

“[The] overseer … went to my father one morning and said, “Bob, I’m gonna whip

you this morning.” Daddy said, “I ain’t done nothing,” and he said “I know it,

I’m going to whip you to keep you from doing nothing,” and he hit him with that cowhide

– you know it would cut the blood out of you with every lick if they hit you hard.”

That brutality – the whippings, the brandings, the rape – was real and it was intentional

because in order for slavery to function, slaves had to be dehumanized.

This enabled slaveholders to rationalize what they were doing and, it was hoped, to reduce

slaves to the animal property that is implied by the term “chattel slavery.”

So the idea was that slaveholders wouldn’t think of their slaves as human. And slaves

wouldn’t think of themselves as human. But, it didn’t work.

But more importantly, slaveowners were never able to convince the slaves themselves that

they were anything less than human. Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

Slaves resistance to their dehumanization took many forms, but the primary way was by

forming families. Family was a refuge for slaves and a source of dignity that masters

recognized and sought to stifle. A paternalistic slaveowner named Bennett H. Barrow wrote in

his rules for the Highland Plantation: “No rule that I have stated is of more importance

than that relating to Negroes marrying outside of the plantation … It creates a feeling

of independence.” Most slaves did marry, usually for life, and

when possible, slaves grew up in two-parent households. Single parent households were

common, though, as a result of one parent being sold. In the Upper South, where the

economy was shifting from tobacco to different, less labor-intensive cash crops, the sale

of slaves was common. Perhaps 1/3 of slave marriages in states like Virginia were broken

up by sale. Religion was also an important part of life

in slavery. While masters wanted their slaves to learn the parts of the Bible that talked

about being happy in bondage, slave worship tended to focus on the stories of Exodus,

where Moses brought the slaves out of bondage, or Biblical heroes who overcame great odds,

like Daniel and David. And although most slaves were forbidden to learn to read and write,

many did anyway, and some became preachers. Slave preachers were often very charismatic

leaders, and they roused the suspicion of slave owners, and not without reason. Two

of the most important slave uprisings in the south were led by preachers.

Thanks, Thought Bubble. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? We’re doing two set

pieces in a row? Alright...The rules here are simple.

I wanted to reshoot that, but Stan said no. I guess the author of the Mystery Document.

If I am wrong, I get shocked with the shock pen.

“Since I have been in the Queen’s dominions I have been well contented, Yes well contented

for Sure, man is as God intended he should be. That is, all are born free and equal.

This is a wholesome law, not like the Southern laws which puts man made in the image of God

on level with brutes. O, what will become of the people, and where will they stand in

the day of Judgment. Would that the 5th verse of the 3rd chapter of Malachi were written

as with a bar of iron, and the point of a diamond upon every oppressor’s heart that

they might repent of this evil, and let the oppressed go free…”

Alright, it’s definitely a preacher, because only preachers have read Malachi.

Probably African American. Probably not someone from the south. I’m going to guess that

it is Richard Allen, the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal Church? Dang it!

It’s Joseph Taper? And Stan just pointed out to me that I should have known it was

Joseph Taper because it starts out, “Since I have been in the Queen’s dominions.”

He was in Canada. He escaped slavery to Canada. The Queen’s dominions!

Alright, Canadians, I blame you for this. Although thank you for abolishing slavery

decades before we did. AH! So the mystery document shows one of the primary

ways that slaves resisted their oppression: by running away.

Although some slaves, like Joseph Taper, escaped slavery for good by running away to Northern

free states or even to Canada where they wouldn’t have to worry about fugitive slave laws, even

more slaves ran away temporarily, hiding out in the woods or the swamps and eventually

returning. No one knows exactly how many slaves escaped

to freedom, but the best estimate is that 1,000 or so a year made the journey northwards.

Most fugitive slaves were young men, but the most famous runaway has been hanging out behind

me all day long, Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman escaped to Philadelphia at

the age of 29 and over the course of her life she made about 20 trips back to Maryland to

help friends and relatives make the journey north on the Underground Railroad.

But a most dramatic form of resistance to slavery was actual armed rebellion, which

was attempted. Now individuals sometimes took matters into

their own hands and beat or sometimes even killed their white overseers or masters, like

“Bob,” the guy who received the arbitrary beating, responded to it by killing his overseer

with a hoe. But that said, large-scale slave uprisings

were relatively rare. The four most famous ones all took place in

a 35 year period at the beginning of the 19th century.

Gabriel’s rebellion in 1800, which we talked about before, was discovered before he was

able to carry out his plot. Then, in 1811 a group of slaves upriver from

New Orleans seized cane knives and guns and marched on the city before militia stopped

them. And, in 1822 Denmark Vesey, a former slave

who had purchased his freedom may have organized a plot to destroy Charleston, South Carolina.

I say may have because the evidence against him is disputed and comes from a trial that

was not fair. But, regardless, the end result of that trial