tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post8120125048765924592..comments2024-03-14T13:25:20.613-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: Ten Hills Farm Book Launch, 3 Feb.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-60648699215519126072010-02-21T15:45:32.346-05:002010-02-21T15:45:32.346-05:00Two solid studies on slavery and the lives of peop...Two solid studies on slavery and the lives of people of African descent in New England are Lorenzo Greene, <i>The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776</i>, and William D. Pierson, <i>Black Yankees</i>. <br /><br />Life for enslaved people in New England port towns was probably similar to their life in New York and Philadelphia, working as domestic servants and laborers. They appear fleetingly in probate records, newspaper ads, town records, and anecdotes, but except for Phillis Wheatley, who was exceptional in many ways, we have no detailed profile of any. It’s useful to know that Revolutionary New Englanders used the term “servant” as a euphemism for “slave,” so any mention of servants meant enslaved black people.<br /><br />Hancock did have slaves, but they’re hard to document. He and his aunt inherited his uncle’s estate in the 1760s, with no probate inventory. And by the time he died, slavery was illegal. So I don’t think we have any list of the Hancock household slaves. There’s a gravestone for one Hancock “servant” in the Granary Burying Ground. <br /><br />I’ve written some posts about Samuel Adams’s enslaved housekeeper, <a href="http://boston1775.blogspot.com/search/label/Surry%20%28Adams%29" rel="nofollow">Surry</a>. Dr. Joseph Warren and James Otis, Jr., also had slaves.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-43859672750295012142010-02-21T09:49:03.072-05:002010-02-21T09:49:03.072-05:00thanks for this excellent blog. i'm trying to ...thanks for this excellent blog. i'm trying to conjure up an image of what slavery looked like in the north, particularly in cities like boston, but all i can imagine is plantations. can you point me to any descriptions? if hancock had slaves (and i assume he did), what did they do?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-67275477123371244522010-02-02T17:11:14.182-05:002010-02-02T17:11:14.182-05:00Thanks for the analysis. The Royall family that ow...Thanks for the analysis. The Royall family that owned part of Ten Hills Farm at the time of the Revolution derived most of their wealth from Caribbean sugar plantations, but preferred not to live there. Some of the families they intermarried with—the Vassalls, Olivers, etc.—were in the same situation. I suppose that justifies discussing how the economy of Massachusetts was intertwined with slave labor plantations’ molasses production and need for cheap goods and good, but the book is indeed being presented as a history of slavery in this colony.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-37897233117050843072010-02-02T05:52:09.462-05:002010-02-02T05:52:09.462-05:00The problem is that this book doesn't really e...The problem is that this book doesn't really explore slavery in Massachusetts at all. I am about half-way through it and have learned very little. Manengold is an excellent writer, but she steers clear of analyzing much of anything apart from slavery in the Caribbean. I was really looking forward to this book, but has proven to be a disappointment.<br /><br />Kevin at Civil War MemoryUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11806132111630551668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-72423412908771208322010-01-31T10:28:19.808-05:002010-01-31T10:28:19.808-05:00Jon, thanks for bringing up this topic. I am often...Jon, thanks for bringing up this topic. I am often stunned to find that people from the Northeast, both black and white, tend to exhibit a sort of blissfully ignorant smugness when it comes to the issue of slavery in America. They are, as you say, equally stunned to find out that the historical reality is not what they wish to believe, i.e., North good, South bad. And then when I bring up the fact that slaves ran to the British in 1775 and 1812, rather than to George Washington, then the looks on people's faces get even more incredulous. The truth is a lot more interesting, and simultaneously discomfiting, than some would like to believe.R Fullernoreply@blogger.com