In learning about the Civil War, we typically learn there were “slave states” and “free states.” In what ways does Illinois complicate those seemingly clear-cut definitions?
Illinois is what I would call a quasi-slave state. And what’s surprising to people is that it existed here within the law. It begins with the colonial slave laws that came from France (because Illinois was a French territory). And so slavery, at least the enslavement of Africans and then later African American people, started in the French settlements, at least as early as 1720, maybe even before that. And then the Northwest Ordinance (an act that provided a path for much of the Great Lakes region to be admitted to the Union) stated that there shall be neither slavery nor indentured servitude, nor involuntary servitude, except as the punishment of crime. And so people seem to think, “Well, that does it for slavery.” But people still brought slaves in, in violation of the law.
But then as early as 1803, a loophole was created that [essentially] said: “Bring your slaves to Illinois. It’s fine. Just go through the formality of an indenture contract.” Some contracts were for 99 years.
But most indentured people really weren’t given a choice. If your master, or someone who’s claimed to be your master, or has told you they were your master for, you know, 20, 30, 40 years, tells you to put your mark [signature] on a paper that says you’re willing to continue as my indentured servant, it’s not likely that someone would refuse.
This reminds me of something you said once before about slavery being adaptable. In a talk you gave at the Chicago History Museum last year, you said, “Slavery was called a ‘peculiar institution’ for a reason — and the reason is because it can be adapted.” Can you tell me a bit more about what you meant by that?
I meant that when people think about slavery, and this is largely due to the fact that so many of us get much of our information from the entertainment media, we envision slavery as the Deep South and working on cotton plantations. And what really surprised me as I began researching slavery in Illinois was there weren’t the big cotton plantations, but at the same time there was slavery. And so our image of slavery is not necessarily wrong, but it’s a lot more complicated. It’s a lot broader. I think that what we tend to do oftentimes is think of slavery and racism as something they have down South and kind of with a judgmental attitude: “You know, we’re not like that [in Illinois]. We don’t have slavery here. We didn’t have slaves.” Actually, we did. It was just a different form that was adapted to meet the needs that we had for enslaved people.