In Robert Pierce’s excerpt, he tries to explain how Connecticut was a very paradoxical area when it came down to the idea of slavery. During the first few chapters, the author explains how Connecticut had a growing population of slaves with almost 6000 african americans, half of which were enslaved. Despite relying heavily on slavery, the white people from Connecticut could not fully abuse nor neglect their black brethren based on religious grounds. This can be seen in page 102 when Robert Pierce states, “At no time in its early history were Connecticut’s white citizens willing to extend unqualified recognition to blacks as equals or as fully participating members of civil society. By the same token, however, they refused, chiefly on religious …show more content…
He talks about the many “edgy” moves that kept being passed which led to the abolition of slavery ideals in Connecticut, such as the General Assembly’s protection of runaway slaves and the idea of black citizenship, despite many anti-abolitionist movements and attempts to keep slavery alive. The author goes on to talk about many political “strategic” moves by people, such as Andrew T. Judson, where they supported slavery in order to maintain their political status and win the popularity towards them. There was definitely an immense amount of attempts to keep abolition and its ideals out of Connecticut, which resulted in the Union being torn between slave and free; one of the biggest attempts that the author emphasizes, is David Daggett's relentless attack on free slave ideas. This excerpt shows us a lot of insight into the process of how slavery changed in Connecticut throughout the years. Slavery in Connecticut may have been an economical factor during the colonial era, a strategic political move to others during the years prior to the civil war, but overall its abolition was an event that resulted not only in great strives towards black treatment in Connecticut, but also in other states and the