Abolition

December 2, 2013

Sending Not Peace But A Sword

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Reading what Wilentz had to say about the politics and events leading up to the civil war was much more invigorating than usual. Come of the previous chapters explored high politics, and though well-written, failed to keep my attention. However, these chapters were rather interesting, especially the section about John Brown.

John Brown’s plans for raiding Harpers Ferry were foolish. However, the extent to which his strategy was unrealistic leads me to believe that he had a feeling he’d be exchanging “the role of an avenging commander-in-chief for that of a martyr” (Wilentz, 423). Uncommitted to actually being successful in his raiding efforts, he seemed to know that his actions served more as an ideological example for abolitionists. He knew that true change within “this slave country” would “never be purged away; but with Blood” meaning that his insurrection was only a glimpse of what was to come in the clash between the North and South.

Evfarese mentioned in their post that “many thought that it might occur, but Brown’s violent actions and his prophecy surely convinced a large amount of Americans that secession and war was in the future.” As my classmate pointed out, John Brown’s actions precipitated the public’s realization that war was imminent given the growing tensions between the North and South.

It was ironic that Brown’s actions, meant to exemplify his fundamental hatred for the institution of slavery, actually made southern slave owners believe that their slaves were content with slavery (Wilentz, 425). Wilentz brought up a point that I had never previously considered. After John Brown’s failed revolution, he was almost universally ridiculed for his hastiness. But as a result of this widespread disapproval of his actions, the door was opened for more moderate Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln to ascend to political power (Wilentz, 425). Although Brown would have rejected the more moderate route taken by Lincoln, the same goal of abolition was achieved in the end. Although the election of Lincoln is most often cited as the greatest provocation of the South’s secession (and perhaps it is) the events such as John Brown’s raid should also be cited to give context of the rising tension and chaos in the nation leading up to the election of 1860.

November 21, 2013

The Southern Scare: Southern Fear of British Abolitionism

In Chapter 14, Davis makes the case that one of the driving forces behind the South’s fear of restriction on the expansion of slavery was British abolitionism. Davis makes the case that the south saw this British abolitionism as a new form of british control as NIPAPPAYLIOU noted. “… Southerners believed that Britain was attempting to spread their abolitionist ideas throughout the world as a new form of imperialism.” This fear of British cultural imperialism coincided with a period of vehement anti-British sentiment, which fed into anti-Federalist sentiment, as the federalists were viewed as being too pro-British. This anti-British sentiment, alongside connections between Britain and abolitionism, and a fear that Britain was seeking to collapse slave-holding economies so that their newly slave-free colonies could become competitive, lead to intense suspicion of Northern abolitionists as potentially being unpatriotic and likely to be in bed with British interests. The irony of this all was of course that, despite Britsh abolitionism and anti-British sentiment which was strongest in the south, when the Civil War finally came to the fore, Britain would consider joining the war, but on the Southern side, rather than the Northern side. Thus while Southern fear may not have been entirely unwarranted, with regards to beliefs that Britain was seeking to abolish slavery more broadly, it was almost certainly overstated.

November 20, 2013

Running The Risk

While it does not come as a surprise, every single time I open Wilentz I am reading about slavery. I realize that it is a product of the time period we are studying. However, it seems unreal to me that one thing could dominate every sphere of politics for so long. Slavery seems to me, to be the only issue ever to be able to accomplish a dominance of this kind. I could not envision a time or idea that could do that today. While we have specific issues that dominate politics, both economic and social, there is no one issue that stands alone as a contributor to all other issues. Slavery was just that, it was a dominant force socially, economically, and politically.

Particularly, the issue of the Fugitive Slave Law is intriguing. MIHAN on 11/19 mentions that among some compromises made there was a “much more stringent Fugitive Slave Act, which inadvertently led to tensions…” I was not surprised to read what I did in Wilentz on the issue. However, I did find that the specific people mentioned with regard to the Law are among the most powerful anti-slavery advocates out there. John Brown, a rabblerousing abolitionist from Massachusetts, is mentioned with regard to his armed resistance. Frederick Douglass is also mentioned, and he is in support of a violent end to the Fugitive Slave Law. Wilentz writes of the Underground Railroad and the abolitionists, black and white, that stuck their necks out for the runaway slaves. This also brings to light the so-called hero of the Underground Railroad, Harriet Tubman. The Fugitive Slave Law made the entire United States a dangerous place for all slaves, former slaves, and even free blacks. Wilentz writes, “The new Fugitive Slave Law compelled ordinary northerners to participate in slave recoveries, on pain of fine and imprisonment, and placed heavy penalties on any found guilty of aiding runaway slaves–in effect turning the entire northern population, black and white, into one large slave patrol” (353). This made the Underground Railroad much more dangerous, and also created a tough internal controversy for many people in the north and south. This law made everyone punishable if they helped or even knew about a runaway slave. In no way was this meant to last forever. The everyday tension brought upon all people under this law was too much to bear.

I would argue that the new and improved Fugitive Slave Law was a substantial problem in the antebellum United States. With slavery dominating every facet of life, the Fugitive Slave Law pushed it one step too far.

November 20, 2013

A “Great Experiment”: British Abolition and Southern Paranoia

From the racism of John Henry Hammond to the staunch support of slavery by John Calhoun, we’ve addressed the various manifestations of the Southern proslavery ideology. But I don’t think we’ve entirely understood why such radical sentiment arose. Sure, we’ve postulated slavery’s economic incentives and the fear of slave revolts as possible motives for certain policy measures. But neither of these, I don’t think, sufficiently explain the vitriol of slavery’s Southern defenders. So, why were the proslavery ideologues so radical? While it’s certainly not a complete explanation–for proslavery radicalism in particular—I think that David Brion Davis provides a fair explanation for the rise of anti-abolitionism in the South. Great Britain, he insists, was largely responsible.

As we’ve discussed a number of times already in class, “anglophobia” was prevalent in the US for much of this period, particularly during the War of 1812 and the subsequent demise of the Federalist Party. But, as Davis points out, the pervasive opinion that Britain was “America’s ‘natural enemy'” led many to perceive British abolitionism as a veiled threat of imperialism (272). In fact, some Southern leaders, such as Robert Turnbull, feared that the rise of abolitionist sentiment in Britain in the 1820s coupled with the effects the abolition of the slave trade would drive an “entering wedge” into the public minds of non-slaveholders, leading to the destruction of plantations, human chattel, and the slave economy (281). Such fears, Davis suggests, explain why the nullification movement coincided with British abolition and were no doubt aggravated by the declaration of Lord Aberdeen, Britain’s Foreign Secretary, that “Great Britain . . . is constantly exerting herself to procure the general abolition of slavery throughout the world” (282). Humanitarianism appeared, to many Southerners, a very present threat to humanity, a British conspiracy to undue American prosperity.

As abolitionist sentiment slowly disseminated into the Northeast, Southern antipathy escalated as the “Northeast was becoming a perfect replica of the British enemy” (286). Not only had Northern states—with the exceptions of Delaware and Maryland—abolished slavery but much of the industrialized North was fraught, like Britain, with wage-labor issues. In many Southern minds, this illustrated the failure of the “great experiment” of abolition not only in Britain, but more generally (281). Just as Britain had experienced economically decline following the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833, so too did Southerners speculate that the US would suffer economic turmoil were emancipation declared nationwide. The Southern press subsequently published editorials from the London Times exclaiming that “slave emancipation had been a colossal failure” (285). Meanwhile, Southern leaders, such as Secretary of State Abel Upshur, sponsored American reports on the state of the free British colonies, stating that “England has ruined her own colonies, and . . . wishes to see other countries . . . in a similar state” (284). Restoring the memories of the anglophilic Hartford Convention and the Garrisonians’ support of British abolition, the Southerners stigmatized the North as in league with the British. The so-called humanitarian threat had formed on the home front.

I think Davis’ explanation of Southern radicalism might also explain certain features of our conversation in Tuesday’s class. In his post “The Mouth of the South,” Justin Hill notes the abuse of the Irish at the hands of the British as well as how “along with their mistreatment [by the British], the nativists of the north attacked the Irish immigrants” (http://sites.davidson.edu/his141/the-mouth-of-the-south/). Such injustices, he suggests, explain why Irish immigrants headed south. I agree. But I also think that, when viewed in light of Southern anglophobia, one might suggest that a shared animosity toward both the British and the Northeast more generally likely influenced Southerners’ acceptance of Irish immigrants.

So, reevaluating last class’ discussion, I would like to ask the class: Were Irish immigrants so willing to join the Confederacy merely because of their sense of “belonging” in the South? Or might the perceived threat of a British conspiracy brewing in the Northeast have inspired the Irish to join the Southern ranks?

November 18, 2013

Not Slavery, Not Pleasant

The word slavery carried a vast amount of weight throughout the 1800’s. In the years leading up to the civil war, 1830’s upward, slavery was the hot topic. The idea of “white slavery” is intriguing for that very reason. It seems unusual at a time when slaves were still considered less than human to a number of people that the northern workers would acquire such a title. Roediger notes, “in such a situation, it is not surprising that labor activists rather cautiously backed into making comparisons between white workers and slaves” (344). “White slavery” is almost contradictory. It is definitely a powerful argument, however, I believe there is a lack of humanity that cannot be ignored. In the early 1800’s white means human and black means slave and less or in- humane. While this cannot be applied generally all over the country, it was still believed. I disagree with the Vermont slogan that they were ‘“slaves in every sense of the word”’ (345). This may be moving, but I believe that it is not true. WIROBERTSON, on 11/18, states that, “Clearly, whites must have felt severe oppression in order to draw this comparison.” While I agree that they were oppressed, perhaps even severely, the racial prejudice of the time takes precedence over a wage war. Even the phrase “slavery of wages,” seems to draw too much on slavery as a possibility for whites in America.

Forgetting the word slavery, white workers of this time were right to argue for their cause. No group of people appeals for a change in such an extreme manner unless there is a problem. From unreasonable hours to low pay, white workers along with children, women, and the Irish all felt the pangs of an oppressive society. The Irish particularly entered the South and found a difficult path ahead of them. Dee Dee Joyce recounts, “ In Charleston, Irish labourers entered historically black labour fields out of pure economic necessity” (188). That is to say that the Irish were forced into a position similar to slavery with the social freedoms of whites. This may be where the sever slavery argument comes from. The vast difference lies in the ability for whites to advance to grow into economic success. Where as the blacks of the time were stuck in perpetual slavery or at the very least extreme prejudice and oppression. Slavery in the United States was based on race. Therefore, there was no equivalent to be acquired by the whites of the time. Even the Irish, that struggles, could not have come to slavery as an end.

November 13, 2013

Destined to Rule

The reading for this week was for the most part focused on the idea of Manifest Destiny and how the United States began to annex other lands into their country. Starting with the death of President Harrison (which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard of) the United States mission to move in on other lands became what seemed like the most important thing to the presidents. After Texas expressed their want to become a part of the United States, along with the fact that the British stood a chance to take control of the Republic, new President John Tyler jumped on the chance to annex, which he just barely got done before Polk was sworn into the Presidency.

With another new president the United States was told that there were four major goals to be completed: “the settlement of the Oregon question, the reduction of the protectionist tariff of 1842, reestablishment of the independent treasury, and the acquisition of California.” (306) It only makes sense that half of our countries goals were to gain more land since it was our destiny to expand. Polk sent in men to go to the Mexican border, basically in an attempt to start war and take over California. Although it may not have been constitutional, Polk started the war and then got approval from the congress. His rival, Calhoun, did not take kindly to this abuse of power as he was an opponent of the war and said the Polk “had unconstitutionally engineered the country into war.” (310)

As any other story of pre-civil war America, slavery had to find its way into this situation. The idea of whether the newly admitted lands would be slave or free territories started dividing the Whig party as sectionalism became more important that ideology. I think this is similar to what my classmate SpEdwards was saying in the beginning of his post as he spoke on how Polk thought the new lands would unify the country, but instead it gave the North and South more reason to divide. As we bring up often in class, I feel that the Wilmot Proviso was one of the early precursors of the Civil war that we had coming. The parties split and Calhoun “saw the proviso as a golden opportunity to unite southerners across party lines” (319) and it didn’t take the north long to align the same way. Hence the divide that we later see fighting against one another in the civil war over the same issue, abolition.

November 7, 2013

Wilentz, Ch. 13 / Davis, Ch. 13: A Hotbed for Abolitionism

Sherwood Callaway

Blog Post 6

In chapter 13, Wilentz writes:

“Abolitionism represented a new kind of American political community. Its activists, at great personal risk, defied widely and deeply held social conventions. This community set itself apart from sinful complicity with slavery and racism and created a new humane model of equality, freedom, and love.”

To synthesize and summarize his argument, within American society, the abolitionist movement sought unprecedented goals and held unprecedented values. But though the idea of ending the institution of slavery may have been radical and new (which it wasn’t), the movement itself was founded on principles that were both well recognized and well liked—which contributed to the movement’s widespread popularity.

For example, Wilentz mentions that abolitionism appealed to the “revival-soaked areas that defied greater New England.” This is because revivalism and abolitionism both emphasized similar values—individualism and progressivism. Revivalists encouraged a personal relationship with God, unlike traditional forms of Christianity. Both men and women, whether free or enslaved, were accepted as converts and allowed to profess their new faith. Subsequently, revivalists often came from the margins of society—the frontier, for example, or poverty, or slavery. Revivalism also represented a departure from ceremonial traditions; churches, priests and sacraments were no longer necessary for worship. Revivalists would have been excited about furthering the causes of individualism and progressivism through the abolitionist movement, which proposed to liberate slaves from oppression and end a tradition that primarily benefited the white landed elite.

The first great awakening, which saw the initial emergence of revivalism in British America, was during the 1730s and 40s. The second enveloped this period of abolitionism, running from the 1800s to the 1840s. It is no coincidence that these periods coincide; rather, because they held similar values, they energized one another. Revivalism during the 18th century laid the foundations for Abolitionism; revivalism during the 19th century popularized it.

But the goals and values of the abolitionist movement cannot only be tied to those of revivalism. Consider also, the spirit of 1776. Wilentz says abolitionism favored “equality, freedom, and love.” I cannot account for the latter of these, but I can certainly account for the former two. The notion of “equality” featured heavily in pre-revolution dialogue, as American-born Britons sought the same rights and representation as those across the pond. Of course, these sentiments did not stretch to the margins of society, as they did during abolitionism, but the language of equality was very much present. “Freedom”, also, was obviously associated with the spirit of 1776—personal freedoms such as the right to expand along the frontier, and the right to refuse quarter to visitors, for example.

Wilentz argues that abolitionism was a wholly new phenomenon in the United States. But rather, it seems as if the US would have been a hotbed for such a movement.

November 6, 2013

Abolition-Davis and Wilentz

Abolition in the Early Republic was a movement that created a new era of American history. It brought to light the ethical and moral issues of slavery, but also exposed how deeply intwined slavery was with the economy all over the U.S. The abolition movement was in part caused by the evangelism religious revivals present in New England, also known as the Second Great Awakening. The evangelism view was that the system of Negro slavery was the great national sin that must be removed so a new Eden or New Jerusalem could be established in America. SYSTRAUSS mentions Theodore Dwight Weld as an example of an abolitionist that has a deeply rooted set of religious ideals. Davis writes about two different groups that emerged within the abolitionist movement. The colonization movement and the immediatism movement. The colonizationists argued that the racial prejudices and differences present in America were too strong for the races to ever live together as equals. Many African-Americans saw this movement as disrespectful towards their ancestors who helped build America. They viewed this movement as taking their ‘American status’ away. The immediatism was triggered by an eruption of immediatism in Britain. Unlike the British abolition movement, the American movement had a larger participation of women. Unlike slavery in Britain, American slavery was deeply intwined into the interstate economy and virtually every aspect of not only southern, but also northern life. Wilentz also wrote about the abolition movement in chapter 13. Wilentz claims that abolitionism became a genuine popular movement in the U.S. The violence associated with the abolitionist movement in the North was surprising to me. I didn’t realize until Wilentz pointed it out that the violent hostility was located in the North most of the time. The abolitionist movement created hatred in the South, but not as many violent mobs as the North. The abolition movement spread from small farmers, shopkeepers, and businessmen in mostly small cities to a larger group of wage earners in major cities and factory towns. The growth of abolition was due to the Second Great Awakening and the abolition movement in Britian. However, abolition of slavery was hindered by the deep racial prejudices and the slave economy and further complicated the tense period of the Early Republic.

November 6, 2013

The abolition movement was a very important factor in the leading up to the civil war. Obviously, it was the main cause for the thoughts of secession by the south who felt like their lifestyle was being threatened. It is important to see the why the those in favor of abolition took that point of view. While some did it because they saw how wrong slavery was, others did for intrinsic reasons, fearing that this mistreatment of other human beings would make them appear unfavorably in the eyes of God. I think that the latter reason for calling for abolition is missing the point, although it still does get the job done. Since slavery was an accepted part of American society, most people didn’t have a problem with it until they saw it escalate to the severity and brutality of plantation enslavement. I think the second group were not opposed to the idea of owning people, but once they saw the mistreatment of enslaved people, particularly on plantations, they began to worry about how their society appeared to God. In the end though, all abolitionists had the same well-intentioned goal in mind.

The Second Great Awakening is linked to the abolitionist movements as SYSTRAUSS points out in their post. They make a good point in that maybe the abolitionists who used evangelist words did not exactly have the interest of the slaves in mind when they were speaking. This comes back to the point of how the majority of abolitionists had their own relationships with God in mind rather than the lives of the slaves. I would argue that this makes them appear worse to their God because they are valuing this relationship more than another human being’s life. I am not actually that religious so I cannot speak to this point with that much accuracy, that is just how I presume it would be. This group of evangelists abolitionists who fight against slavery may not be doing it for exactly the right reason, but they should still be recognized as being far ahead and far more honorable than a large population of the country.

November 5, 2013

November 5th Post

The Rise of American Democracy disappointed me again this week. Wilentz plowed through an analyzation of the struggle between Jackson and Biddle over the national bank that was bland and not easy to follow for a student without a background in finance. I could comprehend the gist of the battle and who was on each side but I was not familiar with the processes and tactics used by the politicians. I would suggest a more simple approach with language and/or explanations for readers without experience and knowledge in the field. I recognize however, I may just have a low understanding of the way the national bank works and need to increase this. Luckily, the economic jargon gave way eventually to a more historical account of the events dealing with abolition.

I found it shocking that the anti-abolitionists could get away with, if only for a time, censoring the post to disallow the circulation of anti-slavery publication. This is obviously an issue of the freedom of speech, explicitly given to citizens in the Constitution. Censorship of a minorities opinion is censorship all the same and should be against the law. I can only assume that the reason this infringement upon the rights of American citizens was allowed only because of how serious slave insurrections were. Southern planters and mostly all whites for that matter would be terrified of just the notion of rebellious, angry slaves roaming the country side, possibly armed with plenty reason to do harm to their oppressors. The fear implanted in the white citizenry, as discussed in class, definitely stemmed from rebellions like the ones lead by Cato, Nat Turner, and others. The literate slaves and sympathetic whites, capable of producing anti-slavery literature, were stopped by unconstitutional laws even the President had a part in proposing.

In janewton’s post, the political motivation of elites against abolitionists stands in stark contrast with the fearful motivation of the South. I find it interesting that the two geographical regions differ in their reasons to hate abolition but agree in standing against it. (Admittedly, elites in the South definitely had similar motivations to the Northern elites.)

One very interesting point I found in Inhumane Bondage was about the divisive splits experienced by anti-slavery groups. Davis states that, “…Antislavery groups could hardly have been more querulous and divisive”(261). One would, at face value, think that with all the political or literal fire aimed at them, these groups would bond together and work tirelessly towards their collective goal. The American Anti-Slavery Society apparently split in 1840 for differences in opinion about women’s rights. I think this shows that though major reform was being demanded and soon to come, the country had still a while to go in terms of human rights. After all, it would not be until 1920 that our nation’s leaders decided to ratify the amendment allowing women to vote.