Fanning – Popular Politics in Early America

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

In her article entitled The Roots of Early Black Nationalism, Sara C. Fanning writes about the political significance that Haiti held for African-Americans after going from a slave state to a black-led, independent nation in 1804 following its revolution. More specifically, Fanning’s thesis is that Haiti gave free African-Americans (who, despite not being enslaved, still faced disenfranchisement, the possibility of being enslaved, etc.) hope by existing as a successful society where people of color were the ones in charge. Fanning has lots of convincing evidence about Haiti itself showing why it would be an inspiring place to people of color in the United States. For one thing, black people’s rights were preeminent to those of whites in Haiti’s constitution—for example, whites could not own land in post-Revolution Haiti. (65) It is not surprising that black people in America would be inspired by such a system. Fanning also points out that Haiti was economically successful even as the United States under Jefferson put the country under a trade embargo—Fanning discusses the importance of its ports and how sailors complimented its economy and government. (66-67) Those are just two of many ways Fanning points out that would make Haiti look promising to black Americans.

Fanning also points out that there were civic groups in the United States, made up of both African-Americans and white Americans, that pushed Haiti as a good place for African-Americans to emigrate to. (74) That, combined with concerted efforts by Haitian leaders, resulted in 13,000 African-Americans immigrating to the islands in the 1820s. (75) However, Fanning must admit that many of them soon returned the United States. She chalks these returns up to cultural differences and feelings that there was no more work to be done in Haiti following France’s recognition of the state. Fanning uses primary sources to show that Haiti’s policies and cultural realities did make the country a significant beacon of hope to politicized African-Americans.

Despite the successes of Fanning’s argument, I believe that she does not pay enough attention to early Haiti’s instability and how that may have affected African-Americans’ views of the country. She acknowledges that Haiti’s first president, Dessalines, was assassinated two years after Haitian independence and that the country was momentarily split in two. However, she does not address how those events may have affected African-Americans’ view of the country and its status as a symbol of hope. I’m sure many people would be skeptical of the long-term health of such a country so unstable so soon after its revolution, let alone the idea of moving there permanently. Yes, Boyer’s reunification and lasting rule of the country probably dissuaded those fears somewhat (though he was eventually overthrown and exiled), but what about the tension in Haiti between black people and mixed race people that Fanning briefly alludes to? (65) Many African-Americans were of mixed race or at least must have been related to or known people who were. Wouldn’t that have been troublesome to many black and mixed race Americans? Looking at all these tensions and issues of stability, I would not be surprised if they played a role in the many African-Americans who moved to Haiti and came back. However, Fanning does not address those as possible reasons when discussing the many who emigrated and returned to the United States. So, while Fanning does some things right, I believe that she does not give enough consideration to early Haiti’s many problems.

In “The Roots of Early Black Nationalism,” Sara Fanning aims to argue that Haiti “played a far greater role in the cultural and political activities of northern free blacks than historians previously credited.” (Fanning) Although she provides extensive support to the measures taken by Haitian officials to cater to the Free African American population in the United States, she does not give adequate evidence that these actions led to real influence in the United States. She spends most of her time describing reasons as to why her claims would be supported, but not enough concrete evidence to African American reactions to her specific reasons.

After the Haitian Revolution, Fanning portrays Haiti as an attractive place for African Americans to reside. The Constitution provided for equality, banned white ownership of plantations, and the country was characterized by a military presence, demonstrating their willingness to defend their newfound freedom. After the revolution and stints of civil war, however, Haiti needed more people if it was going to be able to survive economically; it was already difficult enough as many countries refused to recognize their independence. It was for this reason that officials were often sent to the states to recruit for Haitian immigration, official declarations made that would be published in black newspapers in the US, and even the constitution modeled after that of the United States (although this was probably not for publicity reasons, it came to be used as one.)

Fanning gives plenty of reasons for Haiti to be attractive to African Americans, and that these qualities were made apparent, but rarely gives specific examples of how the African American population felt about them. She often uses language such as “would not have gone unnoticed” or “must have been welcomed” in an attempt to give the nationalist movement relevance, but these are simply assumptions. She is able to show that emigration occurred after some publicity attempts, but a connection with her specific examples is not clearly shown. The most relevant exception would be the naming of the Boyer Masonic Lodge in New York, but even then she mentions he failed to bring the expected number of migrants.

This is not to discredit Fanning’s article, as there is valuable information. I simply feel that her Abstract does not match the content of her article, and a change in thesis could greater reflect the evidence given.

As seen in Eli’s post, much of our knowledge of slavery we see as conventional, something everyone learns about throughout their education. We often find, though, that much of what we learn is not the entire truth, and we can be misled. I feel like Fanning plays on our natural inclination to trust a historian, as without careful reading much of the assumptions she makes in her article could be accepted as fact. It is important as young historians ourselves to always be aware of what we are reading and how evidence can be skewed or misleading.

Tag: Fanning

Problems in Haiti

Haiti's Influence: Real or Perceived?