freedom – Popular Politics in Early America

November 14, 2013

Similarities Amongst Women and Other Minority Groups in the U.S.

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 his post, Lamoureux states that “I think a feminist is going to want to see women achieve some form of social success before a black man every time that decision is presented.” While I agree with Lamoureux that the feminist cause for gender equality must be understood in different terms than African American’s fight for racial equality, but can these two movements truly be seen as completely separate? After all, weren’t both of these groups denied citizenship, and the right to vote? Weren’t they both discriminated when it came to their occupation? Dubois highlights the similarities between the two group when she states “Citizenship represented a relation-ship to the larger society that was entirely and explicitly outside the boundaries of women’s familial relations. As citizens and voters, women would participate directly in society as individuals, not indirectly through their subordinate positions as wives and mothers.” It seems that in this sentence “women” can easily be interchanged with nearly any other minority group that has encountered discrimination and not given the right to vote or citizenship. That is not to say, of course, that the movement for women suffrage was identical to the Civil Rights movement and other minority moments, but simply that these movements cannot be looked at individually because common elements are shared amongst the various movements. While African Americans and other minority groups were discriminated on the color of their skin, women were discriminated through the manipulation of the public and private sphere, but yet, both acts of discrimination held the white man as more “able” while also denying work to these groups on the basis of their race or their gender. So while Lamoureux was right to say that some women at the time may have wished to attain freedom before Africans Americans, because they believed being white made them superior, I also think a good number of women felt that their movement was intertwined with other movements for rights and freedoms. Only these minority groups (African Americans, Jews, Indian American) could truly understand the white male dominated world in which these women lived, with all rights stripped away exhibited in their inability to attain citizenship or even the right to vote.

October 28, 2013

Print Media – Unveiling Hidden Voices

This week’s readings complemented each other well in outlining the development of black nationalism and political community in the late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth centuries. I found Newman’s tracing the development of a political voice for free people of color through print extremely effective. His claim that persistent use of print media led society “to reconsider its justification of bondage” and a tearing down of racial stereotypes is well supported in the countless pamphlets, articles, and speeches he uses to demonstrate the expansion of the political voice for black people (182-183). In this way, Newman reveals that in a time when the freedom was often limited for free people of color, print media was an outlet where disgruntled black people could vent their frustrations and share their ideas in a public forum. Moreover, Newman shows that the process of publishing for free people of color was a political statement in and of itself (184).

One aspect of Newman’s argument that relates to our discussion from last class is his analysis of the adaptations made by free people of color to ensure their political voice, specifically through what he calls “patron-client politics.” This method revolved around black activists garnering support from white elites to connect them to the parts of the world often inaccessible to free people of color (187). Unlike Reid, who in last week’s reading painted free people of color as victims to a system similar to patron-client politics, Newman writes about this system as an avenue of advancement for black people. While both claims are convincing and well supported, it is interesting to see two very divergent views on social systems that share very similar characteristics.

I think Fanning’s piece was a great expansion of the scope established by Newman. By bringing the role of the Haitian Revolution into discourse about the development of black nationalism in the early-nineteenth century we begin to see some of the possible inspiration behind the changing political climate for free people of color. As Fanning notes, black people in the North used the Haitian Revolution “as a rallying cry” for their own movements (63). Like Newman, Fanning also effectively notes the importance of print culture in the creation of a political voice for free people of color. As Eli mentions in his post from last week, the Pennsylvania personal liberty laws made free people of color second-class citizens perceived as undeserving of full protection under the laws. Eli’s argument is supported by Fanning. Haitians, realizing what Eli indicated in his post, appealed to those free people of color inflicted by the injustices of personal liberty laws – they were sure to indicate that the laws of Haiti did not allow white men to own land within their country. Fanning also reveals that American merchants supported the recognition of Haiti in major newspapers (67). While depicting the importance of print media in the growth of black nationalism, Fanning also underscores the success of print to spread previously quieted voices and ideas within American society and throughout the Caribbean. Both Newman and Fanning do well in highlighting how free people of color found a way to make all they could out of a white-dominated political system and how, amidst challenging circumstances, were successful in establishing their own political identity.

October 24, 2013

Prigg vs. Pennsylvania- Focus On Lasting Impact Rather than Immediate Effect

Many of my fellow classmates have mentioned the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania in their posts, particularly CT as he mentioned the case in his post to highlight the fact that “for those blacks who had their freedom undocumented or unrecorded, their freedom was based on white authority” (368) I agree with CT’s assortment that during this time much of black freedom was predicated on white’s perception of their freedoms and rights but in my opinion, the particular case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, in fact, helped the cause of slave’s and fugitive’s rights more than it hindered them. Patricia Reid, in “Margaret Morgan’s Story: A Threshold Between Slavery And Freedom, 1820-1842″ mentions that this particular case ” ultimately resulted in, the infamous Dred Scott opinion”, which as we know made the ruling that African Americans were slave property and thus not able to attain citizenship of the United States. (359-360) In doing this, Reid is making a direct claim that the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania was counterproductive in the fight for the rights of runaways and freed slaves. But, in my opinion, Reid is putting to much emphasis on the events that occurred directly after the ruling, rather than the developments in the multiple decades since. Justice Joseph Story, while in the ruling did not claim the Fugitive State Law to be unconstitutional, did mention that state legislations had the authority to enact their own laws regarding the issue. In doing this, Justice Story transferred the authority of managing runaway slaves away from the Federal Government and in the hands of the states, which, in my opinion, greatly aided the cause of slaves and fugitives especially in the North.

But looking at the specific ruling of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, one can see that it gives states the ability to interpret the Fugitive Slave Act as they please, as it recognized certain states held a different stance towards fugitive’s rights than did the decision made by the court. So while, the immediate effects of the ruling were of course not ideal for Margaret Morgan, it did prove to aid multiple laws and legislations passed thereafter, in supporting runaways if state legislation allowed particularly in Northern states, where fugitive laws were less enforced. In this particular case, thus, it is important to realize that the immediate effects of an incident, while important to analyze in their own right, stand separate from the lasting impacts and future developments of the issues surrounding the particular incident, in this case, the case of Pregg vs. Pennsylvania. Although, I agree with both CT and Reid regarding their assessment of white authority over black freedom, I also one should focus on the lasting effects of an event, so as to see the entire picture and wholly understand the topic of discussion.

October 24, 2013

Not Free Yet

Reid’s analysis provided a far more detailed analysis of a specific incident and area that of Genovese, and successfully navigates and explains the complex political framework that dealt with runaway and freed slaves in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Moreover, while Genovese posits revolution as the ultimate form of resistance in slave communities, Reid explores personal struggles and resistances to slavery in the form seeking freedom by fleeing to free territories. However, as Reid clearly articulates the struggle for freedom did not end upon reaching the north or even being freed by one’s master, the struggle was perpetual and later compounded by the decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania. I think her engagement free African-Americans continued experience with slavery provided a different perspective on the issue of slavery and contributes to a more complete assessment of slavery’s far-reaching effects in United States society prior to the Civil War.

While I agree with Wade’s assessment that an additive element of laymen perspective would have made the piece more complete, I don’t think that the goal that Reid sought to accomplish. Rather, I believe her focus revolved around the legislative and judicial history of slavery in Pennsylvania and Maryland. Although there are certainly more aspects to explore in the story that Reid laid out, I did not find the introduction to history of litigation on slavery and its development superfluous and helped paint a more complete picture of what she sought to depict.

October 23, 2013

The Unfreedom of "Freedom"

Patricia Reid’s “Margaret Morgan’s Story” challenged me to think about aspects of slavery among border states that I had previously never given thought. Her juxtaposition of the concepts of slavery and freedom within the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania ultimately led to a thorough examination of the legitimacy of freedom for African Americans in the early- to mid-nineteenth century. This analysis was supported in large part by Reid’s excellent critique on the personal liberty laws passed in Pennsylvania in 1826. While Reid explains the initial, benevolent intentions of the laws, she proceeds to reveal their myriad weaknesses in protecting African Americans. When compared to the personal liberty laws of New York or Massachusetts, the laws of Pennsylvania had no effect in changing the political voice or power of African Americans – if accused of being a fugitive slave, African Americans were not even provided a jury trial (369). If anything, Reid effectively emphasizes that the political stance of free African Americans was weakened by placing the jurisdiction of their trials into the hands of elite white slaveholders. For many African Americans, freedom was entangled in a convoluted system of unfreedom.

Continuing her mockery of personal liberty laws in border states, Reid highlights the proceedings of the Prigg v. Pennsylvania trial of 1842. When the issue of these laws were taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, the status of Margaret Morgan and her children – previously free African Americans who had been accused of being fugitive slaves, kidnapped, and then sold into slavery in the South – was never addressed, although state laws of both Maryland and Pennsylvania dictated that they were free (373). In depicting the proceedings of the trial, Reid demonstrates that the personal liberty laws of Pennsylvania were wholly ineffective. In this light she also reveals the lack of importance placed on African American issues by the white elite in the nineteenth century – equal treatment towards free African Americans was a non-issue because in the minds of many blacks were not, and would never be, equals. Reid uses the example of the Pennsylvania personal liberty laws as a kind of satire for the entire system by which African Americans were to be protected against injustice. Collectively, I think this writing contributes greatly to supporting her overarching thesis of a growth of “pro-slavery constitutionalism” throughout the middle of the nineteenth century (360)

While Reid’s criticism of personal liberty laws is both detailed and insightful, the first half of her work dilutes her argument. In trying to establish the legal framework for the unfortunate events of the Morgan family and the subsequent Prigg trial, Reid provides readers with a background that is largely excessive. I think Reid could have made a much more powerful argument had she spent more time emphasizing the opinions and perspectives of those directly affected by the liberty laws, freed African Americans. With this in mind, I think the questions presented by Henry and Ian are very important. These questions underscore Reid’s lack of layman perspective in her work. What did the populace think about freed slaves? How did African Americans view personal liberty laws? Reid’s use of quotes from both a freed African American and Frederick Douglass were critical in establishing the black perspective in her argument, but the paucity with which they were used left me wanting more depth in this portion of her analysis (370, 365). Despite her missed opportunities, Reid is still able to clearly articulate that manumission did not imply freedom, and freedom in no means implied equality for African Americans in the nineteenth century.

October 23, 2013

Crossroads of Slavery

In Patricia Reid’s “Margaret Morgan’s Story: A Threshold between Slavery and Freedom, 1820-1842”, she recounts the Morgan family’s predicament in terms of the laws of Maryland and Pennsylvania which were in constant flux and ambiguity. The Morgans lived in the ultimate border state, Maryland, in which “the status between ‘slave’ and ‘free’ was regularly blurred.” They had been free for some years, manumitted by their owner, however the unclear nature of the laws in the states made it simple for slaveholders and catchers to capture any black they saw and transport them back into servitude. Margaret noted this and the increasing paranoia among Maryland legislators that free blacks posed a bad example for the enslaved and that they were bad for business. These revelations pushed her to move her family further north, to Pennsylvania.

Maryland was seen as one of the important bastions of slavery that if it were to give way to abolitionist sentiment, the rest of the slave states would soon follow, expanding these interests. Slave owners and the governmental legislators they influenced had other plans though. They gradually began to institute harsher restrictions to make it more difficult for blacks to maintain their free status. They were forced to prove their freedom in more than one way, often in manners that were greatly inconvenient. These laws and statutes only served to put a tighter leash on the Maryland blacks who were free and looked to extract them from the state as a whole. Maryland occupied a unique position as a state wanting to benefit from the all the profits that slavery provided for the powerful slave-holding class.

As Reid says, “Marylanders depended on northern and southern insterstate comity to govern relations with respect to slaves and slaveholders migrating in and out of the state.” Maryland was at the crossroads of the north and the south, slavery and freedom. Their legislators made a conscious decision in the 1830s, just as the Morgans were leaving to Pennsylvania, to give slavery a grand welcome back into society. Maryland used their close proximity to the North and South to install “new legal parameters…discriminatory statutes that both the North and South employed.” I agree with Ian’s post this week asserting how a short distance between just a few states could make a large difference in terms of how slaves could be prosecuted in a court of law. I concur with his statement that, “for slaves, this seemed a blessing in disguise, as it was a close state in terms of difference in which they could feasibly assimilate into society.”

I liked the method in which Reid made her argument and used the microhistory of Morgan and her case to illustrate how slavery and freedom legislation was progressing during the period. Her writing is very clear and concise and her use of primary sources and block quotes only served to legitimize her explanations. She inserted short facts about slave-catching, one of which particularly caught my attention: the conviction of slaveholders could yield up to US$2000 or 7 to 21 years of hard labor. I would not have expected slave catchers to have been prosecuted so harshly at that time.