Pennsylvania – 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 Patricia A. Reid’s “Slavery and Abolition: a Journal of Slave and Post Slave Studies,” she references a quote by Fredrick Douglas that indicates an interest system regarding runaway slaves. Douglas once said “white men have been known to encourage slaves to escape, and then, to get the reward, catch them and return them to their masters” (365). This statement describes how the retrieval of slaves became somewhat of a business for white men during the 19^th century. Previously, I had known it was common for a reward to be given for a man to return another person’s slave. Yet, I never guessed that whites working alongside slaves in lower class jobs during this period would try to influence them into escaping only to have an upper hand in securing the reward. It is shameful at best but, it reiterates the idea that slaves were not considered people but, were property used for monetary gain.

An interesting situation that Reid details in her work was the predicament of being a free black within Pennsylvania. Reid describes how slaves and free blacks could easily integrate into Pennsylvania society because, this state, unlike Ohio, did not record free blacks (367). For slaves, this seemed like a blessing in disguise, as it was a close state in terms of distance in which they could feasibly assimilate into society. Yet, Reid reveals how this apparent blessing was actually a detrimental issue for black individuals of any status during the 19^th century.

Even though Pennsylvania enacted personal liberty laws in 1826, which were supposed to halt free blacks from being wrongfully uprooted and returned to slavery, the very system of the state essentially negated this law. Though this law was in effect, the free blacks were not granted a trial by jurors, or any due process of the law, leaving the decision of their case up to a white authority (369). As free blacks were not recorded in the state, if they did not have a strong white authority to speak on their behalf, like in Richard Allen case, they were left with little proof of their position (368). With this type of system in effect, the freedom of free blacks in Pennsylvania was unfortunately always in danger. Without strong white support behind them, a posse of slave catchers could appear and carry a number of blacks back to the south to be sold back into slavery, which is what occurred with the Morgan family. Though Pennsylvania tried to halt these practices with their laws, the system they had in place negated such affects, leaving free blacks generally unprotected in an often hostile environment.

After reading over Henry’s post, I completely agree with his questions regarding why both Maryland and Pennsylvania did not have significant legislation reflecting their people’s views. Though Pennsylvania did have a gradual emancipation policy, this was a limited route to abolition at best. Maryland meanwhile, did not feature such laws but, did have white slave owners releasing their slaves, which is what happened with the Morgans. In regards to Henry’s potential answer, I’d have to agree once again. Slavery as a whole was a critical social issue that had caused the Founding Fathers, as well as the Constitutional Convention. Though the United States had grown in many ways at the time of this issue, the idea of total abolition was still a distant possibility for the country as a whole. Even if people viewed it as wrong, it was so deeply ingrained into American culture that it was going to take a war that ripped the country in two to end this practice for good.

Through his frontier analysis The Whiskey Rebellion, Thomas Slaughter argues that the largest internal American conflict between 1780 and 1860 was more than just a scuffle about an alcohol excise; it was a culmination of years of turmoil between two distinctly different Pennsylvanian groups. The politically powerful “easterners” who occupied the halls of power in Philadelphia and the “westerners” who lived precariously on the fringes of American society had been at odds for decades, from the Paxton Boys to the Westsylvania movement. Even the Revolutionary War did little to ameliorate the political divide between the two groups, as they had entirely different views on what the new Republic should look like. After a decade of conflict and tension over land, Indian wars, and taxes, the westerners decided to take up arms and dare the federal government to challenge them. Rather than being an idealist uprising against despotic taxes and abuse, the Whiskey Rebellion was instead a manifestation of years of frontier frustration that reached its tipping point after the passing and attempted enforcement of a whiskey excise tax in 1791.

By the time of the American Revolution, the men of the frontier from North Carolina to New York had established themselves as a separate entity from the elite interests in state assemblies and landed commerce. Bacon’s Rebellion solidified this distinction and exemplified the power that the united frontier could display when aggravated. Many of the grievances expressed by the Westsylvanians in 1775 remained unchanged from those expressed by Bacon: little state support in defending against Indians, overrepresentation of the rich and corruption public offices, and unfair property laws. While viewed by many easterners, including George Washington, as unkempt, troublesome, and “as ignorant a set of people as the Indians,” the westerners viewed themselves as the defenders of American borders and the expansionists of civilization (79). The Paxton Boys exemplified this disparity, with some treating them as frontier saviors and others declaring them bloodthirsty outlaws. In reality, it’s all about perspective.

“By 1790, the chasm appeared…wider than ever before” (30). The chasm, of course, refers to the detachment in identity from the urban and frontier peoples of America. The majority of frontier concerns, even requests for greater autonomy and statehood, were generally ignored or denied by the state and federal legislature. While the east was concerned about the big picture (continental Indian peacekeeping, paying off war debts, and international diplomacy), the west was more concerned with daily survival. As their voice in legitimate politics dissipated further, the frontiersmen saw mass organization, or even illegitimate self-government, as their final option. As Wade pointed out on September 12, “Riots were one of a few ways communities could unite behind a common cause and…assure camaraderie amongst themselves”. The westerners found their only political allies to be themselves, and this united identity likely strengthened their resolve to openly challenge the state of Pennsylvania, as well as the federal government and George Washington himself. The uprising was the kind of popular political action that makes Occupy Wall Street look like kindergarten recess.

Tag: Pennsylvania

The Doubled Edged Sword of Pennsylvania's Liberty Laws

The Great Chasm: Disconnect on the Frontier