Early 1,800 1800s. Joshua rothman is the professor. Today were going to talk about the emerge earns of a new antislavery and the reaction to that antislavery. We havent looked at opposition to slavery in a while but in a generation or two after the ratification of the constitution, it was not unusual for both northerners and southerners to talk about the morality of slavery. Now, before the 1830s or so, there were relatively few white americans who believed that enslaved people ought to be immediately freed, given citizenship rights, but there were many who felt white people and black people would both be better off if slavery gradually ended and if the two races sort of pursued their destinies separately. And so in 1817 you start to see kind of the manifestation of this idea in a movement, all right . That year a group of prominent minister and politicians, people who wanted to end slavery, separate the races, they founded an Organization Called the american colonization society. Now, their idea was to take free black People Living in the United States and resettle them in west africa. At the same time, the society would encourage slave holders in the United States to emancipate their slaves and those people would then also be sent to africa, along with black missionaries, who would bring christianity to africans. Now this is a really popular idea in its early years, colonization. Its particularly popular among white people. It is so popular that in 1822 Congress Actually appropriates money to help the society found a colony in africa. This becomes the american colony of liberia. This would be the place where enslaved people from the United States would go. And there were supporters of this idea, of colonization right up to the civil war. But in practical terms, the Movement Never really gets very far. For one thing, africanamericans did not have a whole lot of interest in it. They do not want to leave their homes to go someplace that they had never been. Free black people in the north condemned colonization. What they were interested in is not leaving the United States, what theyre interested in is ending slavery altogether. Another reason colonization fails as a movement is that there simply arent that many slave holders who are willing to emancipate their slaves. The more the cotton economy boomed, the more enslaved people were worth, the less interested slave holders were in freeing them. So all told even as this Movement Goes on, it remains popular, the numbers of people who actually go to liberia are relatively small. But one thing that does stand out about colonization is that even though its clear its not really going to work, there were both white northerners and white southerners involved in the movement. And through the end of the 1820s or so, there was at least some openness to talking about the morality of slavery, the future of slavery in the south. This was particularly true in places like maryland and virginia where slavery wasnt as deeply entrenched as it had been in earlier decades. And it was particularly true among ivan jel evangelical christians, that at least in theory called for quality of all people before god. Many evangelical minister even in the southerly in the 19th century were opposed to slavery. Most white southerners did defend slavery but they rarely argued it was an unambiguously good thing and they almost never said it was perfect. Instead the kind of defense of slavery you might see southerners early in the 19th century was that they had inherited slavery. It came down from generations before them, sometimes they might argue that their economy made the continuation of slavery into a Necessary Evil but most white people agreed that the system could use some internal reforms. There were many people who felt that in time some kind of alternative might be found to slavery altogether. In fact, early in 1832, the state legislature in virginia actually had an open debate about whether or not to put a gradual emancipation plan in place. Move the whole state toward a free labor economy instead. But whatever kind of openness you might have seen in the south in the 1810s, the 1820s, by the middle of the 1830s, even entertaining those kind of ideas out loud was dangerous. The Virginia Legislature obviously rejected that gradual emancipation plan and no Southern State ever again considered emancipation before the civil war. There is a dramatic shift that happens in the south between the 1820s and the 1830s. And essentially what happens is that instead of thinking about the future of slavery, leading white southerners instead came to the conclusion that without slavery they had no future. The reason theres a rapid about face is an urban and localized abolitionism movement in the north. Be a ol i abolitionism doesnt have as many as followers but abolitionism is most significant Reform Movement from this era. It has the biggist isgest impa American History, with the same impulses that underlay other reform groups. Many were evangelical christians, they believed slavery was sinful, they believed it was an unjust restraint that prevented africanamericans from reaching their full potential as human beings, and by doing that, by keeping them from living up to that potential, the United States perpetuated a social evil, and it was one that did not only hurt black americans. It hurt the whole country. Slavery, they believe, impaired national potential for greatness and ultimately the nations potential for real spiritual redemption. Now, free black people, as you might imagine, in the north had been fighting for an end to slavery ever since there was slavery. Theyve been fighting for abolition for years, decades before white americans begin to respond. By 1830 there were already more than 50 black abolition societies and as time went on, those abolition societies only became more forceful. They became more hostile to the to ideas about gradual emancipation, right . This had been sort of of the characteristic move of antislavery since the move of the revolution, gradual emanse spa emancipation. Instead, its insistence on moral perfection, black americans began to demand more aggressively that slavery was a sin, that slavery was unamerican, that slavery had to end and that they were entitled to their rights as citizens of the United States. Ing so theres a rise of a abolition. There was the publication of a black man name david walker. David walker was born free in North Carolina and he eventually moves to boston where he runs a used clothing store. Mostly catering to black sailors. They would come off the both, waring these nasty old close. All they want to do get something different, get rid of the clothes theyre wearing. Walker not only runs a clothing store, he gets involved with antislavery societies and gets involved with newspapers and accomplishes the appeal it was a warning to white americans, a warning that slavery was a sin against god, it called on black american to mobilize for abolition and it, frankly, called for enslaved people to rise up in rebellion if they were not given the freedom that they deserved. Now this was a pretty alarming thing for slave holders to hear. This is a black man encouraging violent rebellion by enslaved people. It became even more alarming when some of the sailors who patronized david walkers store started showing up in southern port cities with copies of this pamphlet. As a kwoconsequence of that ala a price was put on david walkers head by a number of Southern States. Hes found dead less than a year after the appeal was published. Theres some modern scholarship that suggests he probably died of tuberculosis, but its not surprising that many believed for years afterward that david walker had been murdered. Regardless of how he died, the militancy he expressed, that didnt die. A year after his death in 1831, a white man, an evangelical christian named William Lloyd garrison takes it upon himself to start spreading this new kind of aggressive abolitionism. And he gives it a permanent voi voice. He starts publishing newspaper entitled the liberator. It was pretty straight forward. It demanded an immediate, uncondition an end to slavery. The front page of the very first issue, garrisons first editorial, made it perfectly clear where he stood. He wrote, i will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice on this subject, meaning slavery, i do not wish to think, speak or write with moderation. Im ernest, i will not equivocate, i will not excuse, i will not retreat a single inch, and i will be heard. Particularly among evangelicals, the north proved receptive ground for the antislavery calls. Its building on the laong standing foundation built by black people. In philadelphia in 1833, garzon along wi garrison along with about 60 other people founded the American Antislavery Society. By 1835, two years later, there were more than 200 antislavery societies in the north. By the end of the 1830s the American Antislavery Society had over 1,000 local chapters. More than a quarter of a million members. Now, the Abolitionist Movement holds within it a lot of different kinds of positions, all right . Not all abolitionists hold the same positions on slavery, not all of them have the same attitudes toward slave holders. What the American Antislavery Society is able to do, at least for a while, is its able to bring together a wide range of people, people who cross lines of race, of class, of gender, of political persuasion. Theres a broad framework, right. They all desire the end of slavery, but within that broad framework, different people had different visions. How do you go aboutyou a pursui that goal . Some considered themselves abolitionists but what this were dedicated to was colonization. Other people believed the most practical strategy remained gradual emancipation. They didnt think it was possible for it to happen all at once. But the most radical people known as immediatists were people like garrison, people who saw no reason to wait and they say no ground for compromise. Garrison, in fact, only becomes more radical as time went on. He starts attacking not only slavery, he attacks the government that condoned slavery. Most famously in the 1840s, he burned a copy of the constitution, referring to it as a covenant with death and an agreement with hell. Because it protected slavery. Now, when it comes to race, b a abolitionists also have a range of perspectives. The most radical, people like garrison, they were racial egalitarians. They believed not only in freedom for black people, they also believed in equality, giving free black people full social and political rights. Most white abolitionists dont believe in that. Most white abolitionists believe in freedom but they do not necessarily believe in equality. And this is sort of a hard thing for us to get our minds around. You can be antislavery and still pretty racist. Moving beyond race to things like strategy, there were some people who really felt the way to do this was the way to take Political Action, but there were other people who wanted to steer clear of politics altogether because they thought getting involved with politics would muddy up the morals of the movement. So theres always these tensions within the movement, tensions over goals, tensions over tactics, tensions over beliefs and ideology. There were arguments about the role of women in the movement and ultimately by the 1840s the Abolitionist Movement splits. It divides into a number of different factions. So by the time you get to the civil war, the term abolitionist, it doesnt really mean any one thing, right, theres not any single Abolitionist Movement. Instead what that term really meant was kind of a broad, decentralized spectrum of individuals. But sticking to the 1830s, which is sort of where im going to spend most of our energy, all right, thats when the movement is growing at its fastest and when its at its most unified and aggressive. Be a lists are relying mostly on three big strategies for building the cause. One strategy was sending speakers out on the lecture circuit. And particularly compelling abolitionist speakers were dozens of formerly enslaved people. Men like Frederick Douglas and henry box brown, women like Sojourner Truth and harriet tubman. These are people who had direct experience with slavery. They knew personally, intimately what its evils were and what that felt like. And by telling what their lives under slavery had been like, they brought a kind of authenticity, a kind of moral energy to their lectures that people like garrison couldnt possibly offer. Garrison only knew slavery from a distance. And hes white. He couldnt speak to slavery like Frederick Doug could. A second weapon of the abolitionist and arguably their most important was literature. Abolitionists flood the streets and the mails with a massive outpouring of pamphlets, leaflets, newspapers, sermons, broadsides. In 1835 alone, abolitionists sent more than 1 million pieces of mail through the postal system. And whats in this abolitionist literature are calls for slave holders to repent, to free their slaves. Its calling on nonslave holders to join the Abolitionist Movement and its filled with content as slavery as immoral, unjust, described plantations where the most brutal processes happened on a regular basis. Abolitionists understood that americans were coming to value things like the domestic sphere, family life, these things that were absolutely critical for individual happiness and for national stability. So abolitionists particularly stressed how slave families were torn apart by the institution of slavery. They stressed how enslaved women were subject to systemic rain a rape and sexual abuse. These were kinds of angles that support special resonance for middle class white women. These are people drawn to abolition. Its middle class white women who served as one of the movements really core strengths of support and manpower. Now, for abolitionists who preferred more direct tactics, speakers was one thing, political literature is another thing, youre trying to persuade people to your cause, for abolitions who wanted something pore direct, the movements third major strategy was a turn to politics, Political Action. So some antislavery activists sent petitions to congress by the hundreds, the thousands, sometimes signed by as many as tens of thousands of people. They show up in these giant rolls of paper in washington. Still other people took Political Action to the next level. They start calling for Political Parties that would be dedicated specifically to the goal of ending slavery. And the very first one of these is founded in 1839 and it was known as the liberty party. Now, when you add all this up, you have a movement of people who are very loud, theyre very outspoken, theyre very motivated, but there are not that many of them. Abolitionists, for all of its growth, it remains abolitionists remain a relatively small minority of the northern population. And that was because most white northerners were not interested in racialial iaequality, were n interested in setting enslaved people free. Most white northerners instead felt like abolitionists were crazy people, religious fanatics, dangerous radicals, selfrighteous people, annoying people, people who were much more concerned about sort of the state of their own souls than they were about the stability of the nation. And the truth is if were really honest, the abolitionists were pretty out there for people in the 1820s, 30s, 40s. But whatever we might want to call fanaticism, they do have one distinctive advantage in hindsight and that distinct advantage was theyre right. But most persons didnt feel that way at the time. And so throughout the north, the homes and the businesses of abolitionists came under attack. People who were known to be supporters of the Abolitionist Movement sometimes lost their jobs. Sometimes they got evicted from homes that they rented. Abolitionists meetings and speakers were routinely interrupted by mobs. Speakers were on the receiving end of eggs and rocks and clubs. In 1835 William Lloyd garrison himself was dragged through the streets of boston by a mob. He almost certainly would have been lynched, but the police got to him and they put him in jail for his own protection. But of course when this kind of thing happens, its just a matter of time till somebody gets killed. And in 1837 the Abolitionist Movement got its first martyr. His name was elijah lovejoy. Lovejoy was a minister, he was the editor of an abolition newspaper in the town of alton, illinois, which is right across the mississippi from st. Louis. On three different occasions mobs attacked lovejoys house. They destroyed his Printing Press and he just kept ordering Printing Presses. And when the fourth press arrived, he armed himself. He decided to guard the warehouse where the newspaper was published. And mobs didnt want to go into that warehouse because mobs are sort of fundamentally cowardly so they set the warehouse on fire instead. They shot lovejoy as he fled the building, they destroyed the Printing Press again and they dragged his body through the streets. This was bad, right . Assaults against abolitionism and abolitionists. And yet what those people faced in the north was almost nothing compared to what they faced in the south. White southerners were outraged by the rapid growth of abolitionists. The fact that abolitionists seemed to single them out, morally condemn them for perpetuating an institution that was legal and that was constitutional. White southerners argued that abolitionists challenged their honor and their integrity as american citizens. They argued that abolitionists threatened and endangered their lives by sending materials through the mail that could spark a slave rebellion. Antislavery sentiment was one thing when it came from inside the south. It was one thing when people were talking about the possibility of colonization. But this was different. This was a growing movement, aggressive, biracial, coming from outside of the south. That wasnt acceptable. And so within the south antislavery sentiment effectively disappeared by the middle of the 1830s. If you are a minister who was opposed to slavery, you either changed your tune or you left your pulpit. By the middle of the 1840s both baptism and methodism split into northern and southern wings over the issue of slavery. This is why there are southern baptists, southern methodists. Mobs printed articles critical of slavery, in 1831 the Georgia Legislature offered a bounty for garrisons arrest. There was a reward of 15 if anyone was caught with copies of t the liberator. Citizens simply raided the post office and took all the abolitionist literature in the post office, they piled it in the street and set it on fire. By the 1840s, just being caught in possession of abolitionist literature could put you in pretty serious physical danger in most parts of the south. But southern power in defense of slavery never really just stayed in the south. It went federal. And at the federal level in 1836 southern congressmen secured passage of what was known as the gag rule what the gag rule did was all of those abolitionist competitions coming into congress, the gag rule provided they would not be read. Never. They would not be entered on the floor of congress. They would simply be tabled and put in a closet. And the gag rule was passed in every subsequent session of congress until 1845. Andrew jackson, the president himself, and of course himself a slave holder, he urged congress simply to ban antislavery literature from the mail altogether. Now, there was some irony in all this. The severity of the reaction against abolitionism, it does sort of back fire because it only made the movement stronger. There were a lot of white northerners who were not particularly sympathetic to enslave people, they were not sympathetic to the cause of ending slavery, but they were appalled at the kind of mob violence that abolitionists encountered. Things like the gag rule, the murder of elijah lovejoy, the burning of abolitionist literature. All of those things suggested that when it came to antislavery, freedom of speech apparently did not mean anything. And this was a standard critique that abolitionists offered of slave holders. They said you watch, you come after these people, you criticize them, you try to take out their power, they will be ruthless, they will take you down with whatever means they need to. Theyll do anything to keep slavery in place. And as time went on, more and more white northerners start looking around and they say, you know, on that point at least abolitionists are on to something. But the rise of abolitionism doesnt just lead white southerners to sort of crack down on antislavery sentiment. It does that but it does more. Abolitionism also helps produce a larger rethinking within the south of what it meant to be the south, what is the places regional identity . It leads white southerners to start rethinking the souths position in the nation. Now, it was true that abolitionists only constituted a small minoritythe northern pop laugs but white southerners lived in an era when the tide was clearly turning against slavery, all over the western world. Remember where were at. Slavery was effectively a nonissue in the north. The french had abolished slavery in the 1709s. The british abolished slavery in the 1830s. There were a number of countries in south america, a number of colonies in the west indies, but also start instituting gradual emancipation plans. White southerners begin to look around them and they increasingly see themselves surrounded by enemies. And that was true even of some of their own countrymen, who in their eyes wanted to pervert the constitution, twist it to their own advantage and destroy the south. And so southerners felt like they had to defend themselves just arguing that slavery was a Necessary Evil. That practically seemed like an apology. It wasnt going to cut it anymore. So start in in the 18 30z, southern intellectuals devote an enormous am of information to developing a new defensive slavery. And the way the new argument had it, slavery wend just something that was constitutionally defensible. Its in the just something you could the new argument said that slavery made the south a Better Society than the north. Slavery, as the new argument went, was a good thing. John calhoun put it most famously in 137 safely was a good, a positive good. Now, not everything about this defense was new. Here and there white southerners had sometimes extolled the supposed virtues of slavery before the 1830s, but never had sufficient a system appeared on sufficient a large scale, conle assumed by so many people. And ironically, the same cheap Printing Technology that enabled abolitionists to spread their message, allowed pro southerners to blaengt the south with their own books and own newspapers and sermon and pamphlets and leaflets. What you had and it lasts for more than 30 years. Now, the first major text in the proslavery argument the new proslavery argument, was written by thomas due at the college of william and mary in and in 1832 he publishes a commentary on that slavery debate that they were having in the Virginia Legislature. And he comes out in complete opposition to the idea of abolition in the state. Instead he made the case for slaverys benefits. And what he does basically is he lays the foundation for the pro slavery argument that would develop and expand over the next three decades. So from the purely practical perspective, thomas dew argued that slave holders had millions doll do and the right to private report had to be respected in america. But dew went wrond the practical. He found historical groud philosophical grounding for slavery. He argued that the fwt ancient civilizations. He pointed to texts from ancient greeks that i cant recall. You look to the bible, he that bo that slavery was gods will, that slavery made for a good society and that the south was a legitimate heir to both Classical Tradition and Judeo Christian tradition. And so many people built on these kinds of arguments that by the 1850s, you could just get them in big fat reference books. You need an argument for slavery . Just pull one off the shelf and you could find them. Now, its impossible and really not worth our time to try to capture all of the nuances of the pro slavery argument, but generally authors focused on three major areas it on religion, they focused on history and what we might call sociology, what made a good society. So when it came to religion to as they either got stifled or left the south, the minister who remained play central roles in after 1830 roughly half of all proslavery literature was written by minister. And that may christianity had become central to american society. If religious slave holders did not believe that the bible sanctioned slavery, theyre going to have a pretty serious moral and psychological dilemma on their hands. So leading minister from every major denomination came to interpretations of the bible in a way that flatly contradict the interpretations of abolitionists. They point to patriarch. Looking to the new testament, they pointed out that jesus had had they noticed they even had a scripture for black people in particular. Here they looked to the book genesis. And they argued that africans were descendants of noahs son. If you remember the story of noah and the arc and what happens afterward, noah had cursed the children of hamm declaring them discontinued toin and the basic idea here is that the way southern clergy men would happen a, he had given them a bibically sanctioned people who be their slaves. Now, turning from religion to history, important literary figures and academics, journalists, politicians in the south, they all sort of expand and develop teels argued particularly how the philosophy and art from ancient greece and ann shouldnt recalls as part of their cultural heritage, all of these things they pointed out were the products of laf societies so they concluded that slavery was therefore and once you could justify slavery that way, once you could just then you could turn to a sociological argument. You could defend slavery specifically as it appeared and worked in the oust and all things considered, in Southern Slave Society was better because they argued that it provided for a stronger social order, one that was good for black people and white people alike. Now, explaining why dlafry was federal fob pra theyve sort if together ideas about whie the interiority black in and they argued that because of that, slavery utility. Way the argument went, slave holders provided the live and brought nem equipment they were not able to handle and they brought them christian civilization. Black people supposedly came from am and pore as abolitionists claim. Just like be a mikie sherrills sngs drew on eye as tos if they suggested that slaves were . Nurtured them, made them better people not not free people. Not equal people but twr. Were capable of freedom, were deluding themselves. They were the bun doing did have. This in but of course slavery was not all for the benefit of enslaved people. It benefited white. Is if and here they compared with sliefs in the north. In the north the argument of the very economic lads are were have they had the worst in most probably why people looked at down their knows of them socially. But in the south the argument was that slavery guaranteed white equality, it guaranteed democracy because the theory was that every white person, no matter how low, there was still a step above the ensliefd. In fact, pro dlif were better off than poor team in the north. They argued, sure, industrial workers, they might be free but considering how desperate their economic circumstances were, they might as well be but that was it. Meager salary was all they got. But as workers got old, who would keep they from servicing . As they got sick who is going to pay for medical care . They are taking free labor ideology and flipping it completely upsidedown. They insisted that slavery serve black people and white People Better than a free labor system. They argued that it made for more sincere and Lasting Bonds between people in society. And they argued that slavery made for a social order that was more humane, more christian, moand more just than the supposedly greedy, selfish Industrial Capital riz now, in reality both pro slavery and mib will writers exaggerated some in portraying slavery and the south. Slave holders were not every single ef them throughout the entire class a rapist, but the slave south, it is not one Big Happy Family either. Beau sides exaggerated the extent to which northerners and southerners had different values. Thanks like a rural lifestyle, things like christianity, things like a domestic family ideal. These were things that were at the foundation of culture and society, almost everywhere in the United States. And both northerners and southerners of course were immersed in an international capitalistic market economy. No matter how much southerners like to pretend that they werent as selfinterested as northerners were. But there was one thing, one absolutely crucial ideological viewpoint that northerners and southerners did not share. Only a small number of northerners would have ever conceded that slavery was a better or even an equally Good Foundation for society as free labor. Both northerners and southerners shared values like independence and selfreliance. They both believed that hard work was a noble activity that could move you up the economic ladder, but white southerners see the existence of slavery as a guarantee of white equality. Slavery was the path to future economic gain. But white northerners, see white people doing the same jobs as slaves and to them all that did was make white effort cheap. It actually held white people back in the class structure because it only enriched the people who owned the slaves. Now only a minority of white northerners cared enough about slavery to want to see it immediately abolished. If southerners wanted to keep slavery, i was fine with white most northerners. I dont really care much about black freedom, dont care much about black rights, dont care much about black quality, but a much larger number of northerners could agree that they dont want to live in a slave society, they dont want to work in a slave society. And these differing perspectives on slavery, they had been getting wider and further apart since the revolution. And they really start to diverge in the age of jackson. The south becomes more and more dedicated to slavery, even as the northern experience with slavery becomes part of the distance past. It disappears from peoples memory. But all these arguments, everything ive talked about today, the justice of slavery, the the difference between free labor, all these arguments are all abstract because every knew where slavery could go. The line between slave and free territories had been clear since the missouri compromise. But by the late 1840s, everythings up for grabs again. And this time ideology and politics, theyre not going to be so easy to sort out. Well pick up with that on thursday. Thank you. Have a great day. Coming up here on American History temperaturev, more lect history. Next the life and work of playwright August Wilson and then the confederate policies and how effective they were followed by the start of radio and how it influenced public pin before the u. S. Entered world war ii and later, civil war weaponry and how guns changed during the war to become more deadly. If you miss any of our live rof r coverage of the coronavirus outbreak, watch it at cspan. Org coronavirus. Its all there. Use the charlts and maps to trak the global spread. Our web page is your fast and easy way to watch cspans unfiltered coverage of this pandemic. Up next on lectures in history,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.