SOME INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ABOLITTON MOVEMENT Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TUNG-HSUN SUN 1972 I [IBDADY [WW leféw 1 mo Umvcmty 502 ‘q-# h) ‘\‘1 0 %_=m C ~—T;:;:< $5} :KQ; \N\< :XTEZL This is to certify that the 1 1 7 I ~ q thesis entitled wME INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ABOLITION MOMENT presented by TImS-hsun Sun has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _.dc.c_t.c.L. degree in 4111113912111 I 0-7639 ? ; LII unneasnus .~ I .‘X annxamnmv nu: I I! I LIBRARY BINDERS smusronr IICIISAI '4 a - . .: I. . . I we. 2 . T .. Md 9 mu t n. ‘ . u. S . ¢ 9. L .. . . . . 5 “my p» ‘Pv by 03 z. .ru NV RN ‘4 AU ‘1». «G. M‘ PI 8 u» h. .. . 3 .1. A: r. 0 Thu h. .x . . a .1 Hu .1 S S a A: a a. r .9 I Q . t ‘IQ c REM L U 1- f . . '8 O S O. a. a: e .n . \. .s 0 F. e L F. l . Thu ab 0 . § . {g .n .. n1. 0 .3. .A . .Hu c A «t e 6» Av S i u 9.: hr. 8 t t» C» ... S -u. Qi .d. G. ?v u... TI; I. q a 6 h «\u e P A. e s A: sf . ’1‘. ‘ I cw Afl,‘ Rxfi p .. a as. c. O . a W. in III 3- he :- . 0. ll. at a: I. ‘1' t. nah AV Q. a: It In I,. 6 #1 ID. ‘1' A\~ - u I. . nu guy N! n 1 ”I! u~ .0. I. ‘ H '0 D I ... ‘. “I‘D. On“ ‘I Q. I u l.‘ I 8 .I‘ICI '0 n . - .- - .1. w , . - ... . a. ... xv... H... u .. L. I _ 1... ABSTRACT SOME INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT By Tung—hsun Sun It is well known that the interpretation of American history has been in the constant process of revision. Being a part of the American past. it can be ex- pected that the abolition movement would be subjected to the same process of interpretative change from time to time. The purpose of this thesis is to try to trace the changes in abolition historiography by an analysis of monographic studies of this subject and the writings of representative scholars of the several schools of interpretation in American historiography. and to determine what factors contributed to these changes. It is found that since trained historians began to write about the abolition movement during the last decade of the nineteenth century. the interpretation of it has under- gone several changes. Nationalist historians like James Ford Rhodes. Albert B. Hart and Jesse Macy whose studies . C ..o .A. "F" ,..o “1— ""5 F—l - .0 o .. "a an \Oopv‘s .o On. EU.AUOV"§ - ‘ \ .c-no :91. H'l‘g a O ' Oi .Deovl m.‘ urcev.‘ ' -n6.;6..' ;-:e{:‘P.l"‘ ‘Ion-AV‘JD' 'fl :L -. :.:. fly: P I. .‘I. “..‘.‘ a ’H L. . e "3' w b"‘r 8"Fn 1.. “ 5" v ‘ I -£. £. , ':I 9 .¥ . u hue EEV-Op Ot'. 5'1: e - H.555 Slat rQ a' t a null: . H's 'as In ‘I.‘ 'J.H'“sat u:..“"s~ r‘~ av]...er.t w ~{ A: e. V. II' ‘:‘ " ‘~'s q°“‘\y e v...“ II.‘ . a t. I Q - s R‘ ":7 girl's JV w- ‘8 ‘t': 'o“.i:' V hnimr‘ 2‘“ I‘=.= a. h . L‘s fiv‘a ‘ . ..Q; { L'C'fi . ‘V...‘ 1 ‘ ‘0. h 1 . in; a~c*l' 4n...“ ‘3 a Tung-hsun Sun fighters for liberties for all men. However. the un- reservedly sympathetic reappraisal of the abolition movement did not come until the 1960's when admiring historians came to view the abolitionists as far-sighted. practical revolu- tionaries and upheld their radicalism. The reasons for such changes in interpretation and attitude were complex. The accumulation of material and scholarship was certainly one of the factors. Another was the background and belief of individual historians. But the fact that during a given age. historians were more or less united in their approach and attitude to the abolitionists may suggest a close relation of the changes in interpretation to those in the general outlook of different ages. Thus, the nationalist historians' favorable reaction to the political abolitionists was in accord with the popular emphasis on sectional reconciliation and national unity of their time. The disillusionment with the First World War and the debunk- ing mood of the post-war years accounted at least partially for Barnes' ambivalent attitude. and largely for the revisionists' denunciation of the abolitionists as warmongers. The relatively conservative mood with a mistrust of reforms during the 1950's was responsible for the psychologist- historians' minimization of the abolitionists as true ‘reformers. And finally the completely sympathetic rehabili- tating trend in abolition historiography of the last decade *was mainly a product of the rise of radicalism and the grow- irm;sympathy for the Negro's struggle for equality and justice. 1 O V . Or an a . 3:5: :1" '--e .6 “v | . . i . .F FD;- . "- 73": I... a h ' ‘ "‘ AA! n 4.33941 V_‘a‘ ens ‘ - I :clu... . ‘ fap". .C e..¢v.: o p ' 'H F! . A"’ I ,1“. mus. . I _...;p:o: a? “A ' “ naC-O‘Uv U. UJQO ' .::“:'- a“, -Fa:pz ..d..-‘ .‘V:. vv:. .‘.. Q. Q - .. I. rd V'H .Hc . an 0" ..u ""93" M' 'I-i n a “I..." . .U40 ‘0‘... '. a I‘ . h":- a... .: r e 5" .. .‘ ‘ 7.3: WM?“ .' . vcy'. pl ...e 1',- .. 9... if: e a '0 tie D: 4 ‘ "‘c 4- ‘ I.|:..‘.. '5 I a as Javl: if . ‘§ v- I ‘.°'M:S; .1 e ‘ v .I . " A | 'V tr I. Lb. “‘ha~ ....al *N b‘ - .."‘. oet"fla1 . U ‘ v‘ ew ‘ e. S .". 1‘. .‘. ':§::‘ ‘ " 92's.. I. ‘ v‘. '0: ::.‘ it. ;"1 lo . v , y la. a" I. ,I “‘1 I. I.|:.’ a ' r ‘e Tung-hsun Sun appeared in the late nineteenth— and early twentieth- century viewed the abolitionists as true reformers battling against a real social and moral evil. Although they found it difficult to endorse Garrisonian radicalism. they were on the whole favorable to the abolitionists. in particular the moderate or political group. During the late 1920's. the leading Progressive historians. Frederick Jackson Turner, Charles A. Beard. and Vernon L. Parrington. presented an interpretation which minimized the significance of the abolition agitation in the sectional conflict. Gilbert H. Barnes revived the importance of the moral issue over slavery. and was sympathetic to the Weld-Tappan group. but he regarded the abolitionists as denunciators of slavery as a sin rather than true reformers aiming at the destruction of slavery. The detracting trend implicit in Barnes' ambiguous attitude reached its height in the writings of the revisionist historians during the period from the mid- thirties to the mid~forties and in those of such psychologist- historians as David Donald and Stanley M. Elkins in the 1950's. To the former. the abolitionists were fanatics whose irresponsible propaganda made a needless war unavoid- able: to the latter. they were neurotics seeking to reduce their own internal tensions rather than to end slavery. But such critical views did not dominate the entire abolition historiography even during their heyday. Dwight L. Dumond. Alice Felt Tyler, and Russell B. Nye raised dissenting voices now and then, and described the abolitionists as noble as I"! \ . '5..‘ .1 SOME INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT By Tung-hsun Sun A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1972 : :. erpretat a... "‘ L.- O"- 4- :- v - art‘s tQ’-.-F \ F . ..-o~ "ot A. .“ AF “cc-0" , . —'u-~. c I. .1 a. t. .1 w.- u. ll ' I Preface Students of American historiography have recognized that the interpretations of the American past have been in the constant process of revision. Ever since the rise of professional historians, few major schools of interpretation had dominated American historical study more than a genera- tion without being subjected to change. This is probably natural. Since the historian is a part of the hostirical process, his view of the past must be influenced by the sub- ject elements of his own and his time. Despite the ideal of objectivity, few historians can escape the trap of their own preferences and those of their age. Being a part of the American past, it can be ex- pected that the interpretation of the abolition movement would also go through this same process of revision from time to time. This is what actually happened. The purpose of this thesis is to trace the changes in the interpretations of the abolition movement from the last decade of the nine- teenth century when trained historians first came to write about it down to the present. During these four score years, the historical treatment of the ante-bellum crusade against slavery has changed from a partial approval through a total denunciation to an unreservedly sympathetic reappraisal. ii *r e .9 are -1: boov o . e ‘ : ...- . .1” ST.-. ow.--: C 5 Von ' A an e v .pn. ’Fa .o:‘-1 hat-1' .II' av» ..' :HO ~Ay-a 3"; ' -u u._ ':0. as" .J in . ‘I . : ‘ ‘f..:°..:-3..". S V-€d L“! “ P: - Ill- d. ..-S a;e. ... no.1;‘; “ b- l...’ c'U-‘ V. to "I..- H ’b; .0 b..‘.3 s... :A:.. . ""42" ‘n ' .. a by lel‘x ‘ a...‘ f. . .' I... ’ 1 'n‘e a:Cli‘ U :‘u a .J\ ::e:‘ a...‘ o . .. ‘ .x. lain“: 'w 35° :An" ‘Q fl . c“. ‘ . i5‘01‘13: “1:: A: 0 '~' ‘ 1 U‘ “N. o ‘ ‘os‘lvl~‘\fi i‘c r-c m U H. ,"J {1. (D (V o. ‘ u 0 ~.. .:' ~ ‘-.. R q. .—, vehe " 0‘ It p. ‘i \. 2:. . ' W -I. ~.. I‘. .‘.::=A ~~¢r ‘0 J \ h “a.a%h :L.‘~. .‘y. 3:“: ‘ ~“.nlh V. P' (4 In the analysis of these changes in abolition his- toriography. efforts were made to locate the factors con- tributing to such shifts in interpretation and attitude. It was found that the accumulations of scholarship and material. and the historian's background and convictions were influ- ential. But more attention was paid to the relationships of the historian's view of the abolitionists to the general outlook of his age. This is largely because during a given period. abolition historians often agreed on a general pattern in their attitudes and interpretations of the aboli- tion movement. No attempt was made to include all the historical literature on this subject. In selecting the historians. it was decided to include only those who did monographic studies on the abolition movement and those who although mak- ing no specific investigations. represented the major schools in American historiography. Except for illustration. bio- graphies of individual abolitionists were excluded. I am indebted to Professor Douglas T. Miller who has always been generous in offering suggestions. criticisms. corrections. and other help I desperately needed; Professor Warren I. Cohen without whose arrangement and kind help I could not have come to study American history and obtained the necessary financial support. and whose unselfish criticisms and suggestions aided me in clarifying several crucial ques- tions in writing this thesis: and Professor Frederick Williams iii A1‘ ‘1'”: “A \‘“;:&'.:A .I " ...~ g“, V .213! an 0" Ila “AN“. 1 ‘ 6.1“ “an". “" .4.- op; v-v-gfigv-g: ' . ‘ .w- Ioav Dav-:1UO“ . _ A '9‘. J - . o . o O 'IJ P: en:!' .9? an. r U... :‘l... A: “ r... 6 U. I a, “O“" 00"... who first suggested this topic to me. Without their generous encouragement. I could not have possibly passed through all the doubts. despairs. and frustrations I felt during the preparation for the thesis. Finally. I want to thank the Department of History. Michigan State University. Institute of International Education. and American Council of Learned Societies whose financial grants enabled me to complete my study in the United States. iv ”n... ‘v '1. .u. ~; ‘0 . n my .. . 44 w to ¢ a. p u :L o ”I, B. .A p" v m P a a a 5. ~ . D. t .r. O‘ . 0s ‘ z S 2 s 2. L 3. . :7 P. .C a... r. . .1. v. ‘00 up. u u 3” r. 0“ . T. W fig a. “u..‘§ 3.... .u. at. 0.. v. a: Q Q... 2.. .6. be.“ .0. - 5‘. $H ‘u‘ “H 0“ n. he W «a .. s a. r 2.». A» .‘L Aw ‘i o... .w— F. o‘.‘ Vs .—h as A v?’ ‘V o\§ ‘1‘ n» In... 12. ».. $5 R» $» a . 5.. 3.“. v.. .1 at a.» .... .u .. g 2—. h. :d u. If. s . -¢. .2 up. .... a . . .. .. .. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Preface o o o 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o I II III IV VI VII VIII Law-Abiding Citizens as Abolitionists -- The View of The Nationalist Historians . . . A Negligible Minority -- The View of the Progressive Historians . . . . . . . . . . . Revivalists in Abolition -- Gilbert H. Barnes. View 0 o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o Irresponsible Propagandists -- The Revision- iSt View 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Abolition as a Means of Tension Reduction -- The View of The Consensus Historians . . . . Fighters for the Rights of Men -- A Dis- senting Voice 0 o o o o o o o o o o a o o 0 Practical Revolutionaries -- The View of Historians of the Last Decade . . . . .. . . The Abolition Movement in General Histories. conCIUSion o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Bibliography 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Page ii 51 92 122 17h 210 2&5 287 325 330 .s« C h. a. T a. 1 f. C .: .1 . t. z. x ¢. 3 t t 5... l .4 esissectquc a. h.“ 1 S f. o . . .c l .1 3 x . .1 r .. a~ .bq S T. C n c“ Pd ' an ‘ u a» o. .. . a. a e d 0‘ O U Q I I 4.. . p . T. E. «L .flu . “L ‘7. G. v . . S a. M:- ~ a. :n . a a u” e . ..¢ a... RV Cs ‘u h.- ‘\ ~.~ .5. \ ”um ..... 4 . .3. Nu :. . . .. . u... ‘ . 3 . o. h. t . i... In .- .1 3. -H .31 2‘ s.‘ .‘W .ss ts .... w .. .. u . .. u _. .. 2.. ... s ‘ ‘5“ \s . 2. ..,. n s 15. A... 0rd“: “Ms. M. n. :L— .:\ n! "‘ CHAPTER I LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AS ABOLITIONISTS - THE VIEW OF THE NATIONALIST HISTORIANS - It has lone been well recognized that there were many and often conflicting opinions on the matters of ends and means within the abolition movement. The abolitionists quarrelled with each other in the crusading days. But the chief dispute was between the Garrisonian and the non- Garrisonian abolitionists. The quarrel was then carried over into the post-Civil War era when ex-abolitionists or their descendants published works justifying the position of and claiming preeminence for the group with which they identified themselves. Thus. Oliver Johnson. Samuel J. May. and Parker Pillsbury painted the abolition movement as led solekyby Garrison and centering in New England.1 This in- terpretation. however. could not be accepted by William Birney. son of James G. Birney. Lewis Tappan. and other non- Garrisonian ex—abolitionists. They certainly agreed with the Garrisonian interpreters that the abolition movement was 1 Oliver Johnson. William Lloyd Garrison and His Times (Boston. 1879): SamueI J. May? Some Recollections of Our Anti-Slavery Conflict (Boston. 18667} and Parker Pillsbury. Acts of the Anti-Slavery Apostles (Concord. N.H.. 1883). ‘3 '5? .'.° : dot .V‘ "‘v - ,. ‘1'“ ‘ fl 3 1- e l n tori: 5‘} Q . ' ‘ ‘I an .5 4 HFE'O 0195 3 “fir... "nn. u .- I o- '5 'l. o - ‘ I . .E ear- A" '1 Id an ,1 u v- Y‘h“ I 0. .3».A-J 7 v. “\A I e .4 O. IEQ‘CJ Va" ‘. Au. 5? ' o A.A 3.6 f'li. ‘V'.‘ O a u v \v o u v enoJIOv-I A n m x I ‘ . I'A. _Ifl- 2 responsible for the final emancipation of slaves. What they contended is that neither Garrison was its undisputed leader nor New England its sole center.2 When professional historians in or outside colleges came to write on this subject during the period from the 1890's to the early 1920's. there still was no consensus on the problem of leadership or the relative importance of the Garrisonian or non-Garrisonian abolitionists in the crusade against slavery. Historians with strong western abolition- ist connections like Albert Bushnell Hart and Jesse Macy denied the leadership of Garrison: and those without such connections generally followed the Garrisonian tradition. considering Garrison as the originator and leader of the militant phase of the antislavery crusade. James Schouler. John W. Burgess. James Ford Rhodes. Woodrow Wilson. and Edward Channing belonged to this category. However. it must be pointed out that. unlike Hart and Macy who consciously asserted the importance of the western abolitionists. the other group of historians made no particular effort to justify Garrison's leadership. They were simply the followers of the Garrisonian tradition. not its advocates or defenders. This lack of enthusiasm about asserting Garrison's leadership already marked a departure from the ex-Garrisonian 2 William Birney. James G. Birney and His Times (New York. 1890); and Lewis Tappan. ghe Life of Agghur Tappan (New York. 1879). e scfi‘ -r 2:. A. I ,.II-’ 3 of ‘19 a? I .-u ' . ..-0 9| ‘ . .. MN - 9. crazie I . on. A 0‘ 0‘ 2)? cr ' V “"’=F O hat- 3-4 '35 (13311 ." 0 3253 v‘ (:1. l_£55553 'A .. - «ved n... S. u‘.‘ 3 interpreters of the abolition movement. But the most sig- nificant breach with the Garrisonian tradition is the fact that no one of the historians who began to write histories in the last decade of the nineteenth century was unreserv- edly favorable to Garrison and his faithful followers. Hart and Macy were hostile to the Garrisonians from beginning to end. but favorable to the western political abolitionists. Others harshly criticized the Garrisonians for their in- cendiary language. their advocacy of disunionism. disrespect for the Constitution. or anarchism. while conceding more or less that they contributed something to the awakening of northern conscience. Even the criticism of Hart and Macy 'was not very different in nature from that of other his- torians. Their favorable reaction to the attempts of the moderate political abolitionists to achieve their purpose by established means indicated that they disliked the Garrisonians mainly because of their radicalism and anarchism. So des- pite their disagreement on the question of leadership. they held more or less similar views about the abolitionists. Their agitation to arouse Northerners' conscience against slavery was good. but their abusive language and radicalism was bad. This is the general theme of the interpretations of the abolition movement by most of the nationalist his- torians who wrote their histories in the last decade of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of this century. What factors brought about this departure from the Garrisonian tradition? How did the nationalist historians 0 an «t C #L r .3 0 .C I S -3. .‘L 0.: cl 0 a» 9\|§ a Nd P.AU nu hfl.nu 5 d I" o‘l‘ I“t £\" ‘ I V e to t‘ tarilz '— -. 'an- t d; P‘ ‘OPF Dru. +0. A Cart 2' agar }‘ mg; i 5 Ant. U BSSCTS *7 p9; Rho U. S . ”.3: P‘ Q ' vow. L .J S . uh!”- - ..»I.li.th: ‘! 3w- ;u‘ “ ‘.:wl unni PIP . ‘M'Q'u 9; h. . u r < a p w-w Lgsflf wes . tan-- 1... . ‘ -.1 v - -4 n f ....I ‘u we. I' ‘Q .1- u interpret the abolition movement? These are the questions the following discussion tries to answer. But no attempt is made here to cover all the leading historians of the period under discussion. The discussion will be concentrated on only three historians. Hart. Macy and Rhodes. The reason for including Hart and Macy is obvious. They were not only champions of western abolitionism but also the only two college professors who wrote monographic studies on the abolition movement during this period. The concentration on Rhodes is partially because his history has been most widely known. and partially because his discussion of the subject is more detailed than others. But more important is that Rhodes' interpretation of the abolition movement was typical of those of the other nationalist historians. though he was more favorable to the abolitionists in comparison.3 Although varied in details. Schouler . Burgess. Wilson. and Channing interpreted and viewed the abolition movement in almost the same way as Rhodes. All of them approached American history from a nationalist point of view. They regarded Garrison as the leader of the abolition crusade ‘which originated in moral sense or humanitarianism. Most of them also recognized the influence of British abolitionism. Burgess. Channing. and Wilson had a strong racial bias. But all of them disliked slavery either because it hindered 'national growth or because it violated moral principles. All of them criticized Garrison's incendiary language. disrespect of the Constitution. and disunionism. while more or less con- ceding that the abolition agitation contributed something to the awakening of the national conscience. Their hostility to the abolitionists was very pronounced. All these points can be found in Rhodes. But in comparison. Rhodes' criticism seemed more moderate. For these author' 8 discussions of the abolition movement. see James Schouler. History of the United States of America under the Constitution (7 vols. New York. I U ' ..' ing? 11! F‘AP .. ::oUOJ“ “‘ 01“.- . ’ . Q ”3.. it:. ties. . _,,. no r ' n-VOAP‘ ; ‘IH‘ . 9'... Ii“. ‘8 tabak ' 11:23.19: to nee a... 50.1: mt? 5 The chief factor which influenced the thinking and interpretation of the nationalist historians was the climate of opinion in which they came to age. studied and wrote their histories. The outlook of the decades from the 1880's to 1920 was different from that of the anti-bellum age. The passage of time itself blurred old memories. But more important is that time also brought about new developments which tended to heal old sectional wounds and to work for national solidarity. One of these developments was the withdrawal of the last federal army troops from the South in 1877. To many Southerners. the abandonment of the radical reconstruction signalled by this withdrawal was a partial vindication of their position. and thus they could feel contented and less hostile to the North. Another development was the beginn- ing of industrialization in the South after the Civil War which was to make the South more like the North economic- ally. The commercial relations between the South and the rest of the nation were also restored and extended. Such 1889-1913). IV. 210-221: John W. Burgess.The Middle Period. 1812-1858 (New York. 1902). pp. 2&3-277: Woodrow Wilson. Disunion and Reunion (New York. 1893). pp. 119-123. and A lgisto of the American Peo 1e (5 vols. New York. 1901-1902). IV. 7 -79 and 101: and Edward Channing. A Histo of the United States (6 vols. New York. 1905-1925). V. 155-171. and VI. 180-185. For their nationalism. see Thomas J. Pressly. Americans Inter ret their Civil War (New York. 1959). p. 151. 132. 205-205. 215. and 220. For racism of Burgess. Wilson. and Channing. see. Thomas F. Gossett. Race: The Histo of An Idea in America (Dallas. Texas. 1963). pp. 118-119. 279. and 2 . ...anI ' A Jr".-. V '00 .PI'F ' ' 'nv. we. 0. I. A, t‘l.:A..‘.l .l .. 0.. v. QN‘D I" ‘.. M ‘l "‘V‘-.. u I n "V In“. ‘ . a P.“ “5 3"§Vu. a..‘.‘ : 6: r-Tvr as: "o 125 “a 0" 9 W938 : ’1 I.) :4 c‘. ;F4~-c‘r; - bull... to -C‘. ’1! Q ‘Pawz- .- 5.. ".v:' . Va \A .t-_ v ‘5‘ U 6 economic ties naturally encouraged sectional solidarity. Then. there were new problems which further drew public attention from old northern-southern disputes. The rapid growth of industrialization and urbanization after the Civil War created a whole series of problems completely different from those which engaged the nation in the ante- bellum period. Instead of the dispute over slavery. the anti-abolition mobs. the bleeding Kansas. the John Brown raid. or the Liberty and Free-Soil parties. there was the dispute between capitalists and workers and farmers. strikes. the Haymarket Affair. or the Populist party. Whether these events can be interpreted as a contest between the East and West. or between capitalism and socialism. or between the city and farm. they apparently indicated that the struggle was no longer between a united North and a united South. All these developments tended to soften the old sectional antagonism and encouraged sectional reconciliation. as Thomas J. Pressly ably demonstrated in his study of the changing interpretations of the Civil War.“ Though the new political. social and economic develop- ments were important forces working for sectional reconcili- ation and nationalism. another factor was of no less a Thomas J. Pressly. Americans Interpret Their Civil War. pp. 151-155. and 167-168. $’n. ‘ .on',“: ..‘U "' ‘ v. ‘ .'.......v ' ..Q' '.9"-;’.A';1'. 7: :...--V‘ ' ‘p. . ."a “VA“ a. '. . by Is.‘: ~~v r ' a I... u- w“ """"0 'f ‘ f,.....v‘ " fl. 4 .a'q ‘F ..;.u:. '1.- I o. v-v'nflp gr. ‘5" s:...:‘o .Aou.&-uv U 4' “n.l.'.’ I .- nwO-vos 0.. arO.-rhu v045‘fi ' t 5-. .H ”fl- " _ -.:. “I -:384.e r " ‘2": '.:', ,i ,. wwv' ‘ 9439 .A.‘- ' ‘ . . "“ha 'ffl ~0- _ '1”..J.‘...5 .“dV‘v '.: V' 'A~ .\ ~--~~. «.3 .a. ~r h’: AP!- " ‘ "i h“ a- _‘ on at . “‘2‘: t.- -"-v-q.: . A A ‘ ' "a, 'f“\ $ . "-v ...a(,". ”2“ . '-; ‘QQ. ...‘;-:. an V‘- a ~ ‘.“.‘ ' V. 't if. .. s A. ta‘ h ‘ \ECC:C: ‘.: ‘*. .‘:‘o a. I. “= nh‘ . .\"“ ‘ v ‘0 1:5. fi ‘\ -"| . 5938‘“, ‘ wr U. \- n“ .‘: 7 importance. That is the racial bias of Teutonic or Anglo- Saxon superiority. According to Richard Hofstadter. white racism was the product of modern nationalism. but further reinforced by Darwin's evolutionary theory. social Darwinism. and eugenics.5 Whatever might have been its origins. the idea of racism dominated the thought of many American intellectuals from the last three decades of the nineteenth century to the 1920's.6 While anthropologists tried to measure racial difference by the size of human brains. while eugenists proposed to better racial qualities by controlling marriage and birth. historians like Herbert B. Adams. and James K. Kosmer. and political scientists like John W. Burgess sought to prove the Teutonic origin of democratic institutions. Theodore Roosevelt. Albert T. Beveridge. Henry C. Lodge. John Hay. Henry and Brook Adams. John Fiske. the Reverend Josiah Strong. Captain Alfred Mahan and many others used the idea of racism to justify in one way or another imperialist expansionism. This pre- dominance of white racism strengthened the trend toward sectional reconciliation and nationalism because the dominant element in the nation's population was Teutonic in origin. Senator John N. Daniel of Virginia found common bonds between North and South in Anglo-Saxism. “The instinct 5 Richard Hofstadter. Social Darwinism in American Thought{_1860-l915 (Philadelphia. 1954). p. 158. 6 Gossett. Race. pp. 84-370. V‘ E can.- 9 ~VVV. fie acvo 6 3.383: Ira. .il “1, 35" ~10 ’>‘°-‘\H ." ‘ t nit-v“. . .1! "' ' ‘I‘VV >3 o::d.t|fi "’ :Pa w-l M.‘ " 'vll.. C." .C v . S O. C .. i . c t‘ . QU Av F. “A 0“ hq ‘ U . “emu P CO h.U _v... a. o a pad - 0 a1J Mt”. 9 3 e -.. r. r a Q (1 .AJ is ten in e .\t. a. e O ab h‘li . W. “ u. A Av h AD 8% It. n‘.‘ .d. 3.. C r” O. A» :r. .. a V o a. p . O. .u -. . .«a .9. rt“. 90‘ a p r“ A. . . .4. an F. .pu f. hp . fit. be u” .5 .H . I a! AU. 0 as t.» a. .. . .nA tn." «J :m . O. P n’ w L “ten. . a h... In 0!“ Ah- A.V ”I“ c ‘- oulh . o nun out I! A. . u... a v 9! n‘. i u ‘ Q ‘ I. ~ k In .I .2 u.” . . . . .. ... ... .t a... . .. :.... . . .. m. ..... u. t. ... ... 5. .t 8 of race integrity.” he said in 1890. "is the most glorious. as it is the predominant characteristic of the Anglo-Saxon 7 As southern race. and the sections have it in common." racists like Benjamin R. Tillman. James K. Vardeman. Thomas E. Watson. the leaders of southern Populists. Henry N. Grady. the leading advocate of a New South and sectional accomoda— tion. and others endeavored to maintain white supremacy in the South and to keep it a whiteman's country by racial segregation and disenfranchising Negroes.8 this ”instinct of race integrity" also moved many Northerners to acquiesce. even to help the South's racist drive to turn the Negroes into second-class citizens. Nathaniel S. Shaler. later dean of the Lawrence Scientific School at Harvard. published an article. "The Negro problem." in the Atlantic Monthly in 1889. in which he showed his sympathy to the south's attempt to disenfranchise the Negro.9 In 1889. T.B. Edington. a former officer in the Union Army. urged his audience in a John W. Daniel. "Life. Services and Character of Jefferson Davis”. Southern Historical Society Papers. XVII (1889): 190. Quoted in Pressly. Amerigans Interpget Their Civil War. p. 153. 8 For a detailed discussion of racial segregation and disenfranchisement in the South. see C. Vann Woodward. Th3 Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York. 1955): and Gossett. Race. pp. 253-2 . Ulr ch B. Phillips argued that the determination to keep the South "a white man's country” was the central theme of southern history. in his "The Central Theme of Southern History.” American Historical Review. XXXIV (Oct.. 1928). 30-43. 9 Nathaniel S. Shaler. "The Negro Problem." Atlantic Monthl . LIV (Nov.. 1881+). 696-709. f ‘A .U’ . v |I r separ: s. an: .r7 _v V I ties ‘ .— no.5 van 1" S v. V... V it.‘ v for the vgv-f'v-v-A‘t I O a U W .- N,“ 10‘.‘ 't 3"}!- .. a t — ,,...A: ’Q' t 9 3.0"", G. all ‘ 1 lug: a D-OOIA - "VI h.-.os u .‘u'o a“ .u. so I... n I . .... i0 9. 5 ~ . n . no w.. ... . w. r“ c. r. r. a. n. a. rm +L ~: .~. nv o. e. u. as w. . 0- Ft ’8 1F“ O “A a “I run a; 0 .1. t V t 0.. w]! .1 .rU .fld Y. s 0 V. e 9. C 0 n I e v . O A. . ru . he .' Fv C . ‘6 in r“ l. A... a: h... p a. .4 o . C. e ... . T. a. A v .... A. .4 rt r. .2 a. 1 . 0‘. .n. and Ali 1! . an .I.‘ a: .43 a I. .-v .n. o u g... «u.- t .u u. t .5- 10- O .. an anal . or a. 0- -. MI» n‘u 1- :. 7. . - . . , . .. . . . 9 Memorial Day service at a national cemetery to ”listen attentively for the faintest whispering that comes from these graves. and you will hear no syllable of approbation of this overthrow of the white race and the destruction of all its dearest aspirations and hopes."10 Henry M. Field. a northern minister. wrote. ”We must not try to enforce in the St. Charles Hotel in New Orleans what cannot be en- forced in the Fifth-Avenue Hotel in New York." When. in 1907 Kentucky separated Negro students from white students in Berea College. President Charles W. Eliot of Harvard showed his sympathy by pointing out that "perhaps if there were as many Negroes here as there. we might think it better for them to be in separate schools."11 The northern acquiescence or sympathy must have been very widespread because an editorial in the New York Times announced in 1900 that northern men "no longer denounce the suppression of the Negro vote [In the South7 as it used to be denounced in the reconstruction days. The necessity of it under the supreme law of self-preservation is candidly recognized.“12 No wonder C. Vann Woodward insisted that northern liberals' acquiescence in the southern race policy was one of the 10 T.B. Edington. “The Race Problem in the South - Was the Fifteenth Amendment a Mistake?“ Southern Historical Societ Pa ers. XVII (1889). 26. 28. quoted in Pressly. Americans Interpret Their Civil WarI p. 153. ll Quoted in Gossett. Race. p. 285. 12 New York Times. May 10. 1900. V‘s .. i _.. '..AP .‘v.. D.- 0“ 10 reasons for the rise of Jim Crow. Their racial expressions ”did much to add to the reconciliation of North and South, but they did so at the expense of the Negro."13 he con- cluded. Time. new developments in politics and economics. and the widespread belief in racism worked powerfully for sectional reconciliation and national solidarity. This trend was reflected in the election of Grover Cleveland to the presidency in 1880. the first Democratic president since James Buchanan: in the many popular novels. plays. and poems which stressed the theme of sectional reconcili- ations in the frequent joint "Blue and Gray reunions" of Confederate and Union veteranStlu and in the emergence of the term ”The Civil War" to substitute the term "rebellion." Then came the war with Spain. No longer cutting the throats of each other. the Northerner and the Southerner fought together once again for national expansion. The war itself was a tremendous spur to the growth of nationalism. Nationalism alone was already powerful enough to move historians to adopt a more reconciliatory approach to the Civil War. But within the guild of the historical profession. there was another prevailing idea which also worked to the same effect as nationalism did. This is the 13 C. Vann Woodward. The Strange Cgreer of Jim Crow. p. 70. 1“ Paul H. Buck. The Road to Regnion. 1865-1990 (Boston. 1937). o r . A . ‘5 r. u .t . |.ll I| » . I c J L V :7. r. a r. C 9.. .44 a. o . .5 v. t C. .r.. M» mu 4. t ‘9. .1 I. C .... a... o S r” w . r. a F. 9 3.. -. . J .. l r .. . V C .1 .3 a S a a .C a. a. .i. V 1. .P S . u. a t .1 . a .1 .2 .1 a C C .3 a . . r. S S a . r t T a. .l S S S C .L .2. C a t 0 e c . . o q A a. #0 a .. A h. of e r. a J -. ”a .3 a w. 5 a. 4. S a no haw h... . O. n to as. 0‘ U . o. a a D. In. 0. "v. A v “V. .P-. a m. “\u ”a. O n: no . uh. . G .. Q» 3 . 4.. A 1 ~ . a. w” . . 3 .. . 0 C. r V. S a. s . . .1. I “a . . .. . a ‘ . .t . S O . 3.. a .r... a O s l #h 4... A u - ¢ 0 o a: :a 2‘ 6 - Ad v . u . In I q § «‘9 9 fly I. r. .3 :- ... I .o. u... a” ... .L :2 so. «a 7.. .8 .e ~\ ... a... .q a .. o . w. . .. we .a .a .t. ..a as I. 0 .-.. t. uk 2 .v.. .u 4: L. v. . u. . . .. . .34 N. ‘ .Jv .q‘ s. . v. s.- ..x .. . .,. u u. H... ..., .. T. A” .5 r. a. . ... I a... . ...... .t... . , ,.... 2 .. S . . a. x T . ..... T . - :.. . . .. .. ll idea of scientific history. Inspired either by Darwin's method of arriving at his evolutionary theory or by the Rankean ideal of telling past events as they actually happened. American masters like Herbert B. Adams taught their students in the seminars to write scientific history impartially and objectively. “Impartiality” and "objec- tivity' became the standards of historians. They became wary of any bias. Consequently, they came to regard sectional bias as unscientific and a threat to their pro- fessional aims and standards. and made every effort to guard its possible influence. Allen Johnson in his bio- graphy of Stephen A. Douglas pointed out that he came from a New England state with an antislavery atmosphere hostile to Douglas. Likewise. Hart warned his readers in the pre- face of his §lay§£yrang1Abolition that he was a son and grandson of abolitionists. and that they could not eXpect him to “approach so explosive a question with impartiality." Whether or not such conscious effort to guard against bias can really produce objective history. the awareness of such bias must have moved historians to see the other side of 16 the same story. This in turn led the northern historians like Rhodes. Hart. and Macy to approach the southern side 15 Albert E. Hart. Slavery and Abolition, 1831-18h1 (New York, 1906). p. XV. 16 In the "Prefactory Note” to Hilary A. Herbert, The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences: Four Periods of Axueriean Histm (New York. 1912). Rhodes wrote: He Tve are more than forty-six years distant from our own civil war. is it not incumbent on Northerners to endeavor to see the .n ”3:.e 0 .‘SI -."' e I U ‘ .. w ”" "‘ fi.: 9 I. Eh-Os ' '1 9. I .. n .3." U . O Q ".,.: ,HQO S Mae... M f O I t. . l- I) 10 fl! .4 O ”a (n ~:."-.- ‘rrafi.s P‘ nv-v‘vl‘ VAOCV H "'.‘A"':?h ‘r “'u'aV-tau Ia. . ,. “Av-'.‘ \: GUI-.a's ;‘ :1 ‘5 _ ~- . .0 ‘l. I 12 with greater sympathy than ever before, and to view northern extremists with more distrust. This shift in emphasis brought about by nationalism and the ideal of scientific history was destined to have profound effects on the views of historians about the abolitionists. The call for sectional reconciliation and the demand for fairness made them distrust extremism on both sides. Love for the Union growing out of nationalist feeling led them to dislike the deeds and words of abolitionists like Garrison which they believed jeopardized the very existence of the Union. Yet, the hatred of slavery as hindering the national growth or a moral wrong predisposed them to appreciate the abolitionists' agitation to rouse the national conscience against slavery. Put these effects together. it is no wonder that the national- ist historians would uphold the more moderate or practical part of the abolition agitation while repudiating its more radical or anarchical part. How far these effects prepared historians to go in their approach to the abolition movement can be seen in the attitude toward the abolitionists of an early national- ist historians. James Schouler, a New Englander who had voted for Lincoln in 1860 and 186h, and served in the Union _— Southern side? We may be certain that the historian a humdred years hence. when he contemplates the lining up of five and one-half million people against twenty-two million . . . will. as matter of course. aver that the question over wtdch they fought for four years had two sides; that all the right was not on one side and all the wrong on the other.” pp. vii-viii. Hart set forth his purpose of writing Slavery and Abolition in "Author's Preface“ as to show that ”there was more than one side to the controversy." p. XV. W , , ‘ ‘Fpanywflh .‘ g :0 25:34.3.A' 5" .c ;' II: ‘H: ‘Aw' :I on “.3 “. 'I". ' .. n- .I‘... a 192:3" ‘0' VOA." busing-o 4 r' 9- cu. v! Q HAV u.'ov.t2‘ Jao 53V. ": -¢:.; On.q p \— dv-;U.U"‘ ea. .|”:-A’ ’ ‘ h A L-.:'nn CU r.-‘l as ;. ‘ - L'u 0: . ' n I . fl § ~.-.¢u:..' ’Vlc .A: O :' :‘AI‘ egl a... y... ‘2'. Law mick: N? :r. :1. Union ratr 37-" :eezrfl ‘,.- .....u an": ‘2...::;;a:;g_~_, t; 13313: an: ‘ & ~‘-€--‘:us matte“ ' -. '::n39 S‘avg .s a "55"?“ tnat ha 835 U U 3.. ”~: A‘s. ‘ ‘ ‘ "my: to . (“3“ u ”A u.- \ Ia "' ‘ .. al“ ‘ . «i t... I“ ~ . ”Q ‘ ‘bc‘CQ ‘hn c‘ m t .. It ‘: ‘I: ‘I‘I‘:‘ “ '\ v‘ :e C h \ V. I '- \.." I 0 ° :C‘ I‘. ~V ' “t. a. .0 \"A ‘ "41'" . ‘v ‘ - 5. I ._ .c‘.‘ “nun “ ‘ "King? b5.“1‘ ,l‘ "flj 15‘. ‘1‘ "g . - Q$ M‘r\‘~ fist.“ ~:‘Q 13 Army. presumably should have been favorable to Garrison. Yet in his history of the United States. Garrison appears to be only a lesser evil than slavery. He repeatedly criticized Garrison's disregard for legal procedures and the Constitution. "A bomb-thrower” on the Constitution. Garrison openly assaulted the Constitution as a "compact absolutely void for its guilt." The abolitionists were wild anarchists whose ”constant instigation was to throttle that law which was the breath of our being, to trample down the Union rather than convert, constrain. or conquer slavery behind the shield of the Constitution." Tending to incendiarism. these "apostles of fanaticism" appealed to ”terrorism" and launched a ”foolish experiment‘ by sending ”dangerous matter.” "infamous matter“ to the South to ”arouse slaves against their masters.“ His criticism was so severe that he sounded almost like an ante-bellum apostle of slavery. Yet, at the end of his discussion, he came around to defend the abolitionist. "The essential gain of all this.” he stated. ”was to awaken the northern conscience from its long sleep, and force up opinion to the healthier plane of conforming the human decree to the divine. . . . Better this agitation, though it sent a two- edged sword. than the poisonous lethargy before its better a quarter-century of sharp collision, followed by the desperate struggle for the mastery, than another century of r" of I”, .0 "At! ‘ Jao‘l' "U "‘ . a awn a..- v Q ‘0 I - u an a, “ u lot" undo-o . ‘c-bu‘ ~n~;4--%3~ ad .,.£ anus-low: bl 'I- - o h I I . I; Viqfi F‘n a“, -_4 .n.v-¢’ ' ' h ‘ e . .etnnlzv‘qa ‘0 «Que-u... . .3. . 2.. .0. .’. ~‘ “'OG‘.VM.D ' He:o: a: 3“-.. J. V . I of, .6 y 3‘ 2.3—. I‘ o'on:. "9' we If a q . 6 h ‘ ' VA- " Q 1V~ .- A .‘.I Q‘- ”"Hn ' a ‘4 ‘ we... ‘ I F‘Qv‘Av r.oo._,. la corrupt growth and bonded misalliance.”l7 Apparently Schouler disliked the abolitionists' disregard for the legal procedures and their disrespect for the Constitution and the Union, but approved their agitation to arouse northern conscience to get rid of slavery. His view of the abolitionist perfectly fitted the dictates of the prevailing climate of opinion of his time. If that climate of opinion affected the attitude of a former New England Union soldier toward the militant antislavery crusaders. it must also have had determining influences on Rhodes, Hart and Macy who belonged to the same war generation and grew up in the same intellectual atmosphere as Schouler. In fact, the three historians imbibed in all the main elements of nationalism and the idea of scientific history. In the first place, Rhodes. Hart and Macy all succumbed to the influence of scientific history. Although Rhodes wrote his History of the_pnited States From the Compromise of 185018 ”romantic” historians who entertained a special relish for essentially in the tradition of the literary style. moral judgment, great men, and politics.19 17 All the quotations are taken from Schouler, History of the United States of America Under the Constitutioni IV, 21 220. 18 James Ford Rhodes. History of the United States From the Compromise of 1850 17 volumes, New York. 1893-1906). 19 For his opinion on the study and writing of 3. SC 9 V _v‘ + o..'. "h- -- . ‘C ‘n b.‘ n‘. O u '- ‘ .— - ‘ n.‘ " No .“‘arl\.¢x v..- '.“- _b‘o-“H Us \‘ fin 15 he was not immune to the impact of science, particularly Darwin's theory and method. on the study of history. Under the influence of scientific study, he deemed it imperative for historians to "get at the truth and express it as clearly as possible." and urged them not to assert anything for which they had no evidence. Historians were bound to produce the materials upon which they based their state- 20 ment. "hence the necessity of footnotes.“ And he prac- ticed this principle carefully in his Histogy. Hart's commitment to scientific history was even stronger than Rhodes'. In his presidential address to the annual meeting of the American Historical Association in 1909. Hart told his audience: "What we need is a genuinely scientific school of history which shall remorselessly examine the sources and separate the wheat from the chaff: which shall critically balance evidence: which shall dispassionately 21 and moderately set forth results." His obsession with original sources and historical facts was so great that he even declined to change any spelling, capitals. or para- 22 graphing in editing materials. One commentator declared history. see Rhodes. Historical Essays (New York, 1909). in particular. pp. 1079; his review of— McMaster, History of the eo e of the united States. Magazine of Western History; II. 565:1 and h1s two letters in M.A. DeWolfe Howe. James Ford Rhodes: American Histogian (New York, 1929). p. 72 and 149. 20 Rhodes. Historical EssaysI p. n3 and 33. 21 Hart. ”Imagination in History,” American Historical Ileview, XV (Jan.. 1910), 232. 22 Hart, ed.. American History Told by I..I.I|l . . u h rt pk. Hus as ”IV 0 *I II § ‘ h~a~ A .nu e» on C. o. u LC 43 .. . v. on n» r. h. as C IQ . c» .H u ‘I‘ F‘ V” 9- AA.“ a C o‘.‘ IQL .2 .J t n-» 0 . .d a .a; .l n. a. . 3. Nu .h... 6 U ‘11 a”! no.. F.” V” by ~.._ wan. Ah 0. e P. . v“ .3 .1 he D. o S r ru d a» S .m F 01 ’ a r 0‘5‘ I ‘|' GM ‘1' w“ a. . D» p . Fe ha a. O. C. e v ”V ' nflv ”IV I u S “H ou,‘ a PH ‘9' \Hll A: .. . cum. 1.. L.” Ov .‘1 n-v O. U ad. S no a v t a: a. e an. "I. p .. .Ru .3 bk § -. a .. g A u A v as» . x .RJ ’b u. g . a . . a a A\v . Q. . . u- . .I I 8.! U u .n O .I C “o p‘ O c. n. .- 0| 3. .u .1. .1 Cu P. .J- H0 and . . .un. .. u q.. a,“ . ..a u... . . ~ . Ht. 9... .5. Nu. r. .... I .... ... L. .r. ,n . c... z... . 16 of Hart that he was "at all times thirsty for historical fact.“23 Like Rhodes and Hart. Macy was also greatly impressed by the achievements of new sciences and the method they used. He had a strong desire to apply the new scientific method to the study of politics and society. expecting that it "would lighten many a dark place in political. industrial and moral research."2u Then, it seems unquestionable that the thought and practice of Rhodes. Hart and Macy reflected to different degrees the influence of the idea of scientific history commonly shared by historians of their time. The same can be said in regard to nationalism. Though they had not aired their opinions on nationalism as systematically as they did on scientific history. it is still possible to discern their nationalist inclination in their historical writings. In fact. several historians of American historio- graphy have demonstrated beyond any doubt that nationalism played a determining role in Rhodes' interpretation of United States history since 1850.25 His love of the Union Contemporaries (5 vols.. New York, 1897-1929), III. vii. 23 New York Times. June 17, 19U3, “Eulogy," p. 21. 2h Mac . Jesse Mac 1 An Autobio ra ‘(Baltimore. 1933). p. 10 . Also see pp. 3 . 9, O and 151. 25 Pressly. American§_lnterpret Their Civil War, pp. 171-181; John Higham. History: The Qevelopment of Historical Studie§_in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, NoJo. 1985). pp. lSB‘lSET * .‘CO .V I 2 ...‘O '0'"’ ~ 5" a: . . 4 . C . . a _.0 «pw w. or. S “A.“ 3 .. .nu .i. ”a. Hu .1 o s . ’ ’ . Q T ‘ l . . .1 a a. r e S e .. u a 8 l r My. m z. 2 .3 C C. 2 I. h a a.- C .3 .0. a e l .1. a 2 o C .. . +.. x l on 9 9 2 .r. r. r O .. . u. l r“ e ,C .3 :2 C .C o 0 3 ¢» 3 C S .1 i S o. c . I a. a r“ e .1 cw S a a. 1 L t . l a r 0 aw C a. . 0 l _T. T .3. W a. . . 7. . . 3 r .J C. L .l .. . as. .h. in up. no; #u any a. a. .1. Au 2. ... v. l he . u . . in C .: .. . .3 c. .3 C 11 .3 S ..I .. 1 r. a .: p C p u .5 .1. a. r . .3 u L a. I p n .u« ....I. .5 v .3 o u 2. .1 p . . . v” . A . a. q C v a o 0 .0”, .s. .n- .u. . u . A pm A .v n a nu. ~: .- I .. s . t .3 ...... .L .... . . ”a ... .... ; . .. -. 2.. . . ... . . .. . . _ .- . w .. 3.; "I. . . .. .. mt. .. .. “.4 .... 1.. .. .. .... M. N... 7.... 17 practically determined his comments on the political leaders before the Civil War. Rhodes hailed Daniel Webster as a great statesman and orator mainly because Webster spoke out on March 7. 1850. for compromise to save the Union. His praise of Lincoln and the Republican party sprang from the fact that the party and its great leader saved the Union while abolishing slavery. For the sake of the Union, Rhodes heaped praises on those who devoted themselves to the cause of the Union. For the same reason he bitterly censured Douglas because his political ambition moved him to introduce the Kansas-Nebraska bill which disrupted the national peace just brought about by the Compromise of 1850: and Calhoun because his state-right doctrine led the South to secession.26 While his love of the Union decided his blame and praise. nationalistic feeling blunted his northern bias and moved him nearer to the Mason-Dixon line in interpreting American history. His northern view of the coming of the Civil War was balanced by his southern view of the Reconstruction. 26 Rhodes. Histo of the United States. For comment on Webster. see I. 137-153: on the Republican party. II. 210: on Calhoun. 1. 953 on Douglas. I. #28-u3l. Both Raymond C. Miller. ”James Ford Rhodes.” in William T. Hutchingson. ed.. The Marcus W. Jerni an Essays in American Historic ra h (Chicago. 19375. p. 185, and Harvey Wish, he American Historian: A Social-Intellectual History of the Writing of the Amepican Past (New York. 19605. p. 226. mentioned with approval Fifi: Hodder's suggestion that Rhodes' attack on Douglas might result from his losing in a law suit brought against him by Douglas' heirs. Hodder's article is entitled ”Propaganda As a Source of American History.” in Mississippi valley Historical Review. IX (June.1922). pp.2-18. .~. 0. 3. ... ‘ v C ..... '-"‘-v :.. I!" .a‘ .s‘ 27 A d. “‘3 s ‘ I ..A\1~H -.." L..U ‘L.A -. t- ‘I "‘ ‘CO‘ “ aVE . F‘ h 5“ I-Q.‘ ...:.t. ~ ~ 9V6: ”:- . he - on: I. . oof . n curler“: ‘p‘ ‘5. y... a -n .. ’; n.. . E 7' V ‘II. . e... ' +» :. 18 Certainly he hated slavery: but when he came to describe ‘the peculiar institution. he abandoned the language used by abolitionists. and was even reluctant to use materials left by them.27 He did not paint the slavery system completely black. though he admitted its basic brutality and cruelty. Paying no attention to the abolitionists' charge that sinister slaveholders conspired to protect and expand slavery. he even tried to remove the responsibility for slavery from the shoulders of slaveholders by suggesting that both England and the North had a hand in the establish- ment of slavery in the South. and that it was the invention of the cotton gin and the subsequent development of cotton cultivation which prevented the peaceful abolition of slavery. He never believed that the South's determination to fight for slavery had any connection with personal depravity of the southern peOple.“ "If we suppose." he hinted. ”the Puritan to have settled Virginia and the Cavalier Massachusetts. it is not inconceivable that. while the question would have remained the same. the Puritan should have fought for slavery and the Cavalier for liberty."28 Clearly. Rhodes approached the institution of slavery with- out any sectional bias. 27 His sources are mainly drawn from foreign traxellers. with only occasional references to abolitionists' WOI‘ 80 28 Rhodes. figstory of the_United States. I. 381. . t E C E ‘ Q Bra 0 ‘3 nu. .3. ”figo'd- . . I w o _. e a . a s e t r r 2 n a .1 r t t r .1 .1 a. t .C O. o. e c o . a. . r e a e t s .3 1.. o. r . C a C M“ 7. t r . .t Y... Q.» 0 a. 0 S O a . .. .. . e .l W +u t w. a . 3: S rv O. a.” 6... a. e s F. {A .1 .1 awn .: 7 .‘ o. .. . :2 I a . v.” .5 +5 W O .C a . .4 a .a . u . X C a. e e a e a UN 9 S b: c. .l T. .1 .1 O 1-. .f. a y . S a E 4“ C 1.... v... No Mm .s-.. ‘a. .4 ‘i e a 2 a .. . a c a . . - .u - . .w x w... M. . .3 s .v. .. .._... .... a... .1 . i 1 .. w... .3 .~ 1.“ .. . .. .... -.. ..... .... .. .r... ...... ....\.. .1“... .1... .4... ........ 19 Nationalism and its effects are also clear in the case of Hart. He treated American history essentially in terms of national growth. For example. his American Histggy Told by Contemporaries was divided into five periods: Era of Colonization, Building of the Republic, National Expansion, Welding of the Nation, and Twentieth Century United States. His attention was concentrated on national development. When he edited the The American Nation series. he grouped the twenty-seven volumes under the heading of: 1) Foundations of the Nation: 2) Trans- formation Into a Nation: 3) Development of the Nation; a) Trial of Nationality; and 5) National Expansion. Though a descendant of abolitionists. Hart felt no chagrin to ”pick southerners to write several volumes of the series, and even.attempted to persuade an Alabamian. William Garrot 29 This may Brown. to write the volume on the Civil War.” indicate to what extent national feeling had softened sectional bitterness. Just like Rhodes, the faith in national unity induced Hart to adopt a more neutral attitude toward the institution of slavery. He hated slavery just as much as Rhodes did: and yet he never used resounding moral language to denounce slavery in his description of it. which was also based on the observation of foreign travelers. 29 8 Pressly. Americans Interpret Their Civil War. p. 1 50 o d rt- .ok ‘. 39 CC}; 0 1: 65 I“ 'r.'. 7—. I. . '0 (‘5‘- v Q “S Q-“ .5. .‘b- “ . 00:”; I :’ 1'0“" ‘ 'u -G “0 cf 8 T.0, ' I I ‘l... “no-GU ~. , a .I '0 .- . “A 0"..Icocye 0 O ._‘ 7w". l‘y in. ' . V3.4: n.‘ . ‘lq ‘ . . p. k .. ta «we to es \ I 20 Though he could not accept the southern view of slavery, in the end he confessed that it was difficult to decide how far slavery was inhuman or to make generalizations about it. Even where slave codes were cruel, he did not leave the blame completely at the door of the South because the Southerners simply continued the old English common law of colonial times. Like Rhodes, he also tried to explain the existence of slavery in the South in economic terms, and 30 thus spared the South all moral responsibilities. Under the influence of nationalism. Hart. therefore. showed more sympathy and lenience toward the South than his northern predecessors. From what little evidence is available, it is also possible to establish Macy's nationalism and unprejudiced attitude toward the South. A certain French professor said in a letter that he was deeply struck by Macy's patriotism which permeated the lectures Macy delivered at French Provincial universities in 1912.31 Macy himself once claimed that the ante-bellum party system had a “distinct and useful function” in enabling "people to get together, to become acquainted with one another. to develop a sentiment of nationality and sympathy between the different 30 Hart. §lavery and Abolition, p. 53. 120, and 138. 31 This letter is quoted by John S. Nollen in ”Grinnell--College and Town,” in Macy. Jesse Macy: An Auto- biography. p. 158. . ' M”: V" ”nail: .‘.' ..-- ‘ i"~. . - * 3 ‘3-3 '. it... ‘ b". '- h . O . wrfiu A. ra-Ospv- n'h. do a-G'ULyn-u- u. .-' ~ .2! 2: "”‘38 33'. Chgy ‘. .2: =:.:' smells As a resu- 5321'? "‘ ‘9" ....s .L..C j": as ‘h- J: 21 sections." The national parties were indeed "the most in- fluential of the agencies for union and a good understand- ing." Then just before or during the war, came the tele- graph. the daily press, and a national railway, the "great" 32 nationalizing forces. His approving attitude toward the growth of national feeling cannot be missed. As in the case of Rhodes and Hart, nationalism softened his northern bias and compelled him to see the South with greater sym- pathy. As a result. he insisted that not all the Southern- ers and their leaders were defenders of slavery. Even as late as 1835. he believed with Harriet Martineau that few slaveholders justified slavery as being itself just: and that many southern Whites and Negroes were always ready to help runaway slaves. It is obvious that Macy never in- tended to blame the South as a whole. and all the slave- holders in particular. He did denounce the extreme defenders of slavery, but eVen here he did not accuse the southern extremists alone. Macy always believed it poss- ible to emancipate slaves peacefully. What finally made it im- possible was the activities of the extremists North and South. ”On both sides". the appeal of the extremists was to "feeling. sentiment. and conviction, supported by dogmatism rather than by reason,“33 he declared. If the 32 Ibid., p. 117. 33 Ibid.. p. 11“. Macy repeatedly suggested that the struggle between slavery and abolition was an I br“" a x»..:" ‘3 ...-W a C .c Iv "glut. “ u 1 1“.“' t! V‘ J ‘IO N. can“- ‘». i'l attitude II:.- CY.4§ .u-Q u. flnv ou.¢ O I .A I v I 7 «I‘ u.. VI- Chc.‘ . . h. . "HIV 5 22 southern extremists should be held responsible for ”the irrepressible conflict,” their northern brethren had certainly no less responsibility for it. Macy's reconcili- ating attitude toward the South is beyond any doubt. There is no question that a strong sense of national solidarity led Rhodes. Hart. and Macy to adopt a more sympathetic view about the South. In this respect. the widely believed white supremacy probably also had some effects. It is true that Hart and Macy can hardly be called racists. Because of his faith in Quakerism, it is doubtful that Macy could ever be a racist. Although Hart included the Teutonic origin in a set of "fundamental principles of American history"3u in 1883. in a letter to the editor of Journal of Negro HistoryI protesting against the inclusion of a proslavery article in the Journal in 1922. he ex- pressed his deep regret that a journal which has "done so much for the cause of the Negro race”"should admit an article so full of statements untrue and dangerous to the ”irrepressible conflict.” But he also insisted that peace- able emancipation was possible. For irrepressible conflict, see Macy. The Anti-Slavery Crusade: A Chronicle of the Gatherin Storm (New Haven, l9l9777p.—178} 181, 199. and 232. For peaceable abolition, see ibid, p. 1&1-143: and Macy. Jesse Macy: An Autobiographyl p. 106. 34 G. Stanley Hall. ed.. Methods of teaching and stud in Histo (1886). p. 3. Quoted in Higham, History. p. 1%1. The third principle reads: "Our institutions are {Teutonic in origin: they have come to us through English institutions." “z“:- 0". :av‘ ”-1-. ';.:-' ..-... 00-" .‘l .-o' unit A '- 1 a. r. O. p” ’9 .0. ~.. .\. .Q‘ .nu AV awn a: a: 23 ,.35 . . . . Negro race. Maybe a belief in the Teutonic theory did not necessarily imply a racial bias against the Negro: or maybe Hart changed his view during the intervening years. The fact is that there is no evidence in Slavery and Abolition indicating his racism. But there is no doubt that Rhodes accepted the idea of racial inferiority of the Negroes. He thought that the promises of the radical Republicans to the Negroes had ”fostered the native laziness and improvidence of the race." He accused Charles Sumner of his failure to appreciate "the great fact of race." He deemed it to be a great pity that the North paid no attention to scientists like Louis Agassiz who could have told them that the Negroes were in- capable of citizenship.36 Given this racial bias. it was not strange that Rhodes would oppose Negro suffrage. Such racial bias against the Negro not only removed Rhodes' objections to slavery on racial ground37 but also made him unable to appreciate abolitionists' advocacy of human equality. Even though Hart and Macy had no such racial bias as Rhodes. the generally accepted white racism must 35 Hart, ”Letter to Woodson.“ Journal of Nggro Histogy, VII (Oct. 1922), 420. 36 Quotations are taken from Rhodes History V 558: VII. 168: VI. 39. ' ' ' 37 There is no contradiction between Rhodes' racism and his hatred of slavery. Slavery involved a question of morals. but what he called the Negro question involved race. He hated slavery on moral ground. See Pressly. Americans Interpget Their Civil War. p. 176. «'1 ~' ' ousll'i‘ar ":. .:.A.. ““' ' . n... nnraaaw V" " L. ..«..:...uvu~oJ . ::: 'r' “82C" ‘ ' u" ivoa. at U! F...“ :O . S 0:0:41 . I" -/~-‘ I N 31:"! o. 9.5:. ~§§v.. .Q: ~- '1': L...AO' ."“z .v'.o Uyg‘fi‘. ‘ .EL;:a‘.;on of c. a. '3"? m. + . 'u.‘.”. V to.“ ‘ v. 'C ‘a‘ '1 f h.’ . ‘Avg‘ 0 ”wai;rn+v ".3." :n - I“.IV h- Fy 0‘. b ‘ Us I“ 3“. a'? . .‘.. 10A (19" . 4-d-‘ A 'I. . :u. r~o' ‘ s 1"! ° .I“.: w. ‘F; v § 'U .,‘ :_‘. . "I u‘ l .11 c...: 9-“ W. cm ° I» d\ 5 H L . t.‘ ‘ ‘ ‘1: ‘.6 ‘UV ah‘i ‘cu ha 5.. .."'§c“‘ + I 'b .3.9 tic “V L _ . ‘0}. 'I. . .“Cn t" . ‘r ‘ .‘ v l'|~ \ v- .5 1“ rats. UJ 8" can . VI :‘.'1 \ t" R‘I U‘ | \‘Qar‘ m0. "Etch '. . ‘c l‘: :‘. "‘v" .h‘ «v..ls+s V w“ p .v ‘.V 3pm “‘ \‘. \s§:‘ed 5‘ . 1 . 30*} $ ‘ L: 1: JV .N ~‘ . 24 have rendered it easier for them to approach the South and its peculiar institution with a more sympathetic attitude. and consequently to view the radical abolitionists with less tolerance than otherwise. Then it seems clear that Rhodes. Hart. and Macy were under the influence of nationalism and the ideal of scientific history. The nationalism shared by Americans and most of their historians of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries was composed of a belief in the gradual 38 realization of freedom through national solidarity. and a tendency toward sectional reconciliation to advance national unity. The later was further reinforced by the popular belief in white supremacy and by the theory of scientific history which taught historians to be balanced and fair in dealing with the Civil War history. Thinking and writing within this frame of reference. the three his- torians under discussion all exhibited a strong love of freedom and an equally strong hatred of slavery. Yet both the love and the hatred were not strong enough to allow them to appreciate those whose words and deeds threatened the Union which they loved the most. From such preconceptions, it is pretty easy to predict how they would interpret the abolition movement. They would praise those moderate abolitionists who advocated gradual emancipation through established political channels. and even praise the radicals 38 Higham, HiStO 0 p0 1540 n "e at t n 0 A .... vq' F q 01W~"..._' '.... 5.3-, It. ”9 J‘U H ‘J o t F II! c A... a. no‘ ~ .3. l - ‘ orzca Savyf.‘ :9 o :. IQ $‘.- ' u .3 d.VV ye - ”I H: No: x... ’04. ‘HS 9 I Ifinfi a V.. I I I. ll .2 Y. gC ‘ v C. r. u s s 0 .1... +.. S e 41. n. I U S +5 C S 3.. 91 n. a... 0.1 3.1. O D. -h. . V .d 2? av. h. ..~.. .hfl E S .3 t a a it .1 n. D. .Q . 2c 8 2: a. h +. «5 av $& 3. .1. a S .Q t.» hm h. I. t (C an .Q .l at. t» e I flu AH» .1 .1 $5 KPH A: fivlunu...s any... 0 G. k . no . ~\U \v A. I. a: a: .N» x I s I s. w... NC A v - $ b FM ~ps~ \ i \I‘ .. n .. uh. p . HI R .«I n. V i I N ‘0 H 1: 1‘ n . I. I N .u ‘1 Q I . . Q . Q .‘~ \ l at: A..." ...I . n ..\u . c \ \.\ .4» av. . In 25 for their agitation to arouse northern antislavery feelings. But they would criticize these same radicals for their denouncing the time-honored Constitution and urging the breakup of the Union. This is what they actually did in their historical writings. Rhodes was the first of the three historians to white about the abolition movement. Born in Cleveland in 18h8 to a family indifferent to the antislavery crusade,39 Rhodes devoted himself to the writing of American history after retiring from a coal and iron business. Strongly admiring the New England culture. and eagerly seeking for admission to the New England patrician circle,“O he moved his family to Boston shortly before the appearance of the first two volumes of his Histogy in 1893 and became a New His father, a close friend and admirer of Stephen A. Douglas. was a strong Douglas Democrat and became a copperhead during the Civil War. Rhodes himself showed no consistent party allegience. 40 According to his biographer Howe, the reason for Rhodes' moving to Boston was "his natural desire to create a personal association with the men of his late-adopted craft.” His desire was more than realized when in 1893 he was notified that he was elected a resident member of the Massachusetts Historical Society. the only learned society to which he gave any attention, according to his own con- fession. In a letter he humbly thanked the society's corres- ponding secretary and announced that ”this I have always thought the highest honor a historical scholar can receive in this country.” Later when the fifth volume of his Histo came out. it proudly carries these words: "Member of the Massachusetts Historical Society.” This shows with what eagerness Rhodes sought admission to the patrician circle, and how great his pleasure was when admission came. See Howe. James Ford Rhodes: American HistorianI p.65, 288. and 82. 1 :5; .p M: A'A Hf"- ' a H VAOV O V ”-4.7. JJ . I ' " HA ‘ «A. " ~ - ::.::Ielt‘ VV-‘ . - ‘ 'fl‘ .0 'A .V- n: ”3' audio-9"“ .5 ...-.3. y ‘ a 9 - L.—'§.; 9.. h... 4.. “”4: , :. Jo... w»... :- 4.. A ..-:..-.n 'y. . b‘lfi: :., Y" _ ..,.E ‘.Q":.A‘\ :- “" “'vs c. x "-o' I A . - --13«5‘38 Vrvu 9 . 0.¢‘.‘ ..' . "" :O I ! ‘ “I' ‘u. ". F Q I..."‘-a .:6 5C. 26 Englander by choice. The lack of family connection with the western abolition movement and the close identification with New England perhaps accounted in part for Rhodes' emphasis on the importance of Garrison in the abolition crusade. Anyway. Rhodes recognized Garrison as the sole originator of the abolition movement, and the publication of the Liberator as its beginning date. What actuated the crusade was Chritian teachings. The abolitionists met hostilities in both the South and the North as soon as Garrison launched it. Mob violence to silence them reached its heights in 1835. But the abolitionists refused to be intimidated. Encouraged by the success of the British abolition movement, the American abolitionists, in spite of misrepresentation, obloquy. and derision, continued their ”work of converting and creating Northern sentiment” by attacking slavery from Chritian principles. Their influence grew, turning many Northerners into opponents of slavery as exemplified by William Ellery Channing's change. By 1837, ”it no longer required the martyr spirit to be an abolitionist in the Eastern part of the country." Yet the crusade drew few adherents from the influential part of the community. Thus, it was a great moment for the abolition- ists when Wendell Phillips and Edmund Quincy, both from Boston's highest social circle. joined their crusade. By 1839. the abolitionist vote was beginning to have effect on --; ‘5 Of E: h ._n 31". ' Q. ...oynu-p:uu A ‘ : W ...-.v':o~.' U V. ' "" "‘r W: “W -' D no. ... UV - A \ no n.p:p A%.:Y- n1 vluv. unhi.cod .A’F ~‘...- .- va ' - ... . . “Hun... . .- , on. no...va-.: U: :‘. 'Iro' p -...;.. u" lcrycr .__ v .. ' “Pa-C 0 -~ s :r ... it. ' . '1 u‘ n .. —--...‘.: Carr“ _ . t \- :N'i; I ‘r-r - u ‘U‘. 1“. A “or 'F6 n: f's‘ «D A ‘ U 27 the results of elections in some states. But because of a controversy over political action. the movement split it- self into two groups. the one going directly into politics. and other continuing its moral agitation under the leader— ship of Garrison and Phillips. The split marked the acme of the moral movement. After that. "the Garrisonian abolitionists suffered loss of influence."u1 And the his- torian no longer had interest in the movement. Rhode's interpretation was simple and sketchy. But his meaning cannot be missed. He believed the function of the abolition movement lay chiefly in breaking the public silence on the problem of slavery, arousing the northern conscience. and thus preparing the stage for the great debut of the Republican party. This is quite clear from his own comment on the effects of abolitionists' agitation. He admitted it to be a historical dogmatism to say that ”if Harrison had not lived. the Republicans would not have succeeded in 1860.” Yet. he contended that if one wished to estimate correctly the influence of the abolitionists. he had to take into consideration "the impelling power of their positive dogmas. and of their never-ceasing inculca- tion“ on voters and would-be voters. and the process of discussion, of persuasion, and of argument, going on for #1 The summary is based on Rhodes. History of the United States. I. 53-74. The quotations are taken from p.69, 72. and 7E- 137;. “ 2’9 ' ear '3 .. ~ "W this ...... -.Jo—C o -n-l-~-:’r +F b \ 'uuvoI-‘g\J“ v- ' - ‘uu" ‘ar J. btn‘ 0| ‘N:. ~ “I 1h.- P " "ii. ..e ‘II-w ‘ Js -: ":Av: ‘ .....U".SUS:' .- C. F.A‘ ";'.a'K° . .‘ '8', ‘0'; .a_a I‘d Q. 3‘ ~'.‘: - .. 'u. a"! "u a“ “9:t8 . ... ‘. .‘b .:‘s: .' “y. Q~H ¢ 3~ t». 0.. a "m.“ V‘ ‘1 i c “he A‘- ' syn. . . h~a. a: I‘. ‘ |:"‘\A un‘. “In t”'~¢. P, .‘q h v: Q ‘ .; . .gr-y. a 28 twenty-five years with an ever-increasing momentum. View- ing it from this standpoint. one could not but accept the conclusion that ”this antislavery agitation had its part, and a great part too. in the first election of Lincoln.” The abolitionists by unceasing agitation compelled Northern- ers to think about slavery which “could not bear examination.” Merely thinking about it reconfirmed those who already possessed antislavery feeling, and turned doubters into all-out antislavery men. Seeing the abolitionists in this way. no wonder Rhodes cried: ”But in what a state of turpitude the North would have been if it had not bred abolitionists!” and asked: ”If the abolitionists had not prepared the way. how could the political rising of 1854- 1860 against the slave power have been possible?" It was, therefore. the abolitionists who ”by stirring the national conscience.” made possible the formation of a party ”whose cardinal principle was opposition to the extension of slavery, and whose reason for existence lay in the belief of its adherents that slavery in the South was wrong."42 Then. there is no doubt that Rhodes considered the main function of the abolition movement as that of preparing the ‘way for the appearance of the Republican party. It is for this reason that he praised Garrison and his followers. It was Garrison who ”roused the national conscience from the #2 All the quotations are taken from ibid.. I. 62-63. I‘m law-a. - L]. . . CFIA A. H .. n F. ¢-V&w J..‘ ..U .. ~ ‘ "h "a P "9 31.433..- "I '0: ‘ U “nun-t. A“ 3:1. l: tug... V :~9Vol: n hpc' ..l'.:‘te Ho.q .-.- .” h I’ ‘:' #5 r‘! I“: avc.l . 1.1.31! .‘F \’ hue 137's .. v fl v5)“.- .‘\ ~~§d‘.;e .\.| “A" .q" v ‘V|.“N ‘Afi :‘ bk ~§V“ . H: “p": ‘ i! a”! tnn 5 li. “' ‘\ "2 V: . \- ‘ . ‘ “V by“ ~ -?:\‘~ 3. ~ ‘ ... :‘N‘U‘e' *h» 1 1| . h.‘c . : ~A‘: ~_L Vt - .I‘. ‘ “ F .. Ah .‘ ' o. - § ‘ ‘ “ -..' :57. 1,“, V.' I U ~ ‘ I~ “k A: u hf. .\~:‘Cey‘ V .‘t-l‘ .‘ L. N‘Jlianh V. 'vcu4e.‘ ‘ ' : 29 stupor of great material prosperity.”3 Delegates to the Philadelphia convention which organized the American Anti- slavery Society were “men of good character. pure morals. an A noble spirit of truth- and were law-abiding citizens." fulness pervaded the whole abolition literature. And finally he whole-heartedly accepted the praises of Garrison and the crusade voiced by Lowell and Whittier without any reservation.”5 Despite such praises. Rhodes was not an unqualified lover of the abolitionists. His true sympathy was with those moderate antislavery men most of whom later supported “6 This can be illustrated by his the Republican party. favorable comment on Channing and his critical attitude to- ward the abolitionists after about 1840. He estimated Channing's book on slavery, with the exception of the Liberator. “the most remarkable contribution of this decade to the cause of the abolitionists." It was so convincing #6 Strangely enough. Rhodes seemed to see no signifi- cant connection between the Liberty party, the Free-Soil party. and the Republican party. His treatment of the first two was very brief and with a little criticism. He said. for example, that the participation of the Liberty party in the election of 184h was a "well-meaning" but "ill-considered" action. ibid.. I. 84, and that the nomination of Van Buren as the presidential candidate of the Free-Soil party in 18u8 was "grotesque“. ibid.. I. 97. s. i in t.) ”Lictfi' Y‘ .‘U-Ib: ‘ i P' ' o.a~:-p. R yrur nail-0" Jo oun.:4 . . yon-Al. ficcnflw: Ch \ .- Lao-v' 8‘“. .u. ' ‘ h : lz'ifiuo. "P , ...-0.0;. s y‘. . u :1 team: ' ' ~ — 10v. ...-n... ' .....:93 was t; I . ;";w. I ..-.“ ‘ . h ,. ~r.flli oh,‘ _‘ U l n F.": V‘ a. 4 H "‘Icul‘a‘e :. ...". : 0.: :.\A' n- _."'.Vtt. he ; I. ’ . ‘F r "" ~E... ‘Afiayn. Nay“ '13 ‘A. "Vi a ”7" ..a., C - . 'r-i ' , u.: SIP-v f‘ d “.L I‘m. 2 ”MG. “0. I: u A“ ' "- 'u 7‘: "‘NSCT' Q s h ,’, . .' 'n 'U ”4‘ 3‘ ~‘. ‘ “‘I F > “e f ,‘ . u“l «.5 L“ b ‘ :4 h ‘1‘ V A 'l . ~J\ ~7 i \ U‘ ": \Ch ‘ - \ .P 4| “ r- _ 30 and so widely read that soon many defenders of slavery thought Channing more dangerous than Garrison. From Rhodes' summary of Channing's theme, it appears that Channing's book was no more than a philosopher's theoreti- cal denouncing of slavery. The only means of action he proposed was to "spread the truth on the subject of slavery." Rhodes pointed out that a potential influence of Channing's book was his apathy to Garrison's method of agitation. He also recognized a difference between the two men. According to Rhodes. Channing, like Emerson. was not a man of action with an aggressive nature.“7 Thus, by praising Channing. Rhodes seemed to throw doubt upon both Garrison's doctrine of immediate emancipation and his method of agitation. if not upon Garrison the man himself. This is of course because he valued above all other things the work of awakening the national conscience. For this he was willing to pay tributes to both Channing and the Garrisonian abolitionists for their contribution. But when the abolitionists went beyond the work of arousing the national conscience. his attitude became critical. Their influence declined after 18h0, he insisted. not be- cause of the split of the movement, but because Garrison advocated non-union with slavery. "In the next decade." he wrote. "the Garrison abolitionists suffered loss of in- fluence by advocating disunion as a remedy. Failing to 1+7 For Rhodes' description of Channing. see ibid.. I. 6#-65. ,- ..- 0'»— “a. ...,o: v“ 'MAUAO“ nun.‘ V :. ..., o. a. v. .1 “V. 3 .NH UV.» a“ o. a ...H o. I : A: and v . u . ..- . a. u .- ..... .. hp. 31 appreciate the love for the Union and reverence for the Constitution that prevailed among the mass of the Northern people. they adopted the motto. 'No Union with slave- holders'. and proclaimed the Constitution 'a covenant with death and agreement with hell.'" That this was a "mistake” “8 He cited as even Garrison himself admitted years later. one example of the lawlessness and riot of 185u the burning of the Constitution by Garrison who was "infatuated by his own method and blind to the trend of events.”9 He in- sisted that Parker and Phillips were the leading exponents of abolitionism in the decade of 1850-1860. And he was very critical of Parker's attack on Webster. the greatest Union- ist. It was the criticism of ”an honest fanatic."SO These statements make clear Rhodes' dislike of the abolitionists after 1800. if not before. Obviously, Rhodes judged the abolition movement from its contribution to the political uprising against slavery of the 1850's. Before 18b0, he deemed its efforts helpful in that they awoke the conscience of the North. But after 1840, its efforts became harmful because the abolitionists went astray by advocating disunionism. This opinion is best summarized by Rhodes himself: 48 Ibldo. I. 74-75. 49 Ibldo. II, 570 50 For his criticism of Parker, see ibid.. I. 288-290. »: L. p: C. o. L. a“ ... A" . . o. n5 r. 9“ . ¢ s . .9.» a. ... .... .1 .... C .3 .n S r. .. C 3 T. t C I C C 1.2 r. 9 C L. e .l ... a a. r“ ... a. .. ... ... 3 a. a ... a. S ... ... ”J o 2. r. a r l p. a. w.+.:.... S a. 9.3.7:... a.” a 1.. t.....3 ..v .T. ... C ... ... u C ...u ... O a. r” a” a. ... .C C I. a. .171 ... ..c w. a. a. o T. a a S a. C ”J 3.1a +L o. C ”a S ...... ..4 . . ..a a. n c-.. S 2... .... s. C n”: .5 3...... r” ...5 r“ c. 1.: C ...: .. .4 a T. 3 an 3 a. a. G. p” 5. w. .u r“ no. ... a. ... n. “a p. c. ... .. :. ... a. a. ... ... ... a. F. AV .iu a». u .N. nJ u.: .vu .ru A. an 6.- Cy my. ad .1:. ... -.. ... In in . . .v: a» .. . 2.. ... .... ~\. \ ... . ~:. .. n . .v V. c . m... a...“ ....... . .. .... .... .. .nJ .— 32 The influence of the abolitionists in the decade between 1850-1860 was by no means com- mensurate with their ability and zeal.... They rejected the most feasible and regular means of checking the slavepower, for the reason that the Republicans did not go far enough. They only proposed to prOhibit slavery in the territories. while the abolitionists were for its abolition in the states.... Yet the only practical result of their labor lay in the fact that. having con- vinced men that slavery was wrong, they made Republican voters.... The work of Garrison and his disciples between 1831-1840, in arousing the conscience of the nation, had borne good fruit: but that work was done. The public mind had now to grapple with the question, How could the sentiment that slavery was wrong accomplish results and stop the spread of evil? The abolitionists said, by disunion; while the Republicans. intending to preserve union and liberty proposed constitutional and regular method.51 Whatever might have been the reason for his treating Garrison as the leading crusader against slavery, the determining factor in his interpretation was no doubt nationalism. He hated slavery. But because he loved the Union even more. he would like to see slavery abolished through established channels. This is borne out by his un- qualified praise of the Republican party and moderate anti- slavery men like Channing. It is also significant that he said delegates to the Philadelphia convention were law- abiding citizens. He liked Garrison and his followers be- fore 1840 because they were apparently more moderate than after 18h0 when they began to advocate disunion with slavery. If they confined their agitation to arousing northern con- science and spreading antislavery feelings, it was fine: 51 Ibid.. II. #35. III-P ‘ .p .115 o}- .o - -.-r ... ...:H "‘6 II III" J. «I o 3. . o. C ..w H O a... .“ ... I. .a 9v 9.... mfl AU 9. A. 09. an r“ lo! Cu ‘1- v” ... ... ..- .-.~ "4— m.m PM .. ~ ... a '0 n ‘ . -.I...p . H . , --..«-C--C... a a: o\‘ .4 f. C .... , n-I - 3 . -r s.‘ ..-‘ S .w ... .3 C E : . E T .1 . .sb Q» A» ..v Rd. A.‘ 6‘ b...» Q» 2k $.u t E t r n. E *c .11\ a “7.5.. n a: Q a: Q» .nlu «C h\ 0 P.. A\ r... 2...; S ..v ... E ... T. .... .Q 9 1... 2.. a C 9. .. r 3.... a. 3...... .... .ws AJ .. . a. . .... a» 0 .3. C ¢ s s u ..I a .n. s a is .... q: i a. .. bk .... 3.... «Q .: ‘3 ... a. s... .vl . d .o i \ .. u n, \ u e :‘ .u. s .. . \ u .u I u v - ... .- ..n u: \ sun : ~ L \ ..~ \ . 1 ~ ‘ v ..n I . I s u . -.d A \ b . .o . u,. ....e. 5% ‘4‘ .-\ ... I. ... on 5 ~ ...\ ... 33 but when they moved a step further toward anarchism, they became the disturbers of the Union to Rhodes. All these things showed clearly that Rhodes in depicting the abolition movement followed the dictates of the prevailing belief in nationalism of his time. This is also true in the case of Hart as well as Macy. though they denied the leadership of Garrison. Hart, like Rhodes. grew up in Cleveland.52 But unlike Rhodes. his family had very close connection with the western political antislavery movement.53 Probably because of this family background, he upheld the importance of the Western abolition- ists in his interpretation. But so far as the basic attitude toward the abolition movement is concerned, Hart differed very little from Rhodes. Hart's treatment of the abolition movement was both more minute in detail and more comprehensive in scope than 52 Hart was born Clarksville. Pennsylvania, in 185A. But his family was in Cleveland. 53 Hart's father. a physician by profession, had been active in the western political antislavery movement. A conductor on the underground railroad, and a Liberty man, he participated as a member of the Ohio delegation in the 1848 Buffalo convention which organized the Free-Soil party. Later, he served as a Major in the Union army. Hart must have been very proud of his father's antislavery activities because he dedicated his Salmon Portland Chase (New York, 1899) to his father with pride and gratitude: "To Albert Gaillard Hart, Abolitionist. Underground-Railroad Conductor. Liberty Man. Union Soldier - A Son's Gratitude." In the preface to his biography of Chase whom he. like his father. adored, he claimed "some special interest in him as an ex- ponent of that western political antislavery movement which I-HHHHHHH . Ind“. n y . . . . . gs. Q‘s . I; V” ‘1‘ ..§ a: an“ A.— 44 r. 44 h. s .1 O 1 .1 t 08. $ ' I ~0\g.... A_‘ \ "'O-o Govt. : .. - s‘ *5 C c. . ... C .l a a ..... e .o . r n . ... 3 1 .... h . J . .1. n W a. t E r . u g g .n. n! F‘ a. w. u‘v .» c :2 ru .6 a. . .. . a... flu .NN m: . a v” w . p“. . c - 3~ y .‘ . -. .. . a: .: n v .. . 2 . n... no". I - ~.\. ..unp ...... «b- - ...... ‘9‘. .. ... ....~ ...... . . u .. -. n .. . ...... .. .. . .. 34 Rhodes'. He touched on the early antislavery movement which seemed on the decline by 1830. Then, suddenly there appeared the new abolition movement with renewed vigor. Hart attributed this sudden appearance of the new militant opposition to slavery to three factors: the impact on the American public sentiment of the successful emancipation of slaves in the western world; the recently rising concern of the public mind with the weak and the helpless; and the opening up of new fields of economic activity which called for a new kind of labor unsuitable for slavery and consider- ing slaves as its competitors. Hart did not assign the role of the originator to Garrison but to Benjamin Lundy. ”the first link in a chain of impulse to which nearly all the other abolitionists traced their beginning.”5u Garrison published the Liberator and organized the New England Antislavery Society. But the Philadelphia conven- tion was not called and organized by him. From then on the abolition movement grew rapidly. both in the number of antislavery societies and in membership, until 18U0 when a continued quarrel between the Garrisonians and non-Garrisonians over the questions of personal disagreements. the status of women, the Bible, non-resistance. and politics resulted in early stirred my blood through both heredity and training,” p0 Vii. 50 Hart. Slavery and Abolition, p. 180. vs S- a - p U are“ .-..A I. .- '- .54 ‘ .-.... Vo‘; '- u C‘ ‘ .:“‘ V... I n ‘. Q 35 a ”weakening split” of the movement.55 The original Ameri- can Antislavery Society rapidly declined, "giving way to the antislavery movement stirred by the efforts to annex Texas."56 that is. the political antislavery movement. What were the effects of the abolition movement? So far as the efforts to improve the conditions of the slave. and to persuade slaveholders to free their slaves are con- cerned. the crusade was a complete failure, Hart maintained. But the movement had its positive contribution. The un- relented agitation of the abolitionists aroused and spread antislavery sentiment throughout the whole North. making “it impossible for a great number of northern antislavery men, who were not abolitionists. to remain on terms of friendship with their southern brethren."57 The overall impression from a reading of Slavery and Abolition is that the author was favorable to the abolition movement. Hart did not always say bad words even about Garrison. He went so far as to concede that Garrison was "a natural journalist," ”a remarkable writer", and "an effective speaker”. whose “personal courage was undeniable.“58 Yet his greater sympathy lay undoubtedly with the more 55 Ibido’ p.197. 58 Ibidop p0 1819 182' and 2050 ' 6 vs '7' 21532-9 ... r- " Fun? :'n:‘. .f‘ VA nut" Lo. U‘.. "‘rl‘. .A‘I‘ ... ...... r.-- 3:: :‘C‘ ..‘A‘ "‘ Av l 0“ I ‘ 9. , ”‘11:..ECH"J9. ~:.,_’A‘ .‘«. _~c a ' F nav~~ 0“ ‘1 :EV -I-Q:‘ie of c U I . .. " ”'3‘?“ mg “n: 0 ..‘ n‘é‘. C. v. u ‘a "...:‘ S‘I‘t t'n ..c .: :Q ‘ U“ ‘ v.‘ s‘a.'?or.‘. 5 \. ‘ .Po ...... Ar} . “'«1. ‘.v . .- .. ‘ '. :"‘~ ‘t:y’: J av”: '~ ‘.|‘ O :1. _, . *. I P a §..e e.,: I A u ! mic» 3“ .. A.- ‘ ... " s‘ ‘ " n ‘ F “ ‘ wee Ci“- ~. bqfi. q M ‘. ‘1" 5‘s.“ aOO .Cn$ ~.|_ \. 9.. 3"“ \ 5|. I ‘- vu- J Q‘s.“ "A 36 moderate and practical western political abolitionists. Except the Garrisonians, he divided all the non- Garrisonian abolitionists into three groups: the New England, the Middle States. and the western. He was fair enough to pay tribute to all the three groups by pointing out that: "All the three sections had their part in the great abolition struggle: all three groups contributed forces necessary for the struggle."59 However, he con- sidered western abolitionists the most practical and the most effective. It seems that Hart believed the effec- tiveness of abolition had a direct relation to a practical knowledge of slavery and the adoption of political means. In answering his own question why there was an unequal development of abolition among the three sections, he pointed out that in New England, far removed from the slave states. slavery was not a personal thing, while in the West, particularly in his home state. Ohio. being only next door to slavery and having many southern antislavery men living there. the evil of slavery was more real and personal. The Middle States stood between these two extremes.60 On an- other occasion, he observed that the Garrisonian abolition had three disadvantages: ”Its seat was in a commonwealth not much affected by actual slavery: it was conducted almost entirely by men born in free states: and it abjured political 59 Ibid., pp. 196-197. 60 Ibid.. pp. 194-195. ¢ . E 4 . E t G .: a . . . r I . . a .. a w E a 3 . rH. ,‘. ”V A‘ av a» u s~‘ . ‘ u v. . .. . a ..C. .3 . t h ...: ... r. . c e a S a S a Q r a“. we.“ Cs“ ..- a n... .J .n: +L a t S : .. 1‘ :N a. ”h d .HH ‘A. ”h 939‘ . A. Z!“ c Q 0‘.‘ ** ‘I‘ “o IQ... .P. ‘ o.‘ A- A... no. .sd.“ .I luv- a A. u.‘ .n A: A. .u. —u .2 PM A... I o It. 0 . M... a n C a a. 3 *w a. .... A. ... y». «h r” .9. a: nu Pu av ... .- a“ “s a. a; a» 1. Q. .n‘ «a .. c. a. .4 .. a. .. . .. .. J. .1. .A .1 ~. ... r. .... .mu .... ...—n o u .n a .... o c a . .9. flu ‘ a... I g a . 1. ~ . .. .s V—y‘ u.” um I . nl - . no. ..u n; . .... :s . . a . .0“ u . . . .-. ~ ... ... ... .. . ya; v. o m . ... u no u... 1'- Nu m... . . n s u a. . ... ...“ . ~ ~ o . .. .. s . I... ._ . 37 action." On the other hand, the western abolitionists had three "powerful advantages: they knew the benumbing effect of slavery in neighboring states: they might call in the aid of anti-slavery men who had been slaveholders: and they did not underrate the method of political organi- zation."61 What is implied in these assertions is his con- viction that a political abolition movement based on a practical knowledge of slavery was the most effective means of attacking slavery. Given this belief, it is no surprise when he declared that: "The third. or western, movement was from the beginning the most effective. because it was brought face to face with the actualities of slavery, and because it used political means to destroy the traces of '62 and that the the accursed system in its own communities. political antislavery movement organized mainly by western abolitionists was "destined to have a greater effect than their philanthropic propaganda."63 For this reason, he hailed Chase. the leading organizer of antislavery parties. as his great hero.6u Of course. it is for this same reason that he criti- cized the radicalism of Garrison and his followers. To 61 Hart. Salmon Portland Chase. pp. 36-37. 62 Ibid.. p.37. 63 Hart, Slavery and Abolition, pp. 315-316. 6h Ibid.. p. 195 and 318; also see Hart, Salmon LPgrtland Chase. pp. 39-177. .2 ..T.LE Ell‘. . . a c A E . -. . . I . . . . ... . n r V a o . Q .v A!“ ... a. .3 r. l +» 3 . W. w. p . M». M. ! . e 2 C o e C a E e r e O a a . S ... t. f a f E 5 O T n v. .2 0 ..Q .h r V .C .. .... l r .1 a... .3 S .. i O O .l O o. a u u 9 a a O . S r; a i .2 a t t r . S l a. 3 F. e t. .. o .v w... in . . ... 4 ~.. «I .. a 0‘... o‘ a a.” ‘5 «‘1‘ Pa. ’ CU “a s 7 v c o s a t . ..n .-.. a. w. r .. . t .... a. .. . C ... G C n .1. 5 to C a». E .... 0 n u a. 0.. t. a W. s . A: .. a 4 a a. L . rho -r. a.» .u w an. o 2. .v- I. T- «\u .4: r v . Pa. ‘5 .N‘ s u i. sin A: h. .4 a a a .. .... 3. 2. :. .... .m. 3 an .... is x . .1 an I 2. .”~».. on.” O H a m a. h . an..- n. 9‘ a. .0 g ...... tr O. v I ...... U .Il Mu" : ...“ a“ who M: v. n.- .. q..b_- \t m." “a o." In... MD. H... .- N outm- m.... M\ 3... .. 0.9-“ 0- to. b.\. .‘.M nut...- ~H.-. ...”..- >. Re. .... ...... 38 deprive Garrison of his leadership, Hart not only refused to regard him as the originator of the movement, but also denied that he had ever been accepted as their leader by most abolitionists. in particular by any western abolition- ist. The forces which produced the crusade were "older than Garrison. and would have made themselves felt if he had never lived."65 Although it was one of Garrison's dis- ciples, Theodore D. Weld. who introduced the needed spark to blaze the already widespread antislavery sentiment in the West into the abolition movement. and although Garrison visited the West after its abolition movement was well under way, ”he was never recognized as the head or leader ”66 In and outside New England. of the western abolitionists. many antislavery men had never worked with him. While ”plenty of abolitionists” had never ”accepted allegiance to him”. many of his old friends "cast off his leadership” and pursued ends of which he disapproved."67 According to his estimation. ”not one abolitionist out of twenty for a moment accepted” his denouncement of the Constitution.68 Garrison advocated immediate emancipation: "yet outside New England. 65 Hart, Slavery and AbolitionI p. 188. 66 Ibid.. p. 194. In this book Hart denied any in- fluence of Garrison in the West. However, in Salmon Portland Chase, he admitted at least that Garrison had an—indireét influence, see p. 36. 67 Hart. Slavery and Abolition, p. 189. ’68 Ibidog p0 2530 \ V“ .#‘ ”Q HC 1 I n I E r .. ... A 1 i a a. C 3 : . S T T e . . .. ... 5 :8“ an” S a. .9. 1- S .3 r C a. C ... a 3 kg T. a. r” . . . A.» W n . S .. . .c C ... e l. .. .1 ...... .1 .x . ... . a S n/ 0 ..L P. a. Au .5 a . S r. a . . ..-. r \i; O; .. .. n7 .... I .. a. . r“ C . t . .. . D. an L. r. o n: m: ”I t O :7 .c H“ O s «a r. O at ‘ ' .0 6 o . . Q ‘ .A‘ r . . Au q . 0 fig o'm. p N- v. at. r. .0. ... .«n h. .v .11 A; A: a .v At: no- ..Q I. .F . wt. A,“ !\b .Q Q ~\.» on. P.“ u u . \ V “v [k y 3. .... ... - . . m . . 3‘ .3 ... .. .. ... ... o . ... O \ Q. ... .. ... ...u v. .u .. .. .. 3 ... .. I . on a man no. . - nt- u”. 0 u ”I gs. an. Q I. Q n u. .u o P . ' Q nfl ,_. r“ ...... .. .. ...; ... “... .... .. n . u. .... ..... a. 39 the societies and leaders would have cheerfully accepted gradual emancipation acts from the neighboring slave ..69 states. He was opposed to political action; yet most abolitionists went into politics “in defiance of Garrison's 70 teaching.” And it was this political movement that most clearly showed how little Garrison was entitled to be taken as the typical or chief abolitionist.71 In short, Garrison was an extremist, never accepted by the abolition- ists as the leader. To discredit Garrison. perhaps it was useful to say something bad about Garrison the person. In his discussion of the factors leading to the split. Hart put almost all the responsibilities on the shoulders of Garrison, and even accepted the serious charge that Garrison was an infidel. Garrison often abused enemies as well as friends. While most abolitionists were peOple "who paid their debts, attended divine service, and had the reputation of an orderly life," Garrison and Phillips were one-sided men, "held a brief for liberty and did not trouble themselves to look at 73 the case of the other side." Hart sized up Garrison in Ibido, p0 2040 Ibido. p0 31?. Ibid.. p. 320. Ibidog pp. 197-2010 Ibid.. p. 20“. 0 ~ w c I “ fl“!- . O r. i ' “. 'tI.“ ... V. ‘5 .‘- ,qo gfi'vfl’1: “ .3, vud‘ a»: A rev: en . . I ‘ . s “vow-6“" “A: ‘Q ::c':i.‘v ”U “a 0'5. - ., ‘ ‘- “ In: '68” C‘- ...-:01“? 'A'JD" 1"..6.J.. bi-V .. ' [_l ...; ’1 «rt ' “"' 6A:.. o .. :1»... ‘ 9 r- . lh'l.:' ..v I n 0-: Enti‘: A ' " "" WA. ..ca . I‘ Q. ' ' ‘. i; .'.:p“~“~ s. ‘5‘“..I: l\‘t:‘ .. “ ‘w to a f:-.:. nNa.‘JFo was r: 3% ‘Estem . R I snvd a dlS\ .‘4 “I 2% ~ . . ‘igvd 187' '1 t.. ‘ o. . a ' V .. 5.: {Eh-l A 1.. § Q 9 .1. u, h». - . .' ... On Q ... g ‘1 {s .‘ u‘ _ .h* .P ..G‘ 5, "u \ I ' i ‘\ .‘ (Id. Th . ‘~ “‘ I‘Q: ealfi‘P \h. v‘. a\“ u h . A .... :F”‘ . _ g ‘ i ' - ... ~|"‘ ‘3 F ._ ‘ ' "I ..h ““ ‘ ‘V U ‘. "a! . s ‘ l u‘ H. ’ "“.".h .-‘ ~1\.~ *fi : ‘c‘~= n QI“:. ‘ v ‘ \ I»:‘» ~ . ‘. K ‘. \ u I. ‘.‘ ’ L I ‘K' "\ ‘ ~ “y. . A “. C,~, ~" I» ' \. \ no scathing words: ”He was egotistic, unpractical, uncompromis- ing, courageous, zealous almost to fanaticism."7u A reviewer summarized Hart's theme as that the con- servative abolitionists of New England, the Middle-States, and the West contributed much more to the success of the abolition movement than the radical Garrison.75 This is quite right. Given his nationalism, it would have been a surprise if he had interpreted the movement otherwise. His repeated emphasis on the effectiveness and practicability of the political means, and his picturing most abolitionists as law-abiding and pious citizens clearly show that Hart regarded action through established political means as the proper way to abolishsiavery. Even his effort to discredit Garrison was motivated not so much by his family tie with the western abolition movement as by his dislike of Garrison's disregard for political means, impracticability, and radicalism. In short, like Rhodes, Hart would like to see slavery abolished, but not at the price of jeopardizing the Union. 74 Hart, ed., American History Told by Contemporaries III, 595. In this book, Hart always introduced With a_few words each author whose works he selected. His comments on other abolitionists or antislavery men were dispassionate and neutral, in marked difference from that on Garrison. His comments on others may be found on the following pages: William Jay, p. 5833 Frederick Douglass, p. 5793 Whittier, p. 212; Birney. p. 608; Joshua Leavitt, p. 626; and Channing, p. 20 75 J.C. Ballagh, "Review of Hart, Slavery and Abolition,‘ Jémerican Historical Review, XII (July, 1907Y, 90h. p p u b H :Y .- “0:. u :1 tne 9:: Va- I G. : 5“ App] den“, 15w p i. in Q ,. .a A‘ ._H.' 5“!“ ' C5,...” 3." '. 'IOII I I.“ A?! N.H..: - ... .V‘ ~ ‘ .1.-- t ,|::' .Uan .. ." 'vl ... I ole".- 1.. |-. l n5yn’ ‘- 'r\ \I- 11". IN nhu ‘I\ ..\ .N e .3 .-A 3 at r. .2 .W ..-4. Q. Frv aid ‘ u h m “.V q~v T D. .... 1. .3 r .... .v a .... 3 .r. a .1‘ S a. ..-. a. 3 .4 -r. 0 ..J C .3 T1 8 C an a. A.-. .s. ..-. Y. ..L S T W C a. 9.. . a T .1 ..Q r a. n. Go 9. a u...» .Q a: O a: ‘l‘ u... _h. nQ :. ...v. c. r. I S ...... O t .l .. . ‘5 Sm t "I .-. 3.. 1.. M... h. [he £5 .7» a: Q. r.. G. A: w . 3L an A. by .Q. «In I in v .. h. ..r.. . .s .. s 5‘ Q awn M4 A\u -. ; .... cl :q HI Q» nna A. pa! Amy 3. ... «C .... s v . A» u .. ... . .. .u a .- ~ h .. ...: . ~ I -~ .1..- I nus :\ n u s t i t in H. \ I A . \ .H. O . h a! I V Q t o \ ‘ I \ ‘ .... ch nu -8 0 1 ... vi . 1 1| \ v- I i .t \- -l at. 1' .un I.“ ...I \- I..- ..c Iii .. t I u . u q \. \. fit \o ~ In.\ ..‘n a .I- ‘. 1 n .- t 41 Macy, another Westerner from a Quaker family with strong connection with western political antislavery move- ment,76 presented in 1919 an interpretation similar to that of Hart. He also stressed the importance of the moderate western abolitionists. He divided the nation into three regions in terms of proximity to the slavery institution: New England, the Middle-states including all the states be- tween New England on the North and South Carolina on the South, and the Deep South. Because the people of the second region knew slavery both from experience and observation, an active protest against it had always existed there. In fact, the modern antislavery movement had its origin in and main support from this great middle section. The early anti-slavery leaders were Lundy and Birney. For the change from early mild protest against slavery to modern abolition, Macy suggested two reasons. One was the southern ruling classes' resort to mob action to put down antislavery agitation and defense of slavery as a divinely ordained in- stitution, which brought about a change in spirit in the controversy over slavery. The other was the success of the 76 Macy was born in 18u2 to a Quaker family in Indiana. Because of hatred of slavery, his parents had decided to move their family from North Carolina to Indiana, and then to Iowa. Both in Indiana and Iowa, they continued their antislavery activities such as conducting the under- ground railroad, voting for Birney in 1890, and the Republi- can ticket in 1856. The family ardently discussed current national and local problems in which ”the children were deeply interested," Macy recalled, "and could hardly fail to become ardent antislavery partisans," See Macy. Jesse figmy: An Autobiggraphy, p. 75. I . ...-.:«a“ V‘ ’- I. at; H V' l . v.v .fl‘ . .v-O:Jfl : .I‘ in. at A V.. ..- I ~ , Ivnqtnr‘ - (I) ‘ v .- ’wahcpfl RV- _‘ H “1: "‘5‘.“ 1. a .‘ .. I . ‘ a" ‘O‘P‘*§ e a ‘.'.O5.vnb. '~, I """9‘v 6: . _ . F . Ivl.‘,.-.‘." l.. U l.” OR ‘0‘ : .: A ...“ 'U .1 $. V. v o 1 ~ vaM“:b-H. .bI".‘-“p D ......U... A _“R‘ “’" >~~:. ... ‘ " h ‘v.. I l ~- ~.‘ 9. a." ~'V§.‘ T‘- ...:.._a :2 ~ -9 ~-~:. \ ‘I. I. ‘\‘ A ‘o ' ‘26 C. I“ Q ‘. .._- I. ‘ .... r a: v . l .3. ~.' ‘ Q I ‘ 5.. o ~§:I:h' a” V'\ J ‘n. . :‘n.: 'K 4 s“ run. w:.. A ‘ “D x N o.‘ . - C m. 1" n‘ ‘v x . A,, ‘~:.av ”Q .‘-\.~ ._ “ i- ‘:"‘Q on ' ‘ V ‘Ql ( ‘1 \ 5. lab“ . .‘. I. " ‘v ’ ' '1 2%.. ."..‘ \r . .;.I . .-‘ '1‘:e ‘r "w ‘1‘: 'y A V \. l. D.-‘ \,p ‘V \‘,p J *’= ‘ o“. G: \4 “N #4 7 (a I“ LL . 42 emancipation of slaves in Central America. According to Macy, "These acts of emancipation added zeal to the deter- mination of the Southern planters to secure territory for the indefinite extension of slavery to the Southwest." "When Lundy and Birney discovered these plans, their desire to husband and extend the direct political influence of abolitionists were greatly stimulated."77 The slaveholders' determination to extend slavery caused the abolitionists to turn to politics as an antislavery means. Then, there was not only a change in spirit. It appears that the method also changed. But he insisted that there was no change in principle. Accompanying slaveholders' determination to perpetu— ate and extend slavery, they decided to use all means, mob violence, gag rules in Congress, governmental curb on the free use of the mail, appeals to the northern state author- ities, and finally oppressive state laws, to silence critics of slavery in the South and North. In slave states, the campaign was successful in either silencing or driving out the antislavery people. But in the North it not only was a complete failure, but also helped the antislavery crusade greatly. Many Northerners turned into abolitionists not because they cared much about slaves, but because they saw clearly the dangers of slavery to their civil rights as freemen. 77 Ibido. pp. 61-62. l d. ,. P v . p I Q N] ‘0 C C3238 V “EA V U . “ Unhv ‘ ‘1‘“! A! “‘\'I ‘la bv' v .6"‘ O I "'00 'v. ,3 ’ ‘gn Eb V a. .v . a. <4 ‘u .A . h .\ afisu .\ \ a ‘ II 0 —.~ V c \ 1‘ ’ .1 E : . C e. a . f F a .. C a . o V 6 um . ”a hfl‘ A—u as» ‘.U ”Mb a.» 1% Wk. A¥ .N‘ . E. .2 C. T e . r. t .-. o r. C U .l : . A. 4. wt; ... A n. C Cu .n‘ .3 .«u ¢ . O . $U u.» .~ \ .s s v. . 4‘ 3 e. .. . r. l. 3. A4 : \ s.r he ... A... a w h. e 3 r. A: 3 a .. l e e 1 a ..C a TA ‘ ‘ - A.» av .-s “s NU .‘ Q Axfi Ft. Bu N\\ AV A VI fifu 9' n J F A ~R.‘ D U. 0. § .. 5 Pi ‘ U ‘ . \IV ‘.O 5“ 1. 7» Kiln ? "a... w .5 ... s on ~C v. .Is. ...s A. \b. .~v .- iu - I“ to in“ H.- ll. .c s. cut. I! o \ Q“. o ‘ ‘4‘ u n y . u x v t. uu Q n b . ... vu .u .. .... .. w y. .. u... an .... . .. u . .q . In...“ D a '0 .nb . v I. I ..u a n . t ... . u-N .. u I .\ ....... nu. K. l+3 Although the fight for freemen's liberty ”quickened the zeal of the abolitionists and made converts to their cause,"78 it was the debate in Congress inaugurated by John Quincy Adams and others over the extension of slave territory in connection with the early attempts to annex Texas which stimulated the abolitionists to try to accom- plish "their ends by political action."79 They tried in vain to compel the major parties to accept their program. So they organized a party of their own. the Liberty Party. in lBhO. This party “for the defense of liberty," assuming "the broad principle of human brotherhood as the foundation for a democracy or a republic." aiming at carrying ”the principle of equal rights into all social relations," was "the first really effective national organization" of all 80 Aided by the disputes over the Wilmot abolitionists. Proviso and the Compromise of 1850. the "bleeding Kansas". the antislavery bobks of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Frederick Law Olmsted, and Hinton Rowan Helper, and the Dred Scott decision, the political movement grew stronger and stronger until the formation of the Republican party whose ”policies were based upon the assumption that slavery is both a moral and a political evil." and with whose appearance the crusade 78 Ibidog p. 83. 79 Ibidog p. 880 80 Ibido’ p.93-960 - < o 0 ”A ..n - '2 , a" A ‘- s.—u “bin: in v i I- ' Q I .. .o.‘:: 5.. . ......U‘. U i- ‘ ~ ' .. '-I’c a." ..A . , \.‘ III ov~0~ v. ..- . . n1 , , I'A ‘.'fi" c. u... I.yg..u U U) T! ":N :“ a” I""" fit. my “'iti 1 . r AA I. (‘I AA*‘ -“'°"¢ d... . 91”.": . clown.“ 2;:V‘ a-‘.. ’Q I v “ t" NM. .0 V‘vfier r " er“: ‘ . t ‘ MCI“ - ‘7 3:22». -‘ V‘A ' " Vqrtl n‘u“. w" 5‘: 1*] Z ~_ 1'“: «‘ ... ‘d h ‘3‘: J “ he vL ‘,.; an against slavery was ”nearing its final stage.”81 Throughout the book, Macy hammered home the idea that gradual emancipation by individual states through political action was the program of typical or true aboli- tionists. He repeatedly asserted that the majority of the abolitionists were aware of the tremendous difficulties in- volved in emancipation, favored gradual abolition, advocated political action, stood for the perpetuation of the Union, and frowned at the kind of verbal denunciation of the South used by Garrison.82 He insisted that most abolitionists were "ardently devoted to the interests of peace. They would abolish slavery by peaceful means because they be- lieved the alternative was a terrible war."83 And the peaceful means was political. They admitted that Congress had no power over slavery in the states. But they insisted that Congress had exclusive right over slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia and territories. So the proper way of action was to urge Congress to abolish slavery and slave trade in the District of Columbia and exclude slavery from the territories through the operation of national anti- slavery parties. As for slavery in the individual states. abolition had to be achieved by state antislavery parties.8u 81 Ibid., p. 202. 82 Ibidoo pp. 20! 38‘399 56‘599 86! and 94’950 f uvob 'n ' 4 9.: -v°?‘_‘;"‘ Sl I : :dxl '. 'u‘. .n ‘F‘ “. b... -- q ‘I ‘. u-‘A :f‘ ‘ .:¢.Ud¥ ‘V“‘ ' . ‘A A” . Inn an.‘ V' c l 1‘ ---i «u rev“. Inv'qnpv‘ “ ~':--.uU. ... ‘:“'.19y‘a‘,\ A u h \ ' .IO“.‘U‘~ Uv‘J . .AOO .. A ’ ‘ CA” ""..I’ , V s I «u.i.,.A ‘ ~l - m-.- "‘ r on..-“-' _" . ..., H.“ V‘— '..:.5 “G: OIU ’D: ':' .fayls‘f .- h‘~"“v-‘/ ,... n ":““ . “Ion... :'-;£ 0 ‘F My .‘""e ‘.|S“ ’ hA I r F 7 u ”ll 0. CI- .14- b :M‘ II Ice..'5’ C 1"! I “ a : . "" ‘KP‘\P.. ...'LUII.: ’ r ‘0. ‘ - ‘flu, . “ul;~LF‘ I "'Ut." ‘. ‘ .fi ‘ h- -, "3 4.‘“:* "#3 b (I) (J'\ 45 Macy believed that this program might have worked, but for the extremists on both sides.85 In this kind of interpretation, Garrison and his radical followers could never receive favorable treatment. He was described as an extremist, inconsistent in thought and action. outside of the mainstream of the abolition movement. His influence on the crusade was"greatly misunderstood and exaggerated."86 To discredit Garrison totally, Macy even suggested that Garrison‘s inflammatory language might encourage slave revolts. He admitted that there was no evidence to prove a direct connection between the Liberator and the Nat Turner revolt. However. "a few utterances of the paper were fitted, if not intended, to incite insurrection." Finally. Macy concluded that Garrison, ”a man of obvious. even glaring, intellectual and moral defects.” certainly drew from the South odium upon all abolitionists by his unrestrained attack.87 In reviewing Macy's interpretation of the abolition movement. it is clear that in his emphasis and attitude, he was almost identical with Hart. He also upheld the moderate western abolitionists who proposed and tried to do away with slavery gradually by established constitutional means, 85 See above. 86 Macy. The Anti-Slavery Crusade. p. 21h. 8? Ibid.. pp. 59-60. ‘3‘ .“V‘ v A "in run» u ' ~ ’AA" ..R V ' A lift. Cu 3....- " Ft 5:.” 5:: _‘C l . r‘! "V”: 71.3.3, c Con-4 II." ‘ ‘ I . ‘wr«n‘n , ~ 'oi‘-.h'~‘. .. I:;.',‘; r ‘A \ g C A ......‘nt; .‘ Kitty-Y : V‘ e . “.1. ‘ ‘~'§ FY \- l.'\l -.~‘: 0: h h 41’ . .tx. n, a '“Q- n ‘.:‘ I o ‘ 46 and who repudiated the radicalism of Garrison. Nationalism worked on Macy no less than on Rhodes or Hart. The treatment of the abolition movement by Rhodes, Hart. and Macy was at best simple and'sketchy. They gave no systematic analysis of the reasons for the rise of the militant abolitionists. their organized activities, and their quarrels and split. They mentioned only a few aboli- tionists. These omissions are probably inevitable in con- sideration of the handicaps they faced in writing on the subject. First, many materials were not available. Then too. there were very few special studies to draw upon. In his ”Critical Essay on Authorities" in Slavery and Abolition, besides general histories, Hart could list only seven ”specific histories" about the slavery controversy and twenty-nine biographies. Most of these can hardly be called true scholarly studies because they were written mostly by ex-abolitionists. children of abolitionists, or their opponents. A check of American Historical Review (began in 1895), Mississippi Valley Historical Review (began in 1895), Mississippi Vallgy Historical Review (1915), and Journal of Negro Histogy (1916) reveals the surprising fact that from 1895 to 1920, there are fewer than half-dozen articles which have any bearing on the anti-slavery subject. Of these. one deals with the underground railroad, one with the Western Reserve in the antislavery movement,88 one with 88 This article appears in Mississippi Valley Historic- al Association. Proceedings. V (1911-12). . I .wonv“- ‘ .f.;a““‘c‘ ~ 'r‘ ‘*V ....v-g9‘V Q ~ .- ..ov"“. g‘ 0" \D (J n \ .' . u... - 7‘ ’ “ Aha. U, W‘s-v, ...nw::= OT. 1 I M.A....vu a. . AG“ "' H\ b- J'gv.V\ A 91:0;Av‘: are C D's-whim} . Ive-5.3” U. - I - I‘ll A. F r e in‘ v ,‘FY‘FfiF. Arr ‘ ‘.:'J“ S at»: a ‘V ‘ R I \ 5:9,? . "V‘ ac.v..¢“ .b‘ In. ' . ‘ .:= 'AI'P A ,0...» "V in“ g .. 2"” '. 1* l ""H .1. C, ‘. ..A "'3'- ate”. ‘ “"W’AQ‘n - ‘va u' “5" chon1. S r: .- a? the antislavery press in the border states before 1830, the remaining two with colonization. Without both material and secondary specific studies, it can hardly be expected that Rhodes, Hart, and Macy could have written more detailed histories on the abolition movement than they did. Despite simple and sketchy descriptions, their opinions are quite clear. Though they disagreed on the problem of leadership. they shared a basic dislike of Garrison's anarchic proposal of breaking up the Union and disregard for Constitutional means to abolish slavery. Rhodes showed his disapproval by criticizing the Garrisonians after 18u0, Hart and Macy by denying Garrison‘s importance in the abolition crusade. Contrary to their dislike of Garrison's radicalism, they praised those who tried to get rid of slaveryty established political means. For this reason. Rhodes hailed the Republican party. while Hart and Macy applauded the Liberty men. Free-Soilers, as well as Republicans. Because Garrison's agitation prepared the way for the triumph of the Republican party by arousing the northern conscience. Rhodes was willing to pay tribute to the Garrisonians before 18h0. In short, because they hated slavery. they would like to see it destroyed, but not at the price of breaking up the Union which they loved even more. It can never be overemphasized that the views of Rhodes. Hart, and Macy on the abolition movement were the natural product of nationalism they shared with their fellow-Americans of their age. Believing in the gradual w ,53av ¢ .- ' .4 .o a . UQV ...-00" m; C O - 2"?“ l.- ‘ “v." ‘ C . -- °': ? C a ,. unv ‘ V- o . -. J-n ran an- .‘ ~ 9 59‘ ... ~V“~ “ .0 Q R 0.; ‘F“ A: ‘ .‘_, .Cd-V-fl-‘~ "v 01!: ”ENC: ... vocV V ‘V" - fl -ID A!” .AY ' Ind ... ”vi“ .V‘ " Av u-An' F 01' Ve-e ‘3' v b “" fir~ 3 r V“ '01“. a 0-D.-- :-"AFfil-pp. I ”N ...-" "-UU’ ..:':HP r C T. ...“.Uo. ‘ 0 a .1: acwl~. +.. c vh‘-‘ U“ S ‘v IE“G?‘# ""“U U", ‘ v “"v's "‘~ "‘ 0‘? ¢ ‘ u ‘A '8‘," a». b a -. _2n., M ‘ I _ ‘ ”r ‘,__ U H..c" .' i'n uh uh. ‘ “I“;Qn ,h v“ ‘ 2 3‘ . :.'=‘ 1 ~ x, LL!!- #8 realization of freedom through national unity, they hated slavery. This feeling predestined their favorable reaction to the abolitionists. But their respect for the Union and for constitutional procedures precluded their embrace of the radicals without reservations. As a result. they took up the cause of the moderate or practical abolitionists. The need for sectional reconciliation, the idea of white supremacy. and the professional ideal of scientific history. in one way or another. also moved them to the same direc- tion. Their family backgrounds might affect their approaches, but the overriding influence was the climate of opinion of the period from the late nineteenth century to the early twentieth. Finally. there is the problem whether the view of Rhodes. Hart, and Macy influenced later historians. This question is hard to answer because there is no clear evi- dence to establish relations between them and other historians. But a check of the discussions of the abolition movement by randomly selected historians of the first quarter of this century seems to show that their attitudes were in at least one aspect similar to that of Rhodes, Hart and Macy. No one accepted the Garrisonian abolitionism without any reservations. Some criticized Garrison more harshly than others. For example, Carl Russell Fish denounced Garrison as "legally criminal" for his organizing a "system of stealing slaves," the underground railroad. . O ' f- ‘. A.:‘. A. 7“: I ....vgbb' . u ',.o o a ' r ’ ":t .:V“‘ 50;. '- 5.. l,: ‘ A ‘n r‘ ‘LSZE- .. 8R O.P‘ --"'°‘nal e.... I... “ ‘- . n b 1 r.- c t*e re '...2 ~ I .. - ‘ l..L--.-5:~ v '2'. 3’ .pa ‘.' not a. “my . . . . . l' 5"“ :AV“ Av- p '~-.~a-0.C..C O; ‘ " 51“?" F‘\ r ""'400 V‘s. I Inn.‘ ~ I ..‘w' i c v“ i ii ...: h‘. ... :"I‘ A... .“ "'-~ d: 5.6.75” I..‘l‘. I ~ ‘ I li"" firfih§ .Uhi‘; i 1‘ ' . .' Q U u: ”w: .' " "H.807 ' 0., fl J1? ch-J I ..yv“ S a mu r, I F. V‘Ie 2” «...J l..- \ c ‘- ~:' :‘I ‘4 . eh..:‘u ‘fl‘ : t a“: ‘JAA “’ ;~4 n / “4.). s. [.e ‘ ‘ ~‘U. (“A w: /J v. rm. ‘V I J, " t. '. "M (I, ‘1;- .:. . M, K J #9 By criticizing Garrison's radicalism. and by maintaining that Garrison was repudiated by many moderate abolitionists who “wished to pursue the more usual American method of political effort,“ he seemed more favorable to the moderate than to the radical abolitionists.89 Although Edward Channing found that the Liberator had "readers in every part of the Northern states and kept alive the movement whenever it seemed to be slackening," he called the Garrisonians "ultra anti-slavery people," and accused them of excoriating the Constitution and advocating disunionism. The people of the North who "loved the Union" did not "in the least agree with the aggressive abolitionists." He be- lieved the middle path taken by William Jay and William Ellery Channing sometimes "is the path of wisdom."90 Others such as James Truslow Adams were sympathetic to the abolitionists. Adams' discussion of the crusade in N23 England in the Republic, 1276-1850 was largely a defense of the Garrisonians against their detractors. He justified Garrison's agitation on the ground that he "shattered for- ever the smug complacency of Northerners who were wholly satisfied with 'things as they are'." Yet, he readily 89 Carl Russell Fish, The Rise of the Common Man (New York.81927)a Pp. 227-290. Quotations are taken from p.282. and 2 0. 9O Channing, A Histopy of the United States, V, 147- 161; VI. 180-187. Quotations are taken from V, 148. VI, 180, V. 152. 170. . A an .NJ ... Cw w”. » . u ,u m . 1b.. I S. E I T E C a p. ... 5 .. l: U. W e .. . T. v . C at. r“ 3 S a. l e C .. . . l .3 .1 no. +v “a 3 .5 .I. as r“ .. . us... .i‘ a: .u . s A —.. .fla A. . ... . . .fi. QC 2. a.-. v“ v . as e . u, w . A». 2 . .. . p . a: O .3. I Q - a; n»— ... o . 3. o u an r: - .. .7... n. .. . cu on ....- v. ... .uu ... ... .. T. :n .. u p... F. ...... .. . ..r... 50 admitted that the abolitionists were fanatics and that ”the chief and characteristic work of the Abolitionists was accomplished by 181w."91 Even two of Garrison's biographers who were in general favorable to him and upheld his import- ance were critical. though mildly. of his method of agita- tion.92 In spite of this difference in degree, all these writers showed an ambivalent attitude toward the abolition- ists. This mixed feeling of attraction and repulsion was little different from that of Rhodes. or Hart, or Macy. So. even if it is difficult to prove whether these writers were influenced by the three historians discussed above. it seems reasonable to conclude that the nationalist view of the abolition movement as represented by Rhodes, Hart. and Macy still lingered on during the nineteen-twenties. 91 James Truslow Adams, New Epgland in the Republici 1726-1850 (Boston, 1926), pp. EOl-EZZ. Quotations are taken from p. #03, and 408. 92 Lindsay Swift, William Lloyd Garrison (Philadelphia. 1911;: John J. Chapman, William Lloyd Garrison (Boston, 1913 . V . ._" . “:1 in It. U 5. vi. ... . ~ 0.:v. ” 1 .c. luv! .- ~ " u "I ‘V‘A C .ICVII "V." 6!. "t. ¢ I“: * ‘c .01‘ U “M. “W h c. ‘. :':::‘H ‘ '."*~~‘ S 1“ .15.. “5“?” u.» 3.1....1‘“. . .~\ .. . ‘5.“ A _ ‘t‘ 'ai‘vk. G: .v ' ‘ ... "‘~ I‘v- ol‘a “ .‘ ‘.II§ ~ ‘ . «g ‘ " .... ‘ ‘ I :V:.: la:“ — ““ I g. ‘ IA - . ' .. a“: . “ n ‘ "v CHAPTER II A NEGLIGIBLE MINORITY - THE VIEW OF THE PROGRESSIVE HISTORIANS — Whatever the differences Rhodes. Hart, and Macy showed in their interpretations of the abolition movement. they shared the basic view that the moral controversy over the peculiar institution was a major factor in the section- al conflict. Whether or not they attributed the final emancipation of slaves to the work of the abolitionists. they all believed that it was their incessant agitation which broke the silence on the problem of slavery, prepared the way for the appearance of the political antislavery movement, and revealed the incompatibility of liberty and slavery within one nation. In their opinion. the irre- pressible struggle between freedom and slavery had more or less something to do with the coming of the Civil War. The agitation against slavery had obviously meanings of its own in this kind of interpretation. But this interpretation was challenged in the 1920's by some leading progressive historians. They denied that the abolition movement had any influence in the shaping of 51 (9‘ 3? ...... -‘ ' o . o. 9 ‘ :I: .*IO-- U... "‘*° was Y“ no.5 ' on.“ Or: -3: d 1". ‘1‘- H- ..I 0 ~A. :Iufiy‘ v soot. non-Vac; pnu I o 'R.‘V‘~ “A no.5i‘5-a SJV ..W'-~ . . . ~o-a::-€’ C JG " v :’ n u A "crfinj - o..v.".'.:‘ ' n. N" g" .5“..-'. '7‘, ‘\ o' I ’ c ‘ R. 1‘ \ ‘ ' in .erl‘r ‘l :‘s A ‘- v‘ R Pcascj - . CI ...a. , 52 events in the period preceding the Civil War. Trying to interpret American history in terms of some inanimate forces--geographical. socio-economic. or a combination of the two-~they insisted that the ante-bellum sectional con- flict was not between a static South and a static North over the morality or immorality of slavery. It was a con- flict among several developing sections growing out of con- flicting socio-economic interests. In this conflict. the struggle over the institution of slavery was at best only incidental to the more fundamental rivalry. Even when the slavery question did become important in the sectional strife in the 1850's, the dispute was not so much over slavery as a moral question as over slavery as a labor sys- tem. Since the Progressive historians greatly reduced the significance of the slavery controversy. it is natural that they would also play down the importance of the abolition movement. To them the abolition movement. except perhaps for stirring up some riplets in the public opinion. came and passed away without leaving any noticeable marks on the conflict among sections. Many historians have discussed the rise. and convic- tion and practice of the "New" or ”Progressive" historians. 1 Among the historians who have discussed the Progres- sive historians. I have benefitted from Richard Hofstadter. The Progpessive Historians: Turner, Beardnyarrington (New York. 1968). ppifih7-Eéh: John Higham, History: The Development of Historical Studies in the United States (Englewood Cliffs. N.J.. 19657: pp. 171-197: Lee Benson. Turner and Beard: American Historical Writing Reconsidered (New York. 19505; Robert Allen Skotheim. American Intellec- tugl_Histories and Historians (Princeton, N.J.. 19667: and Charles Crouse. "The Emergence of Progressive History." | I II | I I . .0 rs . a .« p... +. Y. C. . w. .. _ ._ .. ~.. w ..J by haw. paw .. . “ vi. I” »4 sl . g H . . a .P“ a. a: F 4 F . Nd ‘II‘ AA“ . . \ r. . AV 5— 1 F c v \ we .9. t C . . C r” a ... «u ”a. a C. n». ». .... a C o +w e T a .u. r. . . V 1 .. m r. t 0 o . O C ad 0’ a .1" t ‘hb . k ~ Q» «‘7‘ 8 .1. a .q . C a . _ . \u n. ‘5 S E 7 an o .v 2 .934 ' O Alv O P . 41 \‘e .R d Hsy 0 ha I‘! Hi $ b RV I... a. o . w” a o a" S 5 . S 9.. .... .... . a. . . S . . 7 . C ... \- a. A. fly a. .4... .4 F. n.“ r. u. n. . o Aw r. .1 p.. h. ah— i. ,. ... ... av .u 3. on 3. ea ii 8. v. n e . 2.. ~ #5 A. ..A ... ...n . .... . . . . .. . ... i .. . . .... .... a x A... .... 1 N. . .. : nou\..uc W m. ”van" Mnm Mum: T“ I!" u." “at“! .mOWo. mun ..WI. on". .30. e! IQ inhi- ‘Qhw 9-... I’IQ §N~U on. I. «A u. no...‘ "I“ 53 Suffice it here to say that the Progressive historians were products of their time. Rapid industrialization and urban- ization after the Civil War deepened social and economic dislocations which had been emerging since the Jacksonian period.2 The ghastly contrast between conspicious consump- tion and conspicuous poverty, the ruthless exploitation of workers. and the miserable plight of farmers finally brought about social protest and reform movements. Strikes became epidemics farmers sought salvation first in cooperative en- deavors and then in the Populist movement; some clergymen tried to make the church an agency of social betterment by preaching the doctrine of social gospel: urban reformers demanded changes in civil service and in party machine to clean up political corruption; and several journalists devoted themselves to exposing city corruption or the shabby methods by which industrialists built up their empires. This social unrest was accompanied by an intellectual re- orientation which Morton White called "the Revolt against Formalism."3 American thinkers rejected the formal structure of thought based on logical abstractions. and turned to concrete experiences. men's prejudice and bias. for the basis of thought in jurisprudence, economics, politics, society. philosophy, and history. Pragmatism and realism iournal of the History of Ideas. XXVII (Jan.-March, 1966), 09-12 a 2 Douglas T. Miller. Jacksonian Aristocracy: Class and Democrapy in New_§orky_1830-l860 (New York, 1967Y. Morton White. Social Thought in America: The Revolt usc c. 0“ «- . . ”... v the -- q 5 o’l ‘C- E 0,. ‘No UIP. ..ll 0 ' auv“" “a. r“ Y... m: . a G. O .W tb w. § v. 9 ¢ o I .‘I‘ a AF* Ah- ' O E w. 3 . . . r. r T. C a .J . L ,U ..l O r. w. .. . .. o. v. +~ t o a. v. e ...v E ... I t C ... . fl 0. e a. a. . 0 J w ‘5 ...“ O O . a D ...—b : ‘ .s‘ 53 ‘1‘ .‘vv ‘7‘. ‘v \. ... a r. C S ..u Aw ...... r. ... t a. .: .... r. S .1 ‘1 mu. 5 O 3. R“ h... n... .4 ...! ... ”a J a c 3: .. . ... : .. ~§ . . «I. . e. . a A. e 9 . . A 2. w. ‘3 a . . a: .3 .... :- .5. .... . .. .. a I. v‘ . s t . n . ..J p .p‘ .3 . C» .r» In no .. . ... v . v . A.: P . - s .u- .x a .13 .9 s n _ A - ... ... o . s o a o I . a s . u. 2.. .a. O a ... o u 9 | ...- . v A h x c. .t . . u :. Q.- 5U became the cardinal faith of the new intellectuals. All this protest. reform, and reorientation finally combined in the early twentieth century to form a general reform move- ment - the Progressive Movement. The Progressives developed a special kind of social theory. Deeply affected by the post-Darwinian thinking, they saw in history an evolutionary growth. However, un- like orthodox Darwinians, they did not believe the continu- ing growth was a smooth self-unfolding or self-evolving process. It was dotted by changes wrought by human will and reforming efforts. This is because the Progressives assumed that human nature was basically good. and that through changing men's environments by rational choice to allow a greater realization of their good potential would better men and a better society result. Thus, an optimis- tic view of human nature turned the involuntary Darwinian evolutionary process into a continuing growth or betterment of society by man-made changes and reforms. Voluntary changes to better society were not only desirable but also possible. This widespread reforming zeal and intellectual ferment prepared the way for the appearance of a new theory of historical investigation and writing. In fact, the Pro- gressive historiography was part and parcel of the Progres- sive movement. Born later than most of the nationalist Against Formalism (Boston. 19b7). ‘ .qv .' b e n“. we!" p. .- v rd the I“ ..si .- 2 a .. .:rr:v ~§ 04.. .u. .. ‘ a: “a .s. 55 historians in a region which felt the agricultural depression 4 leading Progressive historians such as James most acutely, Harvey Robinson, Frederick Jackson Turner. Charles A. Beard, Vernon L. Parrington, and Carl Becker, inclined strongly toward the reforms and intellectual reorientation of their growing-up years. It is true that of the three historians whose interpretations of the abolition movement will be discussed. Turner remained aloof to the reform movement. but his sympathy for it was very clear. Beard and Parrington were not merely sympathetic to it but took active part in it. After a visit to Chicago in 1896, Beard became an advocate of unionism and income-tax. When he was in London, he helped establish a college for workers and parti- cipated in organizing a labor party. Parrington, on the other hand. served as a delegate to the Kansas Populist con- vention of 1897. and wrote essays advocating reforms for a paper of Emporia College where he taught.5 But the more significant contribution of the Pro- gressive historians to the Progressive Movement was the fact that they developed a theory of historical study and u, Turner was born in Wisconsin in 1861: Robinson in Illinois in 1863: Parrington in Illinois in 1871; Becker in Iowa in 1873; and Beard in Indiana in 187h. Hofstadter. The Progressive Historians. pp. 106- 107. 170-171: 174-1793 and 370. II I I I l I I I l I ~|I . . .. |u .. [11. O a 4 .v . O _ . v D r . W . . - ~ . ck ..v P» r. r” V. 0v “1' w neg phv 0c 6 '— n are V. . - . . . 9 e c n . : . e 44 0 I h. c. C ... c... C a S a. . . . . :: V V r“ . . o. X P. u. w. c. C. t C r E C .... .. . .. . o. H. .3 T. a». w. r. ..u 9. a: r. u r. h». “u. av 2. Au r“ a: a. ha 3: nu .(u i L A... I .6 my a» 0 .p .. a: C. o - ... a n5 0 . al. A: A v A y "I S .lu $ t e \ s as» u .6 .v .D. ah. D c :i v“ - O 0 -\~ Vt In C» e v‘ o h: F an N § §- I)“ Ahv FM» F. . :- Auv v. .u. 0- :5 .. a Ru. 9- I.. ... .9. an. 5:. av is Qb hi I... u u :- ... .. o .a . on .d '.. -. c .1 on i c Q I ... 5. $.- 30" u| A. I. IO. D“ In no . I c-w Ir. u. aw ! Q .. . OI Q‘u n.‘ V.‘ Ni u . .rn ..... an .h .. ”... .... u.“ 2 .n .. ..- .. .u... ..z ..... . .... .. C. .u .. . e. ...» 56 writing which turned history into a kind of tool for social reform. In this respect. they were influenced by Progres- sive thought. True to the Progressive social theory. the Progressive historians discovered in American history a series of conflicts between two antagonistic groups of different interests or ideologies. Consequently they con- centrated their attention on drastic historical changes. and endeavored to explain how and why these changes came about. In the explanation of the how and why. pragmatism had its play. The contribution of pragmatism to the study of history was twofold. First. faith in pragmatism made the Progressive historians willing to use history as a tool for the understanding of the present situation. Before Robinson elaborated the idea of presentism. and later Beard and Becker expanded it into a theory of environmental relativism. Turner already argued in 1891 that "each age writes the history of past anew with reference to the con- ditions uppermost in its own time." and that ”the aim of history. then. is to know the elements of the present by understanding what came into the present from the past. For the present is simply the developing past. the past the undeveloped present."6 This opinion is so strikingly alike to those of Robinson that Ray Allen Billington lamented 6 Frederick Jackson Turner. "The Significance of History.” in Ray Allen Billington. ed.. Frontier and Section: Selected Essa s of Frederick Jackson Turner TEnglewood_Cliffs. N.J.. 19515. p. 17. For presentism of Robinson. Beard. and Becker. see Robinson. New History; Essays Illustrating the Modern Higtorical_gutlook (New York. 1912). Robinson and Beard. The Development of Modern Europe (2 vols.. 1907-1908). a . u r on). 9"" . + 1 fl . U "' no" ..‘U ”n.3,. Org)“ _ u:v..u. ""“. ‘ ‘ Q I ...... fl Fe C 0‘ vi.“ U “ on. 0" O + we. In: D b.- "l .i ”P \n ...: .... .54;- ‘05- P ‘9’, :Y‘ ...:- aha. .. U ‘ ';a :fi’Ach ,. " 0 0V. v-3 \_ v :90 3.. .. Aid t :“’r.: A ..K' We... LT. WM ....” '15 m .. 3... w...‘ 1 c n? _‘hd, V' . " A .33” ~ fl. Mk (I) 57 that had it been given a wider audience in 1891. Turner. rather than Robinson. might have been acclaimed as the father of the "New History."7 Given this presentism and their close identification with the Progressive movement. it would be a surprise if Turner. Beard. and Parrington did not try to turn the study of history into a means of help- ing the cause of reform. Besides pragmatism also turned them away from ideals or preconceived principles: to the real forces or agencies in explaining historical develop- ment. And they thought they found them in geographical or economic forces. or in the combination of the two. The way in which these forces worked for the growth of democracy was through political struggles among several contending groups of conflicting sectional or economic interests. In short. Progressivism produced a new historiography quite different from that of the nationalist historians. Whatever else the differences might be. that which concerns this discussion most directly is that the Progressive I. ”Preface"; Beard. "Written History as an Act of Faith.” American Historical Review. XXXIX (1934). 219-229; and Becker's three articles: ”Some Aspects of the Influence of Social Problems upon the Study and Writing of History.” Amerigan Journal of Sociology. XVIII (March. 1913). 641-675 Everyman His Own Historian . in Becker. Everyman His Own Historian: Essays on History and Politics (New York. 1935). pp. #233-255. and "What Are Historical Facts?” in Hans Meyerhoff. ed.. The Philosophypof History in Our Time (New York. 1939). pp. 120-137. 7 Billington, "Frederick Jackson Turner--Universal Historian”. in Billington. ed.. Frontier and Section. p. u. , I A - ~Hw AR V u—vn.‘ I‘ .. I. ’\~ 5“ .n ' ' .A. U 'V-NV J ..‘ll O tr:- ‘53: O. a. . A ‘ o ‘,A flan c .2 “‘5 .cc. ‘ 4x I!- . r n‘. a: 1 ‘8?!“ I, '4: .‘a.’c7“9 I... a‘ v ‘J o ‘. Q:a+. "z. 'Q 95‘. 8‘ l.:“' ' v-A“ :uu‘u‘ol.q‘ 4“ ’ h: haw-A. ‘ L.“ “' n,‘ r», ‘46 {‘02s .. no. N ‘r‘ \ ‘;:I~“; c“'E . ‘. ~52- Q v ”y Q" ‘wyg'. 58 historians substituted for the nationalist historians' conception of a North-South conflict a more complex and varied view of conflict. and sought to interpret historical changes in terms of some inanimate or impersonal forces in- stead of some lofty ideals or constitutional theories. This difference was bound to be reflected in their approach to the problem of slavery. While the shift from the dichotomous North-South conflict to a struggle among multiple groups helped to reduce the importance of the slavery question. the sectional and economic realism tended to downgrade its constitutional and moral aspects which the nationalist historians emphasized so much. In addition. the widespread conviction of racial inferiority of the Negro of their time might also have made them indifferent to the racial problem involved in the slavery controversy. As a result. in the works of the Progressive historians. the slavery question became incidental to the more funda- mental sectional or economic struggle; and slavery as a con- stitutional and moral question received only scant atten- tion. It may be said. therefore. that with the ascendency of the Progressive historians. the agitation against slavery entered into a period of neglect. The abolitionists became a negligible minority. All the three ProgreSSive historians under discussion. Turner. Beard. and Parrington, agreed that the abolition movement was not important as a factor in the sectional 1 ...“-- :0. ‘Llfi" . C .’ ‘ I ... _‘AP 00'- "UO. .5 — U ... ~- to“ Q.‘ I. .. r\vn. Jot J \'~‘ . C .‘v- ‘.¢. ...: u u 0“ I... 59 struggle. They also shared the view that Garrison was the undisputed leader of the crusade and New England its center. Within these areas of agreement, however. they differed from each other in detail and attitude toward the abolition- ists. Turner's was the scantest treatment of the three. With only a few casual remarks. his handling of the movement almost gave the impression that it never existed. Beard did give a somewhat more detailed and sustained description: but it is characterized sometimes by uncertainties. and followed by a definite denial of its importance. Parrington's treatment stood between Turner and Beardin detail. However. what differentiated him from Turner and Beard most clearly was his attitude toward the abolition movement and Garrison. His description of the movement and the man amounted almost to a sentimental applause. While his ideological closeness to Garrison's might have some influ- ence. this was mainly because he considered the abolition- ist's agitation as a form of the liberalization of the New England mind from the deadening grip of what he called the commercial mind and the Calvinist dogmatism which he hated veny much. In spite of this divergence in detail and atti- tude. the three historians agreed on the relative unimport- ance of the abolition agitation in the sectional conflict. It is well known that Turner devoted most of his life to the advocacy of the frontier theory and sectional- ism. And true to his own theory. Turner interpreted the .history of the first half of nineteenth century in terms of ::,..Vuno \- n..’n\lhp wl‘ T n ant-o div” .. 4 . F . a n q- \r‘f‘ VINC. 0.»...v’ 3-‘u‘wa n I-UfioV-ID’ d: :" “1“"!‘Afl: .'“ V'Vl-‘IU. J“... . v A :“ AVA. ”A "‘ iVoAL.:; ‘ s": h 1 1‘ ‘ionnv‘ : In .. I .u: t. ‘R ' d .\ 7 ~ &.U .V i‘ .'.'. . 4‘ u, h. ‘ ."‘¢..: ‘2': v “V. a... .1009 4 ."‘:'e‘ O.‘ V-.; .. ‘ 7'"; v . a c"'.‘ N .L b ‘1“, 9., ‘3‘“ - .‘ ~. . "v‘. .- . it“ h . v I . ~‘c.‘ arc A C b; . .I ‘ h. '9 ..w . O... Qi‘ ‘2 a Q I.“ ..P.‘ 5 v "‘—.' ’3‘ s U. . a .: “N- . _‘v V\- ‘h- ‘ 1 ‘-. . ‘ i v ’ I ‘I A!~ ‘§‘~.~ ..‘ .1 ’A u. l“: ~:R‘ ‘ . ' 1- JV . \ 1,- U N a v ‘chA ~ k“ .... _‘b .- fl '4...- § . ~'\ c ~. \: ‘\ ~‘ ‘n~ “.~ .. \- ‘, 9A ‘ n " § Hi 2“ ‘.‘~ ~ .. ,i-d '» 60 sectional struggle and compromise. In both Rise of the New West, 1819-1829 and The United Statesi 183921859. Turner's approach was first an analysis of the leading geographical conditions. economic interests. and ideals of the several sections. and then a description of the political battles and compromises among these sections in party conventions and Congress. An emphasis on sectionalism is bound to have bearings on Turner's view ofthe slavery question. And the net result is the reduction of the importance of slavery as a leading issue in the sectional struggle. Turner not only believed that the sectional conflict was older than the slavery question. but also saw other issues such as those over public lands. tariff. internal improvements. national bank and currency. and state sovereignty as "vital forces in the alignment of sections".8 The dispute over slavery was only one of the issues which divided the nation. What is more important is that there was no persistent and clear- cut alignment or division between sections at least before the 1850's. On one issue. the West might join the South to defeat the Northeast: on another. the Northeast might combine with the South to defeat the West. The constant shifting and instability in the sectional alignment suggested that the slavery dispute was not a controlling element in 8 Turner. The United Statesy 1830-l§50: The Nation £§QQ_;1S Sections—TGloucester. Mass.. 1935). p. 383. 0 , ... nah/1“,. In: ::" “‘Vl‘u 5:ch "as 10‘ "J ‘1 . u u awe-"q? ‘ " ‘J::U.VIA a.“ ' 1 I: no a v" .. 13x58, - ' l wvénna ' oa-vo vane» . l ”1““? ; 6‘. I... (no, 25..., "‘ "‘.JV‘ '0- z'J':'+ +r; tau—....b’ ... - c . : ‘ ‘ '2‘ M- #:I ..Oie I I. « - ‘2‘9 fie “I 'H" "Dn:. m C v r !~"""r‘° ... , : a II.‘ . ‘Or ‘90“. . 2 ~"g, ‘r— nuvob.‘ ~-;‘_ “...," :g:t:?" Apr ....“ A u 1::‘Va‘ R :‘s..:‘ DCH‘ A ‘:“A“‘ ~.,..u.;" Sr' u' a ,_ '1‘ a “:N‘ . it. + V‘ t2§v .'I‘ a“ I.‘ aha ‘ U '- ( / . 61 the sectional division. ”When American history comes to be rightly viewed." Turner declared. "it will be seen that slavery question is an incident." Even when the slavery question did submerge all other issues after the annexation of Texas. ”it rose to primary. but far from exclusive. importance."9 Turner also shifted the traditional focus on the North-South conflict over slavery by introducing a new element. the West. While his pitching the West against the East broke the traditional view of the North-South rivalry. he made the slavery question incidental to the westward ex- pansion. The Northeast and the Southeast engaged in a struggle for power. and "power was to be gained by drawing "10 And the battle to win the West upon the growing West. affected the slavery question. "Such a struggle as the slavery contest." he said. "can only be understood by bear- ing in mind that it was not merely a contest of North against South. but that its form and its causes were funda- mentally shaped by the dynamic factor of expanding sections. 11 of a West to be won." It seems that if there had not been an area of expansion in the West. slavery might have 9 Turner. "The significance of the Frontier in Ameri- can History." in Billington. ed.. Frontier and Sectiony p.52. 10 Turner. "The significance of the section." in ibid.. p- 118. ll Ibidop p0 1230 . .— ...A: «'v';‘ .1ovv. ‘ " . 1“. ‘T‘ F ':‘u 5“ UK ., l A A-vp‘ ’“D "V" ,‘.. qu ‘Vo - :a-Wrgr‘r A" nit-...A‘. VC— :9! Ora Rh. .N‘ Uni VU- I P' 3 Tr ’Vivov. .. 9-. o, ' 6::‘cv' v. I...‘~VV. 1‘ : rus‘. .In .h :AA‘pr: ..I ,' "v‘ .- ,. F O t 1" 2:99 .. .Illv‘~‘ L i ( ‘1‘."‘\ I " 5". “‘Qv‘»‘. “*4 ‘ --.\,‘. 62 gradually died away.12 Slavery itself was not a formative force. Even when finally the Northeast joined the North- west in opposition to the Southeast-Southwest combination over the problem of slavery. neither the South nor the North was united by the slavery dispute alone. In the southern case. it was the spread of cotton plantations. and the colonization of the Southwest by southeastern people. In that of the North. in addition to the spread of northeastern people to the Northwest. and the strong feel- ing of nationalism in that region. there was the fact that the economic interests of the Northwest were tied to the Northeast by canals and railroads. The slavery question was of course relevant to the final sectional realignment, but it was at best only one among several factors. Indeed. even though ”the struggle over slavery is a most important incident in our history.” still "the real lines of American development. the forces dominating our character. are to be studied in the history of westward expansion."13 With this subordination of the slavery question to the westward ex- pansion. it is no wonder that Turner criticized H.E. Von Holst and Rhodes for their neglect of this aspect of the slavery question.ln 12 Pressly made the same comment on the meaning of IMrner's statement. see Americans Interpret Their Civil War. p.208. 13 . Turner. "Problems in American History." in Blllington. ed.. Frontier and Section. p. 29. 1h . _ Turner. ”The Significance of the Frontier.“ in lJELQou P. 208. Him criticism of Rhodes may also be found in "U. ‘. Va. ;..2.'...? e .....‘vufi’ V I ~ _ ..anF‘V V‘l“ .- . 3 -vaQ-nh “.4 v ' 0 ‘ V ‘ :n-;h§ V! “'I". Lb ..‘v u. d! AA "-5: m3? . ‘ U . r " v“... \- "I ‘ a ““Ar . .... .G. '5‘ I I:“.r'~ -- "m1. 3 " A. I - PHI. 9Q . H .V vdr.'\- V‘. '9»; . F? ‘ ‘ N -‘H..JHE-‘ av 'i’ ‘ 21“ ‘ t i“ fi“, ‘ .3“ b n“ _ t“ F:§ u.." ‘ 0. .. a." ‘t r ' I .:'e ‘ .1 "h u ‘ “A ‘s ‘t-‘Fy e \._.:‘ I “: -. ‘e' ‘_A Q! VV 5.; 63 With the reduction of the slavery dispute to a mere incident. the abolition movement naturally lost much of its meaning and significance. Consequently in Turner's his- tories there is no extensive. coherent discussion of the crusade. He was apparently satisfied with dismissing this subject with some occasional casual remarks. In his early book. Rise of the New West. there is no listing of "aboli- tion“ of "anti-slavery" in the index. However. there is _the entry of "Colonization Society" and "Benjamin Lundy." The latter together with his antislavery paper appeared in Turner's discussion of the Colonization Society which occupies the space of less than one page.15 He also mentioned antislavery feelings in Indiana. Illinois. Maryland. Virginia. North Carolina. and Kentucky in connec- tion with the Missouri Compromise. These references are all that he made about the early anti-slavery movement in The Rise of the West. In the next book. The United States. he gave greater attention to the abolition movement. But his remarks remain casual and disorganized. In fact. they are so scattered and out of joint that it is almost his review of the third volume of Rhodes' History of the United States. in Political Science uarterl XI (March. 1 9 . 1 7-170. Pressly ment1oned 1n Americans Integpret Their Civil War. p. 196. and 36h. another article in which Turner criticized Rhodgs. This is "Recent Studies in American History." in Atlantic Monthly. LXXVII (June. 1896). 83Z-844. But this article appears without the name of its all hora 15 Turner. Rise of the New Westyy1819-1829 (Gloucester. Mass.. 1906). p. 152. . I 1‘. ‘- WH‘ a: (a. .1... can i. o-u-fiap‘ r.‘ -‘ n v. s. ltd-nu}... .‘v. .- .. , " “(RA 'A~~ p x 0-. 4‘:\.J:~‘ I a. F\ ' l rpm.-. F: . 'f‘on..h._ u . "Wm a' O ou,.,'~' A!" .‘ p r- b. iI... ”'9" “r ,' *a..'.lr.:""ar' . ‘. r . 9.1: CHM“: ‘ I" “V“ .a- I Q )2‘; u...“ q \ b 6b impossible to patch up the disconnected pieces into an in- tegrated picture. He touched upon the crusade in somewhat greater length only four times; and each time he mentioned it in his discussion of some broader topics which had no apparent relation to the abolition movement. For example. in discussing New England culture. he cited the abolition crusade as one of the many isms or third party movements springing up from the fertile soil of the New England con- science. and listed the Liberator as one among many examples of the New England press. The political antislavery move- ment was included along with the Anti-masonry. the Workingman's party. and Locofocoism in the discussion of the social and spiritual life of the Middle Atlantic States. The fourth and last mention of the movement was mixed up with the Van Buren Administration. Broken into isolated pieces. it is hard to get a clear idea about the abolition movement as a whole from reading Turner's book. His treatment of the abolitionists was equally scattered and disconnected. There are about a dozen names of abolitionists. But except Garrison. Wendell Phillips. E.P. Lovejoy of whom Turner only said that his murder further inflamed northern sentiment. and perhaps Charles Sumner. who. along with Phillips. was ostracized by the high class of Boston from which they came for their radical- . 16 . . . ism. he gave no clear 1nd1cation whether such men as 16 Turner. The United States. pp. 75-76. 8b-85, 130-131. r‘i ...‘t " thQy-vfl r . «.1A00';~‘| -‘~ I A 1'! 3’33“ r" ...... an; We Um: I. In; L). (h rn :"12’. 0C. ID'M‘A" - y .. A n‘ ’ ‘h N ’ 5‘ a - Vol.4... ~ ' o 35:} 19* fit 'Io-a ‘1. a"... Q , 'MI 0p.:,. W m m: .1 . '::.CVY‘ In. 'ibvou “V. ‘F'Aa ‘ "I“. a'fl .- a "V a.“ L IA ' ‘ ‘Au" flu y""ob... i": Wt 45 new ‘V ‘r-L- S 65 Birney. William Ellery Channing, Salmon P. Chase. Joshua R. Giddings. Horace Greeley. James Russell Lowell. Theodore Parker. and Samuel J. May had any direct connection with the crusade against slavery at all because their names appear. too. in connection with matters other than the crusade. Birney was mentioned for his presidential candid- acies in national elections: Channing. Lowell. and Parker for their literary achievements; Giddings and Chase as western political leaders; Greeley for his success in the press and his involvement in reform movements: May for his pacifism. He never made clear what their relationships were to the abolition movement. However. from the isolated and casual remarks he gave. it is nevertheless possible to draw some conclusions concerning the abolition story. First. the crusade against slavery was a part of the general reform movement which was the product of the New England conscience. "The slavery issue appealed strongly to all New England.” he explained. ”for. as a whole. the section. . . had no important Southern population in its midst. and was easily swayed by idealistic consideration under the Puritan doctrine of community responsibility for sin." Although his next assertion that ”moreover. New England found in the slave- holding South a persistent opponent of the protective tariff."17 may suggest economic interests being also involved. 17 Ibid.. p. 75. if ’ . ,‘: Q’AD'C' ' “v.1-..vt' ' no szie. m ‘ a I‘VI‘F.‘ A!“ b V ‘ Iiuvvhi. a Q ‘P'8H "as C ... i u $,.o'.: '8’ "1.“... not .v.v.. . . j 0" :y,‘ “Y.” I".ho‘|‘u y. ”w i ‘ . :A‘5'8‘: “r- ".u... a‘.‘ :’ "g I': V i... I; F‘- . and g ..a“‘ :‘H ti ‘\ ‘5. . VA ' n in! 1‘:ab " .l'u 41-4 reef" - ‘Qv" I I, I ‘1‘.‘“‘ “' -“.:‘QV .. I 66 his comments elsewhere put great emphasis on the idealistic side. And this idealism was a product of Calvinistic conception of individualism and social responsibility which was still at work in New England. The Calvinistic doctrine. coupled with the New England conscience. explained ”her reforming instinct”. So. it is no wonder that New England proved to be "a center from which reforms and ideals spread." as her sons. carrying the New England con- science and the idea of community responsibility. fanned out to the Middle Atlantic States. to the North Central States. and finally to the Far West.18 It was in New England and the areas settled by New Englanders that the home of the many reform movements before the Civil War was to be found. Naturally. the anti-slavery agitation was the strongest in New England. and those parts of the Middle Atlantic States and the North Central States where immigrants from New England had dominated.19 The second thing is that the abolition movement had two wings. and that Garrison was the leader of a small band of extremists. ”The antislavery men divided.” he said. "in their policies. into the radical wing favored by William Lloyd Garrison. and those who recognized the Constitutional Ibid.. p. 41. b2. and M3. Ibid.. p. 118. and 130. v c ' \ ”n“. o-. 'zih. UV. . ‘ . ‘ r. . \A JE::.LU y I . ‘ ‘ R tun-w‘ :3». a. 6.x. 'V 9...__r'~ .. n‘eu:‘ : H . I ,n' ‘ fl ‘ 1 til. .6 4‘: . a (N.Hc “Fl 6“. ‘ fi“‘ :1. u n I“ ‘ OE “‘5 r6: I , ‘ ' \v“.V :I’h ‘ ‘ 8 ‘dV~‘~ . 3:: :1‘*.‘» 2. ' I ... “ y t'c"ou 21- l u' ‘ A. <1 67 right of slaveholding within the states where it already existed. but denied its right either to expand into the territories or to retain a position of security in the District of Columbia . . . . This latter wing was also recruited from those who supported the right of petition ."20 and opposed the 'gag laws' But the ”radical abolitionists. headed by William Lloyd Garrison" were a ”relatively small group."21 The "cutting declaration“ of Garrison in the first issue of the Liberator won but ”a small direct following.” Nevertheless. it probed the nerve center of the New England conscience. he admitted. and stirred up hatred of slavery. if it did not win ad- herents to the doctrine of immediate emancipation. Here Turner's dislike. though slight. of Garrison's radicalism. can be discerned for he said Garrison's declaration was "a voice from the early days of intolerant Puritanism. in the spirit of the martyrs..."22 The third thing that can be gathered from his remarks is his recognition of the Liberty party as being organized by abolitionists. Of the election of 18ho, he said that in the autumn of 1839. "a wing of the abolitionist group met in national convention at Albany and nominated James G. Birney. 20 Ibid.. p. 4650 21 Ibid.. p. 750 22 Ibido, p. 850 '1 ‘ 0. \fl av or: 'O'e.‘ - uni-1w 1;. 1.1.1... nit-AU , O Pv- rAu-urF- La. neg-Angled I A: .'G 99;:- 00 ...U ova. . . . ‘;"Q"¢ I‘rgo "Ht-Id Van-Au .Y’V‘.:~ ‘nn 'Iouv.._ g”; ‘ I .'A’I fl.“ .‘Vuoa “a . 1'If‘: .ooy :-~~¢ ti- ' . a ’ l .';"" Cnv: ,. H c. ‘5'..‘c. I s ‘P, ~"-. int" n' ' "-D c. I A I“ F A z» ~ ~ “ A) 68 of New York. for President. and Thomas Earle. of Pennsylvania. for Vice--President."23 Of the election of 1844. he said again that "a convention of abolitionists" met in Buffalo and nominated Birney for President. "Demanding the divorce of the federal government from slavery. these abolitionists denied that they were a sectional party."24 There is no problem that the Liberty party was organized by some aboli- tionists. The last thing that can be drawn from his discussion about the abolition movement is that at least the Garrisonian agitation had something to do with the aggres- siveness and consolidation of southern sentiment. As late as 1833. anti-slavery feeling was still strong in the border states. according to Turner. The legislatures of Virginia and North Carolina were debating the advisability of gradual emancipation. while Kentucky passed an act pro- hibiting slave trade within her borders. But the attack of the Garrisonian abolitionists killed all the antislavery feelings. and "hardened and unified the resistance of all the slaveholding states.” The South came to believe that ”the economic interests. the social institutions. and the political power of the section were dependent upon the 23 Ibid.. p. 480. 29 Ibid.. p. 524. -':":':a n: ...-nu» V- ..-.Ar‘ nr‘ 1.1..1u5 1”; 0'9.‘ U.V.A go “" Fro; . J G. 5‘. """ “a - - U u 1" :V‘fl y, aligaa." "v . If, “.'n..‘ A ‘ . ""1- 3.9:, 5‘ "uuo ‘ . v. to ”J ...!“ 1 . eu' AA - "a l . .v 1 1" .. ~ ,‘~ . ' .l ' :r" u ' ‘ ’ I: " $‘ ' 'a v:: :y‘ : ‘..~ A. he‘- . ‘A'l_ ‘fiu‘u I .~.-'“' . ‘.' I \- 1 a I.”- As ‘A U s "A ‘C ._: . . W‘: 1: ‘v S :’ . . A._\‘-‘ . V ‘~“ ‘4- A ' V M \II 69 25 defense of slavery." Henceforward. the South became more adamant and unified in demanding federal protection of slavery. Except these things. Turner told no more about the abolition movement. He did not indicate whether there were other abolitionists beside those affiliated with New England. nor did he dwell upon the principles. organizations. activities. and internal disputes of the abolition movement or why the crusade against slavery suddenly became militant by 1830. Since his early book. Rise of;the New West. covers a period. 1819-1829. before the rise of the abolition movement. his dismiss of the subject is understandable. But in The United States. which deals with the period when the abolition movement was most active. his omissions. or, rather. casual treatment. can only be interpreted as a sign of his unwillingness to acknowledge the crusade of having much meaning in itself. and hence of being worthy of any detailed treatment by the historian. If Turner belittled the significance of the abolition movement implicitly by intentional neglect. Beard did so explicitly by unequivocal denial. In his economic explana- tion of the coming of “The Second American Revolution." there is simply no place for a moral assault on the slavery institution. 25 Ibid.. pp- 575-576. '7 'r,-\' 'V‘ i;.. fluvfil.‘ A ‘ .- afi'O. ”’1 ' “:" all“ n n :th‘O‘RV‘ “ ._._u!.vo~ v . a :qnf‘!‘ H ‘V. V'y‘u'..t.U .0- ‘ u I. lung” ‘ 1‘25 ‘ vil‘vg‘hnn .. Iv . Fl ‘0!“ n 9 I P“\ o‘e-.vs~ . V".nvl~ n, . " ‘33 a 1 1 ‘ _S‘; ._-. u..' D'V‘ Q r 4; A) \', 7O Beard's economic interpretation of history has been well known. He found economic interests working in the draft and ratification of the Constitution. and in the formation of Jeffersonian democracy.26 He also applied the economic interpretation to the Civil War history. A social cataclysm in which "the capitalists. the laborers. and farmers of the North and West drove from power in the national government the planting aristocracy of the South."27 the Civil War was brought about by "a sweep of economic forces." All the other factors in the sectional conflict were subordinated to the socio-economic difference among the North. the South. and the West. Even cultural matters were thought by Beard to be largely influenced by different 28 He insisted that the Civil War economic developments. was an economic clash. operating through classes. and that it was a sectional dispute "merely by the accident of cli- mate. soil. and geography."29 In such a strict economic interpretation. slavery. except as a socio-economic system. lost much of its meaning. Practical men of North and South argued over the merits or 26 Charles A. Beard. An Economic Interpggtation of the Constitution of the United States (New York. 1913): ($36 Economic Ori ins of Jeffersonian Democracy (New York. 15). 27' Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard. The Rise of Iknerican Civilization (New York. 1927). II. 51. m 28 Ibid.. I. 725-726. 29 Ibid.. II. 53. ‘ 'w -‘ ...-ya A . k 3...... o “J C- “..., w "v :IJu..e..5 Ch- Ivqul If: «It... i; “"g? . fl l'c-Igtble" Q ‘0 I l" ‘A.V.IA* u :v.."." "A ‘~p. . "vi-”.1 '.| .. l‘::‘l 'An'». .- ._ "no 01y! -. i D t ‘. b C'A‘. 11. J\ 7l demerits of slavery as a labor system and a basis of southern aristocracy. rather than as a moral abstraction.30 As a moral issue. it never bothered contemporaries very much. ”If the number of abolitionists is any evidence." he contended. slavery was but "a minor element. in the sweep of political and economic forces that occupied the atten- tion of statesmen throughout the middle period and finally brought on the irrepressible conflict."31 Garrison's creed never rose to "the dignity of a first rate political issue in the North.“ according to Beard. Nobody but moral crusaders. who were held in contempt by the great states- men of the time. dared to advocate it. No major parties even gave it "the most casual indorsement." When the abolitionists launched the Liberty party. the people showed their apathy to its emancipation platform by giving it only sixty-five thousand votes out of more than two and a half million ballots. No other parties at that time went beyond the limit of the exclusion of slavery from the territories. and even this moderated demand won no more than a handful of voters. Moreover. not a single ”responsible statesman" of the middle period "committed himself to the doctrine of immediate and unconditional abolition." because they could see nothing tangible in this extreme demand. Since the 30 For Beard's treatment of the slavery question as a11 economic issue. see ibid.. I. 693-694: and II. 36-37. 31 Ibid.. I. 710. a ...':‘: 0"} \. :vv..~b .0... . “A " “In.“ A I‘_ ...... \Avvu: ‘ ‘ ...-ma 4‘ '.' - .‘oulo 6““! . .u _ wig-newer: ‘ ac-vvlgttp- v ‘ . ... ":1‘ a A'- "~e'"' VI ‘31 ”'6 "" A. i '0 I .3 :5 WW 0“1. ';I-n$ q A g "V‘ vet's ‘5: m. t... . i A w.. w . D _ I ""V- U., .DI. 1' I a, " .u ‘_ IA I_ ;."‘.1‘.-o..‘ ‘§' ‘vc .. l c c d f ( :1 D 7) 72 abolitionist demand was never endorsed by any major party. never accepted by a large segment of the electorate. Beard naturally drew the conclusion that. "the institution of slavery was not the fundamental issue during the epoch preceding the bombardment of Fort Sumter."32 Although Beard did not give much weight to the moral dispute over slavery as a factor in the coming of the Civil War. he could not dismiss the abolition movement as casual- ly as Turner did. Consequently. he gave a fuller. more co- herent description of the crusade. But it is characterized by uncertainties and omissions. He began by pointing out that in the early days. hostility to slavery was firmer and more vital in the North than in the South because in the North the value of slaves was slight. But the early anti- slavery activities in the North declined after slavery was abolished in the northern states. It was not until the middle period when the economic struggle between the sections grew tense that "the agitation against slavery became relentless and virulent."33 Garrison's publication of the Liberator in 1831 marked the beginning of the militant phase of the abolition movement. Demanding immediate and unconditional emancipa- tion. he used language "as imperious as the declamation of 32 #0 All the quotations are taken from ibid.. II. 39- 33 Ibid.. I. 696. . . k g AV“ n: arts. u- ..vguot n ...-.01.":s v --.9‘:V‘~ fir ' Mt . v:-r. rg h‘ u \ "ruin. 1" "a' r: "r I'vl uv Au‘u I a gym! a r . oo.'v. .0; 'l . In I.‘A~ A‘- 9-..I.'\ . v .. . -Ip-. .4. ~’ -:. ‘n‘vi _- "Unn': II ‘_ .-".‘. '-- .‘e: - u. D- I . I ""a‘ a I. 'r ...9 3“ +, 73 the ancient prophets" to denounce slavery as "a crime---a damning crime." and slaveholders as criminals. Day and night he cried that slavery must be immediately abolished; yet he had no definite scheme of realizing his aim. A be- liever in non-resistance. he opposed resorting to either politics or revolution. Impractical as it might sound. soon he gathered around him a band of adherents---among whom Beard named Phillips. Whittier. Lowell. Emerson. and Harriet Beecher Stowe---as severe and uncompromising as he himself. To arouse public sentiment. the small band of abolitionists used every known instrument--organizing national and local antislavery societies. sending anti- slavery petitions to Congress. writing and distributing antislavery traCts and papers. applying pressure on state legislatures to pass antislavery laws. conducting under- ground railroads. and resorting sometimes to mob violence. Some of the agitators tried to keep the crusade on a high level of ethics and argument. while others "descended to the depths of abuse and scurrility." Whatever differences in their method there might be. all of them met tremendous resistance both in the North and in the South. The Southern- ers stamped out the agitators and their literature by law arm.mob violence. In the North. though there were no anti- zabolition laws. mob actions were frequently employed to :silence the crusaders. Such resorts to violence were n!!! F .Y'j ...-M u '5 ...:vvcc 0‘ ..I.‘-~ I ao:0a0. AF I I:. n‘I..’I-, \ ! ‘IA' F-N C4 V-v~.~...~ . ‘N- .r-. n .5 . A ""~V luu. It: . . nu- n .‘ ‘7'. 1.... "-ni... V 3"?” :a o . a . . '.’ ‘h v IL-A' I l o ‘:"A~p 'c. \~~" 5.5u-‘ I.“ ~ A v '- ‘ — 'mn. ‘fiul'. ‘ u ‘ ‘ b‘~o ”Y‘n .‘C‘: .‘." ‘, 7 ‘v o. "I: Q B U ’u .1 o'.‘ V. ' Q ““U '§ ‘1. 2 A0 '5 V R ‘ G K). JV A 74 generally welcomed by respectable people in the North.34 So far Beard's narration is clear and certain. But when he tried to answer questions such as what were the motives of the abolitionists. what were the effects of the agitation. and how did they divide among themselves on problems of ends and means. Beard began to show uncertainty and confusion. As mentioned above. Beard pointed out that it was when the economic conflict between the sections grew tense that the agitation became relentless and virulent. This might suggest that the extremity of the abolition move- ment had something to do with economic considerations. How- ever. later Beard admitted that "the sources of this remarkable movement are difficult to discover."35 He then dismissed Christian principles. the Declaration of Independ- ence. and sacrificial benevolence as controlling forces in the abolition motivation because both the foes and friends of slavery appealed to the same sources in attacking and justifying it. But at the end of his analysis he came up with the somewhat surprising conclusion that "it remained a fact that devotion to the creed sprang largely from senti- nwnts of a moral nature."36 The same uncertainty characterizes his opinion on the effects of the abolition movement. It is first revealed by his confession of inability to ascertain "how 34 Ibid., I, 695-698. and 707-708. 35 36 Ibid.. I. 698-699. Ibid.. I. 699. . v ' Of! 1:“ C ‘I'. "‘.V ‘ :“H‘: '1: .I...‘ Q ‘I III. ..p ‘ y :nz..c...C.. Q -’ 2*“. ‘ to m.u.SJ.E~ .'A'IR~'A~ luv landed: “ho-.4. ‘ - G ...-.g. g. A at”. .. UH t ."‘“ tail ‘v hi‘ '9. ‘ ‘I' a, V'C ca ., V . .:"‘-In¢ Its-1.44 “e . . O. ‘fi'floHc‘ V 'V‘.'U‘ I... ‘ . \nlu :rat 1 ‘A’.l -:. .10: ‘fl; ' w: it n) t I \ c U) ‘ r1 . ‘.y‘ i‘n' . . v“ ..AA A ‘7 J! d 75 deep this agitation went and how many people were really stirred up by it."37 Nevertheless. he attempted an evaluation anyway. By comparing the number of the members of antislavery societies which was put at about two hundred thousands with the sixty-five thousand votes cast for Birney in the election of lean, Beard declared that ”immediate and unconditional emancipation as a rallying cry for a political party was from the beginning to the end a total failure."38 Following the miserable failure in 1844, the advocates of the doctrine never again put up another candidate to run for office. After this denial. Beard tried to concede some influence to the abolitionists by pointing out that in places where the strength of the two major parties was fairly equal. the balance of power lay in the hands of a few agitators. By a little pressure and some threats. the abolitionists were often able to force many Whit candidates into the open. and many northern Democrats to soften their pro-slavery stand. Consequently. ”haunted by the fear of such schisms” as that which had happened in 18u4. "politicians bent on the possession of office and power had to be careful lest a tiny minority of agitators throw their entire national machine out of gear." "In a word.” Beard emphasised his point again. "the fortune of I. I ’ q .IA 0A ‘ S . ....UQV V . . ' _ fl 9-!!!“ “ loll -..... V l .' .pn‘ Ann :- 5 ...¢ in U I l D ‘h ;QOIQ'Q.QH‘ out... a.-- .. a : no. Q‘IAF :quOUon-- :nr a» -..-. .. , . \ a ‘ A 2‘ Q A 0-0., .. a. . I . 'f‘“‘fl r. .' V‘QU I "“":"’ 'lbvo..._ " ‘n I_.. '- .: U‘. '6‘.:v. ’:'A"A :. an," 5. 6‘ . v. ,9” -.. "‘ 4., ‘ 9 II :" r I" . .. q A '4 4‘: ‘r- 5' ' h C.‘ ... .. V . .... ‘25:,“ -‘v ‘I i I I ‘Ai'a 1“.“ U' D c’. ‘ I 0'. . ‘1 ““fla: ‘«.“'\ V in . J7 V ¢ \ 76 politics often hung upon the maneuvers of a 'contemptible' minority."39 But again Beard shifted his ground when he said that "the more confident statesmen referred to their 40 for this certainly activities as 'a rub-a-dub' agitation." suggests that the politicians did not care about the abolitionists at all. Beard's discussion of the various groups of abolition- ists is also characterized by uncertainty and confusion. It would be a mistake. he warned. if it is assumed that "opponents were solidly united in their creed and in their strategy.‘ul because they divided into many factions. Be- tween a right wing which regretted the existence of slavery but believed nothing could be done to mitigate its evils or remove it. and a left wing of Garrisonians who were prepared to tear up the Constitution and break up the Union in order to get rid of it. there were all shades of opinion. A large number of people were merely opposed to the extension of slavery into the territories. while a small group proposed to use the revenues from the sales of public lands to buy the freedom of slaves. But a majority of those who dis- liked slavery in their hearts were puzzled by the complexity and difficulties involved in every solution proposed. They —. i 1 I ‘ V T l I ‘ a I U'_ .1" 9’5‘0; ‘. r. in; s‘om 0’. AnfCArII F0“! ‘UV'ALvtb‘ . 1 I I i 0‘ p- r“ A ""'t' ‘ u , . a-v. ...,” I . ~_ 'Iflvfi‘dau . ‘ u . AI ' "le-crnu "V .dynay. . » "‘:.\:: a” I""“vd .. 'H in ”A“ "“ H» «:7 I 1:..:.f‘)‘~- .."'V§e . .‘:': ; “N‘an. L.. uh" I g L“: ‘a: F 77 were largely practical men and politicians like Lincoln. They evolved "little plots and plans" to prevent the gather- ing storm; but they proved to be powerless.u2 So far the meaning is quite clear. Beard was talking about all those who disliked slavery. including all the radicals. moderates. and conservatives. But following the assertion that practical men were powerless to prevent the storm. Beard concluded his discussion with a statement which throws his readers into complete confusion. "In the economy of Providence." he said. "abolition agitators were to be mustified by history. not by the work of their own hands or by any of the political instruments they had forged.”+3 Did he use ”the opponents of slavery" and ”abolition agitators” synonymously? His inclusion of Mrs. Stowe and Emerson in the Garrisonian group seems to suggest so. If this was his true intention, then not only did Beard use the term ”abolition agitator" too loosely but also he con- tradicted his own assertion about the small number and little influence of the abolitionists. If it was not Beard's intention to equate "the opponents of slavery" and "abolition agitators”. then what did he really mean by the above quoted sentence? Certainly he could not mean the Garrisonians alone by "abolition agitators“ because they :never forged any political instruments. Nor could he apply ”:9 .3" MAD ". L. a ¢. u‘Orar . .....oal p ...‘OAOAVIA I 1:. vst. J z“. V‘s-fir 3" .‘l Us nun. II ‘ .A: 01“: “Li abu“ “‘T‘ Ann .. I v ...\\ it"".~ .A . '“Opo a 4' F RV‘ .‘Aiug‘yv‘w. . I; :2? V —. ‘i"“‘ 54 .. ‘v- lh‘ ~U- ‘ o . ‘0 ‘0“. ““. "‘~ 9‘... Av "r44. '- w an I.‘.‘ ‘I -."L'P 9”. tutu" “3‘ _. v ~‘ “us “Z a I 1".'3 ‘ ‘I ~‘ ‘ '1 " o ."o. 3 t . A. I ":IF. 21-?" F ‘ l .“d.. a . 78 this term only to the Liberty men and the anti-extensionists either. for he also called the Garrisonians "abolition agitators". Of course. he might mean by "abolition agi- tators” all the Garrisonians and political abolitionists. But nowhere in his discussion did he make this clear. In the final analysis. all the confusion is caused by his too careless use of the terms "abolition" and "abolition agitators.” This carelessness in turn suggests his lack of a clear idea about the whole abolition movement. Beside these uncertainties and confusions. Beard. like Turner. left out about the abolition movement much more than he included in his discussion. Except Elihu Embree. Lundy. Garrison. Phillips. Whittier. Lowell. Emerson. Mrs. Stowe. Lovejoy. and Samuel May. he mentioned no other abolitionists and antislavery men. Not even Birney was mentioned. He said nothing about the structure and activities of the organized antislavery movement. the disputes over ends and means among the abolitionists. the split of the movement. or what happened to the non- Garrisonian abolitionists. All in all. it may be said that so far as the abolition movement is concerned. Beard's treatment is far from satisfactory. even for such a general survey history as his. It is true that his discussion is more systematic and coherent than Turner's. But it is also characterized by uncertainties and omissions. As in the case of Turner, perhaps such defects are inevitable from a historian who .r ..FQ " ... I... “‘ u ‘ unit-V“ 1n " u' Iv 'vli" o :opror.~.r- r 4 - ‘4 ...oo-'— ' ' . . .gVPH'AV‘ ¢‘¢A..u.., . udnu' .7 *"‘ :‘Av- ‘ A 'I O... o... - I,.,~. P I l u. O In fin. ‘ a“? .>.-" .1. "a. ‘ "Y‘Ev VII-“ - I: .a ..: ' .u ‘nl K s. ... O :5. ':~~‘I ‘._\ .. ‘ fill a.' : a... . I: t". l v - ‘~ _ A v ‘ “—: "y" | "~§A c t K A‘. 'dr. hl‘ ‘45 n c“: -" 79 did not consider moral issues as having much significance in the historical development of the United States. Like Turner and Beard. Vernon Parrington also gave scant attention to the abolition movement as a whole in the second volume of his Main Currents in American Thought.uu Parrington. like Beard. adopted a very narrow view of the crusade. centering his description around the person Garrison. and thus leaving out a lot of the movement as a whole. But unlike Turner and Beard who were unfavorable to the abolitionists. Parrington was quite sympathetic to them. On the surface. the title of his history may suggest that Parrington dealt with all the leading ideas in American history. Actually. this is not the case. What he was really interested in is the political ideas of thinkers. statesmen. and writers whom he considered to be represent- ative. And he approached them in economic terms. In this respect. he was not too different from Beard. Although he sometimes thought there were other formative forces in historical development. Parrington generally subordinated these other forces to that of economics. "The economic interpretation of things is in the air." he proclaimed in a paper prepared in 1917. ”... it is fast becoming for us both the law and prophet.” He continued. ”Literature is an The Romantic Revolution ig_America._l800-l§§9 (New York. 19273. - 0p. - A I - ~I '! A , v .. tI-gov - chrg..c :vvllv--A Vawn~p “F ':r-:m~'L ‘ ‘i! c.‘ !. ':~‘F ._ ‘ ‘ cV .“v" I C ‘ {'3 n . o.~ “-U ‘ Q P l ' " N‘J‘tr I‘. IV‘ “I . ‘ 'l: “:2” Iv ‘.~“ .:':‘~‘:_ 'Q-Qua‘.:~ 80 the fair flower of culture. but underneath culture are the deeper strata of philosophy. theology. law, statecraft--of ideology and institutionalism--resting finally upon the subsoil of economics."45 However. his conversion to an economic interpretation dated from an earlier time. When he left University of Oklahoma in Norman in 1908. he remembered that "the economic interpretation of history had not yet risen for me. but it lay just below the horizon and was soon to become the chief luminary in my intellectual sky. My new interest in American literature opened a fresh field for me and in that field I applied the economic interpretation more and more rigidly.”6 His application of the economic interpretation to American literature is quite clear in the second volume of his history. He not only interpreted the rise of romantic- ism and its later development in the South. the West. and the North in economic terms but also saw the Civil War as the result of the rivalry among three "imperialisms." The capitalistic imperialism of the industrial Northeast. the 1+5 The quotation is taken from Hofstadter. The Pro- gressive Historians. p. 389. It is originally in "Economics and Criticisms." written by Parrington in 1917. but not pub- lished until 1935 when it appeared in Pacific Northwest Quarterly. an (1935). 91-105. It was edited and published by his son. Vernon Parrington. Jr. #6 The quotation is taken from Hofstadter. The Pro- gressive Historians. p. 37#. It is originally in an un- titled biographical memoir written by Parrington in 1918 for his children. now in possession of Vernon Parrington. Jr. O"D ‘.:., .-.e-a-; ‘ o .3355 IT. 2' h" S: 3d .3. ‘~ : ‘I'R\. ‘8 c'UJb .' ~AI.-._ 'ue _‘U'I: ‘ I ;-fi‘ ‘ .3 Ar .14.. .‘J.. C ‘R NA... air. 3:." I ‘ .' J' PM 2 ‘A“. ‘11. . ”‘iiter ‘1‘ ; . m ‘X‘X: 81 Cotton-slavery imperialism of the agricultural South. and the "Inland Empire” in the West. with different economic interests and political demands. clashed with each other. and drove "blindly to a collision." in which "the dream of the South was destroyed."47 This interpretation of ante-bellum history as a three-way battle between economic imperialisms does not differ very much from Beard's thesis of a sweep of economic forces in bringing about the Second American Revolution. So far as the abolition movement is concerned, the result is about the same. Parrington also paid scant attention to the movement as a sectional issue. In his whole discussion of the crusade and its leaders only three instances can be found in which he suggested any relations between the abolitionist attack on and the southern defense of slavery as a sectional dispute. In a sentence of a dozen words. he said that the arrogance of slaveholders stirred up the strongest resentment in New England.)+8 In another of even less words. he pointed out that the agitation against slavery angered the South.“9 In a third of seventeen words. he suggested that the struggle in Kansas was in part due to the abolitionists' agitation.50 Since he saw little or no 47 Parrington. The Romantic_Revolution in America, p. xiii. For his discussion of the rise of romanticism and its later development. and the three imperialisms. see pp. ix-xiii. 1+8 1.9 Ibid.. p. 31420 Ibid.. pp. Bug-3&3. 50 Ibid.. p. 39a. P \1 .~&.. rr0.r .A‘VlM -I\ w:0rr otnoy . ‘ 00 1 ' F 5.93. 6;. .‘ "' firrn- ll' 'v.. I. Q ,‘ :.’V“A “"IJ '1A“" ‘v‘v.|" Hui In“ "(0 .w b I v . Q kv .u. 1: ‘ a ‘ t .fll F H CH N § n 5 a. 5. as» a .ula fit .{u at AIU .9 A AU -\.e A... h b. h s a» r u a n h e Ah. .\.A ‘ in :v .11 Q!‘ Alv Ah. Iv H AIM ("V ‘0 O P 1. rd ‘ .l ‘ i I 82 significance in the abolition movement as a sectional issue. it is a matter of course that he would skip over its effects on such practical matters as sectional struggle and national politics. However. for Parrington the abolition movement was not without any significance. only it lay somewhere else. After all. Parrington was not a neutral economic determin- ist per se. He was also a moralist. passing judgments freely upon the persons who appeared in his book. His hero was the idealist and reformer. while his villain was the conservative and possessor. It has been recognized by historians that Parrington had a tendency to seek the motives of the persons he disliked in a selfish economic interests. and to characterize those he liked in terms of the originating and motivating power of ideas.51 And there is not the slightest doubt from a reading of his book that he liked the New England humanitarian reformers who represented a liberalization from the stifling dominance of the possessed merchants and conservative clergymen whose materialism and Puritan dogmatism greatly disgusted him. It is in this humanitarian liberalization. or what he called 51 Hofstadter. The Progressive Historians. p. #07; Pressly. Americans Interpret ThEir Civil War, p. 246. How- ever. the most extensTVe analysis is Skotheim. American Intellectual Histories and Historians. pp. l3h-138. But Skotheim argued that not only Parrington, but all the Pro- gressive historians had the same tendency. see p. 150. However. the case of Beard was different. He did not begin to emphasize the causal significance of ideas until the 1930's. See ibid.. pp. 100-109. ‘nv . I a: V" c‘ A; :.;....b¥“ av‘u +1‘e: ....o H. v- Inuvaflqn - a ‘vuoudvu .. n I . 3“- 9"! n p OU-nau‘g I! ‘ g n... . ‘ 83 the New England renaissance. that Parrington found the true significance of the abolition movement. He therefore not only treated the moral crusade against slavery as an ex- ample of the renaissance but also departed from the economic approach and interpreted the abolitionists and their agitation in idealistic terms. According to Parrington. a renaissance came to New England much later than to Virginia. This is largely be- cause the New England mind became torpified under the long and rigid dominance of a "dead system" of aristocratic rationalism and Puritan dogmatism that "debased human nature."52 But at last. when industrialization disrupted the static social order of an agricultural economy. there came an intellectual disruption to New England. Though economic changes might have something to do with the dis- ruption of intellectual life. in the realm of ideas the renaissance was largely dominated by the revolutionary doctrines of English literary romanticism. French social utopianism. and. in particular. German philosophical ideal- ism. They mingled together to liberate the New England mind from the deadening grip of conservative Puritan dogma- tism. But since the New England mind had long been dominated by Puritanism. the renaissance first came to New England by way of a theological revolution in the form of Unitarianism. And again since the essence of Puritanism J. 52 Parrington. The Romantic Revolution in America. p.265. I-HFDFVt .Iv‘:-" H lui ‘ In I. J ;. O . I crane ' ’ uuovuvg , .0- nn (1) . (I' ' 1 “A NH?" 'Nvol .1- I”: * . F‘- u ‘ F l A. Q 9.3;!“ C o v . “"9"- fir» w V1,:- 5‘. ‘1. p. 8b was after all ethics. the renaissance was profoundly affected The most important results of the by its ethical spirit. movement were the quickening of humanitarian zeal and "the liberation of the New England conscience from its long bondage to dogma. setting it free to engage" in reforming 53 Therefore. "the golden age of New England the society. was quite as much the golden age of the New England con- science as of the New England mind."5u Although Parrington mentioned ten reform movements as the result of the awakened New England conscience. he (3 escribed only three of them in any detail: perfection- 1 sm. the communistic experiment on Brook Farm. and From this textual arrangement. it can be abolitionism. S can where Parrington put the significance of the abolition He regarded it primarily as a demonstration of movement. This is also the liberated New England social conscience. clear from his discussion of "Certain Militants“ in Chapter In this chapter. that follows I V 01' Part Two of Book Three. the one in which he analyzed the rise of the New England Qc1a1 consc1ence and three of its forms mentioned above. he ineluded only Garrison. Whittier. and Mrs. Stowe. All Q :f them were abolitionists in a sense. but his discussion \ 53 Ibid.. p. 310. 51+ Ibid. . p. 3314. .IJ rfi‘ A In‘ ..VV V ;.opl\y\ h"-l'.’ :T' ' '1 pfil.F CF. :...6. v g u ".'_g:r-VF bn.‘v.:a- .gh;.a' Q A“ ¢._v.. 5". A "::.Vnn S ‘ ‘ he: “Y an. .3. A A. “1" I“ 9.‘;‘ “4.. Q ‘1" AA "‘==JE . I . hue may. . f p . I .- I- '. . v4 .5 .F .‘Cuu .- i- 85 did not concentrate on their abolition agitation alone. Rather. he treated them as examples of how the New England social conscience turned them and others like them into universal reformers. Yet. the clearest evidence for his emphasis on the significance of the abolition movement as an example of the New England conscience is provided by his discussion of the movement itself. The very first sentence opening the dis- cussion strikes the key note. ”With awakening interest in social problems." he stated. "the conscience of New England could no longer remain indifferent to slavery."55 Urged by an awakened interest in social reform. many New Englanders became abolitionists. They were bound to arouse the hos- tility of the conservative merchants who feared that the crusade might alienate their southern customers. But all the merchants' weapons of coercion. intimidation. and abuses failed to quench these "good fighters”. To this New England "fighting phalanx" of whom Parrington named four- teen. were later gathered "heroic souls" from other states: the Tappan brothers and Gerrit Smith from New York: Birney from Kentucky; Lucretia Mott from Philadelphia; and the Grimke sisters from South Carolina.56 They fought together 55 Ibid.. p. 342. 56 Ibid.. pp. 3h3-3hh. - I Q n 01" ”‘ r W... 01. F: ..IV‘ up. \ L,‘ Iod“ ~ ' ' 5"“ Qf‘“ I‘I. .l—J“ I A I -.-~p.“v 'R“" u . ‘ A -:: 1' V! ‘n “h “At ‘N- o.“ y . v. A u I... :CA v 86 for a while. Then. Garrison's ”doctrine of Nullification and disunion." the logical child of his perfectionism. provoked a furious discussion among the abolitionist ranks about the question of loyalty to the political state.57 The effect of this debate was very bad indeed. "With Garrison's conversion to spiritual anarchism," he said. “the abolition movement was sundered by a division between the perfectionists and the political actionists." Reject- ing Garrison's principle of non-voting and of refusing allegiance to the Constitution. the latter group. including Whittier. Smith. Birney. and the Tappans. went into third 58 party politics. What was the fate of the movement after the split? Which wing of the abolitionists was more effec- tive or successful? Parrington never touched such questions. However. he was sure about the contribution of the movement as a whole to the final emancipation of slaves. It was negative. for. though single-minded men like the abolition- ists sometimes did succeed in removing mountains. "slavery was not destroyed by the conscience of New England. but by the economics of free labor."59 To Parrington the major 57 Ibid.. p. 3500 58 Ibid.. PP- 357-358- 59 Ibid.. p. 353. - I '0': A”? I .V. luv ‘ ",.,‘y‘ *P‘ "\ Q. ll ..nub I. - fa ”a: I... y... '7'"? IRAd titl:‘ “P:- I. w :3: \ ,"‘__“’ I 87 contribution of the abolitionists rather lay in the fact that their persistent agitation temporarily overwhelmed 60 And it is for this "the Tory minority in Massachusetts." reason that Parrington paid his unlimited admiration to the abolitionists. "They were the kindliest men, with generous sympathies and disinterested motives." They were not interested in money and power. but were self-sacrificing and willing to face social ostracism. Good fighters. they refused to be browbeaten. Few in number. but they were "the best New England had." The New England conscience had never before mustered such a fighting band for glorious causes. nor has since. The admiration was so great that Parrington could not refrain from exclaiming: "What an excellent company they were.” So. Parrington began the abolition movement in the New England social conscience released by the liberaliza- tion of the New England mind from the yoke of Puritan dogmatism. and ended it in subjugating for a time the New 60 Ibid.. p. 344. 61 All the quotation of praises are taken from ibid.. p. 343. Parrington's lavish praises on Garrison are omitted here because his discussion of Garrison amounts to be little more than a long eulogy. See ibid.. pp. 344-353. His admiration for Garrison is in marked difference from both Turner and Beard. This is probably because of their ideological differences. Turner and Beard came from middle- class families. They later turned Progressives. Like many other Progressives. they were middle-class liberals. Parrington also came from a middle-class family. but the radical legacy of his grandfather. the social resentment of his Harvard years. the protest spirit of the Populist 1890's. . ‘ pH < :V' C u; ”1““ '1 O: pf“ ..y...o. ( .D *A 0,. F 1. in: 5‘4- ’4'. A5. .A::-:V U ‘ :? :Aq. Am Adv’v ~ . .7: FDA . D '4' ‘39.: t “r-‘HRA It A ‘\" ‘VID‘.~~“‘ ...... .... ‘ ' I IV" ... A ' . '0: ~ 'I‘ u a .4 ' iv. 4 Q0 3", * “AC" . ... “ 1 . ., . in, ‘ h :‘11 - segu" . RF“ 5. .:;w . upv‘. .. V o, , c hue Pv_ '0... R. a. 88 England conservatism. His economic interpretation of the sectional struggle already minimized the significance of the abolition movement as a sectional issue. His treat- ment of it as a part and parcel of the New England renaissance further reduced its importance in this respect. if. indeed. there was any importance still remaining. His neglect of the abolition movement as a sectional issue is in fact so complete that except for his lavish praises of the abolitionists and his emphasis on the significance of the abolition crusade in connection with the New England renaissance. there is little remaining in his discussion about how the abolitionists thought and acted. or what they effected or failed to effect in the realm of sectional con- flict. Beard's The Rise of American Civilization and Parrington's The Romantic_Revolution in America were pub- lished in 1927. while Turner's The Unitengtates did not appear until 1935. But the basic historical thinkings of the three historians were formulated long before that time. These histories were essentially the product of a generation of historians which came to maturity around the turn of this century. And this was an age of great social unrest and and his unhappy teaching experience at University of Oklahoma landed him on an agrarianism profoundly affected by socialism and anarchism. Out of this radical inclina- tion. it is possible that Parrington appreciated Garrison's radicalism more than Turner and Beard did. For Parrington's radicalism and its formation. see Hofstadter. The Pro- gressive Historians. p. 37b. and 430. (1') 53 "cc 4 4 ‘ ’1'?»- " ed-.. :FAVA~. 'w--..' ... I 7‘“: finr’ "“‘Ic.‘ r... r . “lvd:.ld H q? 5" ~ . a § a ' 89 intellectual ferment. Influenced by reforming zeal and pragmatism. Turner. Beard. and Parrington tried consciously or unconsciously to turn the study and writing of history into an instrument of social betterment by viewing history as a series of drastic changes wrought by some fundamental amoral or inanimate forces. Consequently. they approached American history in terms of economic determinism. or sectionalism. or a combination of the two. When interpreting the ante-bellum sectional conflict as the result of such forces. it is probably natural that they would be little the significance of both slavery and the abolitionist attack upon it. Either in the grand theme of Turner's sectionalism. or in that of Beard‘s sweep of economic forces. or in that of Parrington's rival imperial- isms. the moral dispute over slavery could hardly have much meaning in itself. As a result. the abolitionists received only very scant attention in their books. and their sig- nificance in the sectional conflict was greatly minimized. Though their discussion varied in detail and attitude. so far as the relation of the abolition movement to the section- al antagonism is concerned. Turner. Beard. and Parrington were certain that the abolitionists agitators were only a negligible minority. The writings of Turner. Beard. and Parrington had enjoyed a great popularity and exercised a tremendous influ- ence upon the study and writing of American history during the first four decades of the twentieth century. But this 5 buyer: ...-'0 5. ' ' '9- — '. o Q‘ Oat-O '- ...:.. u .4... u rm." ” ......v ‘0 'F’r VIA vJ‘ 'Hr ‘" vn. I ‘ .rp‘, r .-, «mu: ,. 90 was because of their historical theories and their general interpretations of American history. So far as their View of the abolition movement is concerned. their influence seemed very little. if indeed there was any. It is true that Julian P. Bretz declared in 1929 that "with the more recent interest in economic influences upon history. and. in particular. upon the history of events leading to the ..62 Civil War. an economic approach to the rise of the Liberty party was of interest. And he and Thomas P. Martin both ventured an economic interpretation of that party.63 Although they were influenced by Beard's economic deter- minism. they obviously did not accept his minimization of at least the political abolition movement. In fact. the interpretation of Turner. Beard. and Parrington was challenged almost as soon as it appeared first by Gilbert H. Barnes. then by the revisionist historians. Even Beard himself later abandoned his denial of the importance of the abolitionists. In A Basic History of the United_States published in 19uu. he wrote: "the intellectual and moral crusade against slavery had gained such momentum that it ripped into the discussion of almost every national question." and asserted that it prepared the way for the appearance of 6.2 Julian P. Bretz. "The Economic Background of the Liberty Party." American Historical Review. XXXIV (January. 1929)! 2500 63 Thomas P. Martin. "The Upper Mississippi Valley in Anglo-American Anti-Slavery and Free Trade Relations. 1837- 1842.“ Mississippi Valley Historical Review. XVI (September. 1928). 209-220. 91 64 the Free-Soil and Republican party. He came around to uphold the significance of the abolition agitation in the sectional controversy. Beard's rather quick shift of opinion underscores the negligible influence of the Pro- gressive historians' view of the abolitionists on other historians. 64 Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard. A Basic History of thg United States (Philadelphia. l9hh). pp. 231-232. and 262-2 3. CHAPTER III REVIVALISTS IN ABOLITION - GILBERT H. BARNES' VIEW - Probably by an historical accident. the first challenge to the Progressive interpretation of the abolition movement came not from a professional historian but from a professor of economics. Gilbert H. Barnes discovered by chance a trunkful of Theodore Weld's long forgotten private letters. A study of these letters told Barnes a story about the antislavery crusade completely different from the traditional or the Progressive version. He was moved to tell this story to others. And the Antislavery Impulse. 1830-18991 became one of the most remarkable studies of the abolition movement. The Garrisonian interpretation of the abolition movement recognized Garrison as its sole leader. New England as its sole center. The Progressive historians accepted this picture but played down the significance of 1 (New York. 1933). The edition used here is the Harbinger edition. published in 1964 by Harcourt. Brace & World. Inc. 92 :35 acre tent was :AA‘N“ .‘ tfi‘v uUL 5n ::..1 A, 4.“.1. V‘ ‘V.: A‘ p‘. “ ms..:‘& 1 I VI 1", 'f'; ~“‘VI4.V , f - U] C r? (9 r“ I" 93 the crusade in the sectional conflict. To Barnes nothing was more wrong. The guiding spirit of the abolition move- ment was Weld instead of Garrison. its true center the West instead of Boston. He also insisted that "the movement of the 'thirties was not inconsiderable; it was a major factor in the rise of sectionalism and a prime cause of the final conflict."2 He stressed the moral nature of the antislavery agitation. "Indeed from first to last.” he announced: throughout the antislavery host the cause con- tinued to be a moral issue and not an economic one. Neither in their propaganda nor in their sentiments was the economic issue dominant. Ministers. merchants. mechanics and farmers. their attitude toward slavery was determined by the chances of origin or personal influence and not by calculations of material advantage. Moreover. the areas of their antislavery strength coordinated with no single Northern interest. Barnes denied the correctness of both the Garrisonian and the Progressive interpretations of the abolition movement. And in the denial of Garrison's leadership and in the emphasis on the importance of the slavery dispute in the sectional conflict. Barnes seemed in the tradition of such nationalist historians like Albert E. Hart and Jesse Macy. But they differed on crucial points. Macy never mentioned Weld: Hart did only in passing and mistook him as a disciple 2 Barnes. The Antislavery Impulsgl pp. xxiv. 3 Ibid.. p. 197. .. a ’ '. -' I. . ...:n.‘ ‘ v b ‘uofl‘! ‘H‘F H .... M: ‘ . ta“ 3* ‘1 ....v... OHM- fr kw». V. .."F.A : u- .1? ‘v'a..... (1‘ n) U) ‘ci...’ ... ‘ r 9b of Garrison. Nor did Macy and Hart connect abolitionism to revivalism as Barnes did. Finally Macy and Hart were highly favorable to the abolitionists while Barnes' atti- tude was at best ambiguous. All in all. what Barnes pre- sented was a completely new interpretation. deviating from those of all his predecessors Barnes dealt mainly with the organized antislavery movement beginning in the early 1830's. He attributed the rise of the crusade to two factors. The more important one was the revivals of Charles G. Finney. His emphasis on "disinterested benevolence" as a way of achieving salvation u and "released a mighty impulse toward social reform." turned many of his young converts into ardent reformers. Led by Weld. the greatest of them all. the "holy hand” of Finney's devoted themselves to ”converting the world at once."5 They were interested in every sort of reform: but at last they concentrated all their time and energy on the one big cause: the crusade against slavery. The other source of inspiration was the example of British abolition. the final success of which set a potential precedent for the American abolitionists to follow. Eager to capitalize on the prestige provided by the British precedent. the ‘Mmerican opponents of slavery not only organized the .American Antislavery Society in imitation of the British Ibid.. p. 11. Ibid.. p. 12. D gicffl'“ . :flanbva ' ."V\F"‘ . m — ‘I‘AI'nlv' ‘ 2... '1‘... v I‘I NJ- If:‘n“, A -\ .- no.5b‘b.‘ .1 .D 5V.~ 2 ~\ navn by Cl.) C . ' LP .Q .4 ”7‘. v I v“" ‘ v . l‘Vfi.-y\.. . VIII-v..- y l. . Y ‘ I‘Vvu -"v "2' I. .I “ o v. . ”‘3 F;v '. . VK I -"‘-A "P“ ""JJ‘A .- .‘ .. caf‘1A1 va“:‘ I A 'lh‘n: . 1": . t ‘- s «I. r‘Aa‘ V‘.‘V“. 95 organization but also adopted its slogan of immediate emancipation. After its organization. the American Anti- slavery Society dispatched agents to local communities and launched a pamphlet campaign to abolitionize the North. But "burdened with the epithet of 'Garrisonism‘ and crippled by its misunderstood motto of immediatism," the efforts achieved nothing but tremendous hostilities.6 By early 1835. many leading abolitionists became so dis- appointed that they were ready to admit failure. The cause. however. was not to be lost at this point because the Lane rebels under the leadership of Weld came in time to rescue it. Using the method of the Great Revival. working through the local church. Weld and other Lane rebels agitated in 1835-1836 the antislavery cause in Ohio. Pennsylvania. New York. and even in parts of New England. to such a great success that often whole commun- ities were converted overnight, leaving behind them a host of new local antislavery societies. Their success was so encouraging that the leaders of the national organization decided early in 1836 to abandon the disastrous pamphlet campaign and to concentrate all its sources on the agency method. Commissioned by the national society. Weld, with 6 Barnes. "Introduction" to Barnes and Dwight L. Dumond. ed.. Letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld and Sarah Grimke. lBZZ—leE_(New York. 1934), p. viii. Hereafter cited as Letters of Weld. See also Barnes. The AntislaverygImpulse. pp, 59-63. 88-99. and 100- 103. C ...A If 1" 4 ..‘.A5u a] Q' .' ,Ir‘ n ". tel. “8: w*: .‘ufl' ! HQQAP‘V‘ cu‘V-ctl': e“ ~ 5n L., \ OI’ . . ‘IO.~‘AI .....IJ": . "p... ' ~ - v . - "oon: ..fi‘ "fir k A .5 U ‘0. ‘nfiavcy‘l u ‘vu.'.‘ ,4. II! (I, ‘I (D I ti.) H ‘ I v 9. | 'Qp‘l {I \ "a; "fr "J“ 96 the help of Henry B. Stanton and John G. Whittier. selected. trained. and sent out the famous ”Seventy" to comb the North. The agitation was again a great success. At the time when “the Seventy" began to work. a new opportunity of reaching the northern people was presented to the abolition- ists in the form of the "gag rule" dispute. Deciding to seize the Opportunity of acting as champions for the right of petition. the national society appointed Weld. Stanton. and Whittier to conduct a large-scale campaign to overwhelm Congress with antislavery petitions. Successful in forcing the slavery question on the floor of Congress. the petition campaign also worked a profound change in the organized antislavery movement itself. With volunteer workers for getting signers to petitions multiplying. and rendering the work of agents no longer necessary. the organization became decentralized. Decentralization. the financial difficul- ties of the national society after the panic of 1837 bank- rupted the Tappan brothers. the odium brought on it by Garrisonism and immediatism. and the passing away of the Great Revival by 1839 caused many abolitionists to conclude that the usefulness of the American Antislavery Society ended. and to propose to disband it. But Garrison was not prepared to let that happen. So. in its annual meeting in 1840. the American Antislavery Society split over the ques- tion of womens rights. After that. the old national organ- ization. retained under the control of Garrison, was nothing but a name. Some of the non-Garrisonians organized the American and Foreign Antislavery Society as a rival qr~llf: ‘V' . .0— “ob‘ *3":Y‘ vvubvh ~ a-r-u. . 1" ‘ y... ......4. ‘ .:. “a. ‘ usv .. , ‘ ... a. ':V‘ 9 v. . ‘ A : A"Qh~ '. an! -IQ. Fu- . “v : 5' v 9? organization; others formed the Liberty Party. But both were pitiful failures because by 1840 the true antislavery center shifted to Washington where Weld directed a powerful antislavery lobby to help John Quincy Adams. Joshua Giddings and other Whig insurgents to force the slavery question into open discussion. The angered Whit Chieftains tried to silence them. But Adams' name was too great to be censured. while the censure of Giddings resulted only in his returning triumphantly to Congress on reelection. After that. "the struggle for the floor of Congress as a rostrum for antislavery agitation was won." This proved to be "the turning point" of the whole abolition movement. "There- after the insurgent group of Congressmen formed and anti- slavery bloc of Congress which became the nucleus of a new movement in national affairs." and which finally ”divided their party and the nation."7 As Barnes saw it. the antislavery agitation was purely a moral movement inspired by religious revivalism. encouraged by the British example. and led by Weld. He believed the movement was in close connection with the Great Revival. He pointed out that ”the conjunction of so many elements of the Great Revival in the Antislavery agitation was more than coincidence." The leaders and the Seventy were converts of Finney and Weld; "their method was 7 Barnes. "Introduction." to Barnes and Dumond. ed.. Letter of‘Held, p. xvi. 98 the evangelism of the Great Revival: their doctrine was a doctrine of sin; and their program was to convert congrega- tions of the North to the duty of testimony against the slaveholders of the South. In leadership. in method. and in program. . . the antislavery agitation as a whole was what it had long been in larger part. an aspect of the 8 This identification Great Revival in benevolent reform." of the antislavery agitation with the Great Revival is also evinced by the coincidence of his narration of the movement with the rise and fall of that great religious enthusiasm. Since denunciation was the chief method of the revivalists. it also became the chief concern of the abolitions. To Barnes. the antislavery movement was an evangelical agitation for the repentance from the sin of slavery by denouncing slavery as such. Its basis was "denunciation and not reform." said Barnes.9 So far as the origins. the nature. and the organized activities of the abolition movement are concerned. Barnes' discussion is rather clear and certain. But it is not so with his attitude toward the crusaders and their crusade. In this respect. he was so ambivalent and vague that his interpretation-like a two-edged sword capable of cutting both ways - can be interpreted as either anti-abolitionist or proabolitionist. This ambivalent attitude creates diffi- culties in determining the factors which influenced Barnes 8 Barnes. The Antislavery Impulse. p. 107. 9 Ibid.. p. 101. - Al: ”'1'! * I‘Vucev . 39...... I II . d V at" .‘ A f — " u... PAV... \“- 99 to interpret the abolition movement in the way he did. The first impression on reading The Antislavery Impulse is that he was basically hostile to the abolition crusade. Certainly. there is no lack of evidence to support such a claim. The dedication of the book to his former teacher. the proslavery Ulrich B. Phillips. and the acknowledgement of Phillips' direction and help in the study10 presumably influenced Barnes' own view on this subject. Then. he denounced the revivalists' appeal to emotion in their hell-fire sermons and the hysteria of the 11 yet he made the Great Revival the origin camp meeting. of the abolition agitation. He labelled the Philadelphia convention which founded the American Antislavery Society a "fiasco".12 He bitterly criticized the doctrine of immediatism. whether the Garrisonian version which demanded exactly what the word meant or the New York version which interpreted the doctrine as to mean immediate emancipation gradually accomplished.13 He argued that "gag rules" did not violate the constitutional right of petition. so that 10 Ibid.. p. xxxiv. Harvey Wish. The American His- torian (NEW—York. 1960). p. 256. and Fred Landon. "Ulrich Bonnell Phillips: Historian of the South." Journal of Southern Histogy. V (1939). 365-366. suggests the influence of Phillips on Barnes' writing his book. 11 Barnes. The AntislaveryImpulsgl pp. u. and 7-10. 12 Ibid.. p. 56. 13 Ibid.. p. 102. . u o A Hr" H, “ “hr “v ’2 [II (I) (D (h ~ c 0. ‘~‘- ," ‘ ....UQJ- 'A‘Pzr ”V 5-5.0“- :w‘ " '9‘»! v . ': r- ‘Hu .’1’ ‘t v. (.1 O or" 7‘ (D u" (t) rr (3 I 100 the whole petition controversy created "windy. unreal issues of constitutional abstractions."lu Barnes hostility toward Garrison and his followers was even more unreserved. One can find on page after page in The Antislavery Impulse some kind of denunciation or derision of the Garrisonians. To Barnes. Garrison meant nothing more than "a notorious name. a term of opprobrium. a grotesque of abolition fanaticism." whose meager formal education deprived him of a "general knowledge to balance the radical doctrine of the British extremists." "A figure- head of fanaticism." he had "no qualification for leader- ship." ”Always ready to think well of himself." he used every opportunity to enhance his own importance. to the great detriment to the antislavery cause. "His rancorous denunciations and his brawling ferocious abuse raised new opponents and embarrassed faithful friends." A "egregious fanatic." "the devil genius of the antislavery movement." he "borrowed some of the hersies rife in the 'thirties". and weaved "them with self-righteous logic into his indictment of the church" and human government. But "these vagaries of his reforming spirit were minor irritants." The great- est of his offendings was “his promiscuous vilification of all individuals. institutions. and beliefs with which at the moment he did not agree." He and his faithful followers. 14 Ibid., p. 1180 4'7 q «:‘rAxi'N ...ovdnb“ ”“2: it b; v'. .‘ $ . a L 1 N vim" c“ uy‘vunva- “r.‘ lOl concluded Barnes. were indeed "dead weights to the abolition cause.“15 Finally. caping all these criticisms and denunci- ations. there is his indictment of the whole antislavery movement. He wrote. And the greatest benevolent society of the 'thirties. the American Anti-Slavery Society. was to achieve its end by persuading citizens in the non-slaveholding North to denounce slavery in the slaveholding South. Its first concern was not the abolition of slavery; it was "the duty of rebuke which every inhabitant of the Free States owes to every slaveholder." Denunciation of the evil came first: reform of the evil was incidental to that primary obliga- tion." 16 The anti-abolitionist evidence seemed so over- whelmingly conclusive that James G. Randall and Avery Craven embraced Barnes as a fellow-revisionist. Craven hailed The Antislavery Impulse as ”revolutionary" and the "first fair correction" of the traditional pro-Garrisonian interpretation. while Randall described it as "the revisionist interpretation of the antislavery crusade.”17 Thomas J. Pressly identified Barnes as one of the beginners of revisionism. and thought his book occupied "a prominent 15 All the quotations are taken from ibid.. p. 51. 42. 589 579 919 1740 175' 930 989 and 99. 16 Ibid.. p. 25. 1? Craven. "Review of Barnes. The Antislavery Impulse” New York Herald Tribune Books. April 22. l93h. p. 8; and Randall. "Review of Barnes. The Antislavery_lmpulse." Journal of Southern HistogyI I (I955). 96. . O (I) 'r ) .|\ 102 place in the emergence of the 'revisionist' viewpoint."18 Then, it seems certain that Barnes was a revisionist historian of the Civil War. But a careful second reading of the book reveals that the case is not so simple. Nor was Barnes so one-sided. For one thing. nowhere did Barnes show his hostility to the Civil War which was the underly- ing attitude of all revisionists of the Civil War history. Then. too. Barnes was neither proslavery nor pro-southern. Indeed. he was rather unsympathetic to both the South and its peculiar institution. "American opinion. in 1831. had much dignity and little humor." he commented once. "but that dignity had a quality of juvenile self-importance peculiarly intolerant of criticism and rebuke. Nowhere in the nation was this sensibility so tender as in the South. the home of Southern chivalry and the duelling code."19 On another occasion he pointed out that the gag rules finally "became a part of the challenging policy of the South. the basis of the system of coercive silence by which the Southern leaders'enslaved the North‘ on the subject of slavery." While northern members in the House of Representatives were divided over the problem of the gag rules. the southern leaders were united and decided on aggression. on not permitting strictures to be heard in the 18 Pressly. Americans Interpret Their Civil War (New York. 1954). p. 303. 19 Ibid., p. 510 103 20 His criticism of Arthur House. as their best policy. Young Lloyd's The Slavery,Controversy, 1831-1860 was also revealing. He deplored that "the case for the Southern point of view in the pamphlet controversy should thus be marred by bias in the selection of and interpretation of material."21 Such remarks can hardly be called pro- southern or pro-slavery. This is another difference from the revisionist historians. Yet. the most important difference is that Barnes was fundamentally sympathetic at least to the Weldian abolitionists. This is all the more significant because Barnes regarded Weld as representing the true antislavery impulse. It is true that Barnes criticized revivals but he never denounced Finney‘s revivalism. After justifying Finney's appeal to emotion by pointing out that the 1820's was a time of emotional release and excess. he further defended Finney by contrasting him with other revivals: In contrast. Finney 'pressed the anxious sinners with the closely reasoned truth.‘ Only after he had won their minds did he address himself to their 'sympathy'. Even then he exercised his gift of hypnotic eloquence with moderation. and never for a moment did he let the emotions of his converts get beyond his iron control. . . . and even his critics were forced to admit that in his revivals there was 'less appearance of mere sympathy and excitement than usual.'22 20 Ibid.. p. 121. 21 Barnes. "Review of Lloyd. The Slavery Controvergy. 1831-1860.” Journal of Southern History. VI (19507: 273. 22 Barnes. The Antislavery Impulse. p. 10. p- as A, 1 uv V“‘ 3.1.; A! ‘u u- 0 ..A“ F“ U- ...u. 1-“: 'té :- PA. a a ‘r "be. 5‘ n ." ~.,.,, «4.. H p I.::5‘ "Ov-n. .: .H v. U”: a" :H‘ . -".' ‘ p s :‘a u. ,. I 3" § "vi: "1 _n I. ' 'v \ ‘_, .a ‘1. lfl" 3‘ (“'h.’ ‘4. 10b He called the Philadelphia convention a "fiasco" because Weld did not take part in it. because of the scarcity of attendance resulting from the inconvenient time of the meeting. and because the decision to hold it at such a time was forced by Garrison upon the New York Committee against its own better judgment to postpone the meeting un- til a more auspicious time.23 It is also worthwhile to note that he bitterly attacked immediatism and Garrison not so much for their intrinsic evil as for their cumbersome effects on the progress of the antislavery cause. The harm of the principle of immediatism to the crusade lay in the fact that it was so hard to explain its exact meaning that people were frightened away by its misunderstood meanings. When the Lane rebels' version of immediatism which simply denounced slavery as a sin and "on that account ought immediately to be abandoned."24 was adopted by the New York Committee as the official principle in 1836. Barnes ceased his criticism because he believed this version freed the abolitionists from the need for a workable plan and thus dispersed the dilemma created by other versions. In like *manner. he attacked Garrison. ”Over the entire agitation," he said. Garrison's "name cast 'a vague and indefinite Eifthetic attitude toward the antislavery crusade is his 131‘E‘lise of Weld. the true hero of his story. If Garrison .________ __ fi— 25 3L. Barnes. "Introduction" to Barnes and Dumond. ed.. jiTSElzgers of Weld. p. viii. See also Barnes. The Antislavery W. p. 57' and 620 26 Barnes. The Antislavery_Impulse. p. 57. 27 Ibidoo PP- 98-990 «A. +' ‘1: U1, 3 a “w \ olv o *rv vpv- Q5-.'n \ v54. 9 qu:ga fVOVu’ .DR :‘.A’ v..-" Q _ . “1‘ If '.‘.;r¢ t-v". I E». . 9A”. 5 W" 5' ~. 106 was the "devil genius” of the abolition movement. Weld was j_ ts "man of power. the greatest individual factor for its triumph.”28 Indeed. Weld was "a prize to win." Energetic. c: ourageous. vividly charming. with a full and musical v0 ice. he brought to the antislavery labor "the constitution o f a hero.” "Selfless and lovable.“ he gained the lasting admiration. affection and loyalty of his co-workers. "Weld's . sagacious. active. fair-reading mind'. his unique knowledge 0 25‘ British antislavery doctrine. and his greatness of heart and flaming zeal for abolition must have exercised a powerful influence to action." "Modesty was an essential par-t; of his nature." In fact. he was so modest that he eVen lost the right place in history that he deserved. By gnoting an eyewitness. Barnes contrasted Weld's moderation with Garrison's extremism. "He fle1d7. . . uttered no Intatlice; sharpened no phrases so that its venomed point rl'light rankle in another's breast. . . . His great soul was full of compassion for the oppressor and the oppressed. . . . Nobly simple in manner. free from thought of self. he 1:<>uched the springs of the human heart." His humility. meekness. and. compassion always disarmed the most hostile anti-abolition mobs. He was an eloquent orator. excellent writer who wrote "such solid treatises" as Slavery as It Is. and " super lobbyist . " But above all "he was an evangelist as well. the genius of the abolition revival; and the power \ 28 L Barnes. "Introduction" to Barnes and Dumond. etters 0 ed.. \ f Weld. p. xix. .4 vol. 3” ...... ’iw .. ‘0» J» ‘1 0, . \. "‘ it a! A! «:lc' ". I “a I - y‘_ “b .. ~ . 1 ‘2’)” _‘ ‘i‘c ~ - q H“; :- ‘.‘ I. C 107 which had wrought miracles of inspiration in Tappans' Association of Gentlemen, among the Lane Seminary. in the rural communities of the West. in the Presbyterian General Assembly. among the Seventy -- in every group which his magnetic presence had invaded -- that power was still his own. With Weld. even the conversion of Congressmen may have been possible."29 Barnes was lavish not only in praising Weld. He also hailed all those who came under his influ- ence. Their names "amek up a roll of heroes." whom God thrusted out to "awake a slumbering nation."30 Barnes was so enthusiastic about his heroes. it can hardly be imagined that he would discredit the cause to which they dedicated themselves. Precisely because he thought that cause worth- while and wanted it to succeed. he became impatient with men like Garrison whose principles. words. or actions he regarded as harmful to the progress of the cause. Then. Barnes was not as hostile to the abolition movement as a superficial reading of the book may suggest. Nor was he pro-southern and pro-slavery. Pressly's classi- fication of Barnes as a revisionist and the hails of Craven and Randall are not very convincing. However. they are not without ground either. His lack of sympathy for Garrisonism. dislike of the emotionalism of the revivals. and. above all. critical comment on the nature of the crusade 29 Barnes. The Antislavery_Impglse. p. 12. 13. 35. 6h, 67’ 1399 and 192. 30 Barnes. "Introduction.“ to Barnes and Dumond. ed.. .Letters of Weld. p. xvii. ll . II | . y , , . . . .. 0 . n ._ .. . - 1 .h. . \r s I! a \ Q i N c n A . 1 . 0- Av .... n: A» p: p: o . r. ... ..3 cu v. Vs .u Q. ~ 3.. z. ~.s A v ., A a: w .n 4 n: A],- r . «C a: C. A y ... A ~: v .. ~ ... J .7 He J by 6. h. ... um ... '4 It a; a... h. A. . 1 . n. u .. a. . u '8 A v 1 .- Apv nn‘ - i .n u 8 .. e u.» p .- 17 1. n. e 1 Q A n . ”In. uMiu W.u n a in .p e y... I ~ v. .43 I. 0 0% A. c a: .6 .u u .Hu 5: . .1. 541W .9 s. 108 are too obvious to be explained away. The whole picture is complicated and ambiguous. 0n the one hand there is enough evidence to show that Barnes was favorable to the crusaders and their cause. 0n the other hand. there is not only his denunciation of Garrison and his radicalism but also his unfavorable reaction to the whole agitation. He was both repulsed and attracted by it. Why did Barnes have such an ambivalent feeling to- ward the abolitionists and their cause? Another related question is why he insisted that the abolition movement was a moral agitation? To answer these questions is to identify the factors which influenced him to interpret the crusade in the way he actually did. The second question is more easy to answer than the first. William G. McLaughlin suggested that Barnes' re- assertion of the importance of moral factors in history was the result of an intellectual reorientation Barnes went through between 1926 and 1933. Taking notice of the difference between the emphasis on behaviorism. instrument- alism. and scientific history in a textbook written by Barnes and three other colleagues in 192631 and Barnes' commitment to a moral cause implicit in The Antislavery Innpulse. he pointed out that Barnes shared in a general 31 Ben A. Arneson. Gilbert H. Barnes. Charles W. Cknalter. and Harvey C. Hubbart. A Gateway to the Social Sciences (New York. 1926). 1.9-. .mivor .15.- '|I. Uvu .AA- .‘ "van _ 'Q C W ”a... - "'O'41 ‘- 109 intellectual reorientation going on in both Europe and the United States in the late twenties and the thirties. which revolted against behaviorism. naturalism. positivism. and scientism. and moved to moralism.32 Whether the re- orientation theory is correct or not. one thing seems cer- tain. It is that Barnes wrote his book on the anti-slavery movement with a definite purpose in mind. In a copy of his book found in the library of Pembroke College in Brown University. Barnes wrote the following inscription: To Larry and Christine Sears from the author. Gilbert H. Barnes Designed as written. in part for the education of the first named. who once remarked in the author's hearing that no revival of religion had or could produce a social movement of in- trinsic importance.33 If this is really what he originally intended to prove and not an afterthought. it goes far to explain why Barnes put so great an emphasis on the connection between the anti- slavery impulse and the Great Revival. and on the central role of Finney and Weld. It also helps to answer the ques- tion why Barnes insisted on the moral nature of the crusade. Although Barnes' intention answers the second question, it fails to do so as to the first question. A mere desire to prove that some kind of revivalism could produce an intrinsically 32 William C. McLaughlin. "Introduction to the Harbinger Edition" of Barnes. The Antislavery Impulse, pp. xvi-xix. and xxv. 33 Quoted in ibid.. p. xxv. o u an: an: 1... whar: NV. . .F t";" |_ .u,_ i I AH’A. . bl. "V V , a. 110 important social movement does not necessarily imply the author's favorable or unfavorable attitude toward that movement. Even if it does. it can certainly not explain Barnes' basically ambivalent attitude toward the antislavery crusade. Therefore. the explanation has to be sought some- where else. One possible factor which influenced Barnes' thinking was the intellectual atmosphere produced by the disillusionment with the First World War. In 1917. Americans went to war with high ideals. but only to be dis- mayed and shocked by the result of peace. Given the cir- cumstance under which the United States entered the war. the disillusionment naturally touched off a wave of suspicion of abstract idealism. emotionalism and propaganda. and an effort to redefine American traditional values.3u Thus. moral and religious bigotry came under heavy fire. 35 Coming to maturity in the twenties. it is highly possible that Barnes shared in this so-called debunking mood. When Pressly classified Barnes as a revisionist historian. he implied the influence of the disillusionment on Barnes. McLaughlin also believed that Barnes' criticism of some aspects of the abolition movement was in line with the debunking spirit of men like H.L. Mencken. Certainly. 34 For a more detailed analysis of the effects of the disillusionment with the First World War. see Chapter IV. 35 Barnes was born in 1889. . .A~‘~ 0V5 'V q . 7' ’r .u E... g . 0“,.-. A‘Asu; .- .V'u1. i w! ’ n 0? '6 u) L“ L: 1'1) Kl) ' l a.“ ‘-‘0 RI 1'. \' .fVV. (I) «D J o, :’ "l 111 Barnes attacked the dogmas of Calvinism. the emotionalism of frontier revivalism. the moral self-importance of Boston. and Garrison's obsession with abstract principles. In this respect. he was the same as Mencken in deriding fundamentalism. denouncing Puritanism and scorning the New England genteel culture. If Barnes was affected by the in- tellectual trends of the twenties. it can not be expected that he would have embraced the abolition movement without any misg1vings. His occasional hostile comments on the crusade then is probably the popping up of his basic dis- like of the agitation. But if he disliked the antislavery crusade. he did not go all the way and mount a frontal attack on all the abolitionists as the revisionist historians did. This is because another factor pulled him to the opposite direction. This other factor is Barnes' fascination with Weld. Barnes was fascinated by Weld. first because Barnes found Weld's personality and ideological preferences akin to his own. A reviewer of his book was sure that Barnes was "the kind of man who is temperamentally disgusted with exhibit- ionism and has an inherent sympathy for quiet. patient. self-effacing effort." and that this temper influenced his reaction to Garrison and Weld.36 In ideology. Barnes was essentially a liberal leaning toward the right. As revealed 36 Alphonese B. Miller. ”Review of Barnes. The Anti- slavery Impulse". Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 173 (May. l93h). 216. 0.4.- nly‘l: . a: .. O.V'. . 0:... u >- '. int- ’«{,, 'Vu', . l.) i "A a I“: ‘; ~41. ~'- A ‘ ’19 A" h i \u 'I . ~“.1Y:Y '~ I I V u“ s, A... ‘_ v I u n. V‘ ‘-.,~ - v uh. v 112 in The Gateway to Social Sciences; he had confidence in reform and progress. but only in ”practical utopia." He thought variations of social mores "are interesting and welcome." but only "within these limits." If he criticized laissez-faire doctrine. he did not like state socialism either. What he favored was "the happy medium" between laissez faire and socialism. the general welfare policy.37 Given such moderate temperament and preference. it is no wonder that Barnes was attracted by Welds' meekness. humility. self-effacement. moderation. and practicality which he praised throughout The Antislavery Impglse. By the same token. his liberalism set him against Garrison's radicalism. Yet. a man so lovable and so important in the anti- slavery movement as Weld was largely neglected in history. When he found out this. his reaction was one of bitter in- dignation against the Garrisonians. the publicists. and New England historians. His indignation in behalf of Weld was further augmented by his own sectional bitterness against the East. Barnes was born in Nebraska. educated at Univer- sity of Michigan. and taught economics at Ohio Wesleyan University. He was a Westerner. And ever since the late nineteenth century. the West's resentment against the East's exploitation and dominance continued bitter until the nineteen-thirties. This feeling was particularly strong in 37 Arneson. Barnes. Coulter. and Hubbart. A Gatewgy to the Social Sciences. p. 3. 105, 231. 288. and 291. l V‘T ‘ I ‘8’ Wig I v.” I , I J. . b P u A. U H .Aflv ... o 0 v .1. P . ON I c adv v: e nfiu 1 Mid. .. u .A-. u u v. o alv u u 0 L .a . M . ‘ Q I ~ pm. 6, U r 1 HIV .‘ . . E’ch. 't s .u .V‘A gm. 5.! V § I U. V; — .~ 3. ...: - u h. s n U. A: Ah: NNM .AH .14 .A‘ Adv a ‘ \.« A: §\\ 113 western intellectuals. The leading Progressive historians wrote their histories in a sense as a protest against east- ern historians' writings which they believed either neglected or abused the West. Being one of them. Barnes must have had the same feeling. Was not the neglect of Weld. a Westerner. an example of the biased treatment of the West by eastern historians? This feeling of common grievance for Weld and for the West no doubt caused Barnes to further identify himself with Weld. To fight for Weld's historical recognition was at the same time a reassertion of the West. So Barnes poured all his outrages at those whom he believed to be responsible for Weld's oblivion in history. According to Barnes. the only historical signi- ficance and function of the Garrisonians were to "sustain the legend that Garrison and the abolition cause were one." The publicists "ready to damn the antislavery cause with every epithet. gladly ratified their claims." By their repetition. the legend of Garrison's leadership was made "a part of our tradition."38 And the New England writers of abolition histories and biographies perpetuated this tradition. This is the process through which Garrison was made the leader of the antislavery movement. while the true leader. Weld. was delivered to oblivion. This was historic- al usurpation to Barnes. And he accepted the task of setting the record straight. 38 Barnes. The Antislavery Impulse. p. 175. “r: .ol‘ (I) n .- ny- U-‘Jat o o, in ..J t). ‘0 ‘c () ll) O f 114 Admiration for Weld and indignation over his neglect moved Barnes to right the wrongs history had done to Weld. This desire in turn determined his approach and interpreta- tion of the antislavery agitation. In fact the whole narration of the abolition movement is keyed to Weld's activities. Before Weld touched it everything was bad or failing. When Weld appeared. it marvellously changed from bad to good. from failure to success. Barnes began the antislavery cause in the Great Revivalism. of course. because of Weld's connection with it. All other revivals were bad. but that of Finney. Weld's inspiration. good. The Philadelphia convention was a fiasco because Weld declined to attend. and because it was dominated by Garrison. The Garrisonian and New York versions of immediatism produced dilemma and hostility. but that of the Lane rebels provided an escape. While all the first agents of American Anti- slavery Society achieved nothing but hostilities. the agency of Weld and the Seventy was a great success. abolitionizing whole communities. and saving the national society. In sharp contrast to the miserable failure of the pamphlet campaign conducted by American Antislavery Society. Weld's tracts were so successful that they "took the place of antislavery agents."39 When the loss of New England was threatened by Garrison. Weld and Stanton were called to save 39 Ibid.. p. 139. ‘. A $0 115 it. Needless to say. they succeeded. Despite the increas- ing sentiments for antislavery petitions. it was not efficiently organized. But after Weld was put in charge of directing the campaign. it was so effectively organized and ably directed that it made the antislavery movement "a true community movement.”O Sarah Grimke's bad platform style and her sister. Angelina's inexperience handicapped their effectiveness as antislavery lecturers: but after Weld's short coaching. they "began to attract more favor- able attention.” and Angelina became "an orator of con- siderable power.”n1 After the split of 18h0. Barnes con- temptuously dismissed all the old American Antislavery Society. the newly formed American and Foreign Antislavery Society and the Liberty party. This was natural because Weld was a foe of Garrison. refused to join the American and Foreign Antislavery Society because of Lewis Tappan's opposition to women's rights. and was opposed to independent political action. Then where was the antislavery impulse to turn? Barnes moved it to Washington because Weld went there to direct an antislavery lobby in Congress. Here again Weld worked a miracle. The antislavery Whigs in Congress had the determination to make slavery an issue in Congress. but they lacked information and advice. Weld not _II. . I _ . v. V; M ... A a - ”.01. "A. S. .... I . ‘ .n e a: A: v . .1 . . . . a. v . e“ e . .w. ,n a” m 3 S ' . 2. .2 T . n“ a” .. . C ... . . .C n. .4 . ._ . 0. ... «J 0. .Q «J Y. ... .... o. r. ,«a p: A. ... n. . 116 only provided them with what they needed but also supplied them with inspiration. sustained their fighting. and directed their strategy. He finally succeeded in opening Congress to antislavery agitation. Then in 1844. Weld retired into private life. In spite of a lot of agitation still to be done. Barnes abruptly ended his story with the bowing out of the antislavery movement of his hero. Then. from the beginning to the end. Barnes described the antislavery cause not in terms of the movement itself but in terms of Weld's connection with it. And in the description. Weld appeared not as a human being with both assets and liabilities but as a superman whose touch changed everything from bad to good. from doom to triumph. Barnes' bias for Weld was so one-sided that he never mentioned Weld's many queer habits like insisting on wear- ing shabby John Baptist attire. taking a cold water bath every day. the conviction that he was an agent of God. and his agents' failure to invade Indiana and Illinois.42 He even did not mention Finney's firm opposition to Weld's antislavery agitation. While he attacked Garrison's many vagaries and vituperative language. he said nothing about the interest in many other reforms and the abusive language of Charles Stuart. the friend. tutor. guardian of Weld. 1.2 McLaughlin. "Introduction to the Harbinger Edition" of Barnes. The Antislavery Impulse. p. xxix. I .ao I .—. ... . .... I. a . o. ... .... .. w“ I :4. r. at} a c . v G. .3 r. v“ a: A.- ... at av r.” at o- :- 5. 3. Va. . . u. .3 .u .N .1 .- u.“ ... .- 117 Nor did he say anything about antislavery agitation before 1830. While historians generally agreed that after 18u0. most abolitionists either remained in the old national society or followed Birney into politics. Barnes considered the former retaining nothing but a name. the latter "the most pathetic residue of antislavery organization.“+3 But at the true center of the antislavery impulse in Washington. Barnes could count no more than a dozen antislavery congress- men.uu Barnes' enthusiasm for Weld was so great. his desire to restore Weld's historical significance so earnest that he even disregarded some historical facts. If his enthusiasm and desire was so strong that he even sacrificed some historical facts in order to uphold Weld. they must have been strong enough to overcome his dis- like of the abolition movement. If this is true. then his basic ambivalent attitude toward the movement can be satis- factorily explained. Sharing the distrust of moral agita- tion produced by the disillusionment with the First World War. he sometimes showed his dislike of the abolition move- ment when Weld's name was not mentioned. But this distrust was subdued by his great admiration for Weld and his desire to reestablish Weld's proper historical position. As a result. in his narration of events with which Weld had connections. nothing but praise for the man and his cause can be found. 43 Barnes. The Antislaveryglmpulse. p. 176. 44 Ibid.. pp. 181-182. ... V- 11.4 E a. A - U 5‘ s._ T\ 118 Despite this ambivalence. and despite all the short- comings resulting from the author's overriding enthusiasm for Weld and his desire to restore Weld's proper place in history. The Antislavery Impulse still constituted a mile- stone in abolition historiography. It is true that some early historians had already noticed some of Barnes' dis- coveries. For example. Albert B. Hart and Jesse Macy stressed the western center of abolition movement. Hart al- so mentioned Weld and the Lane rebels.”5 Theodore C. Smith claimed that the abolition movement in Ohio owed more to Weld's agitation than to any other factor.“6 Karl F. Geiser not only recognized the importance of the Lane episode in the development of antislavery movement in Ohio. the con- nection of Arthur Tappan with the Lane rebels. and the joining of the seceding students to Oberline College but a1- so pointed out that Weld "later became prominent in the antislavery movement."u7 Eugene P. Southall stressed the financial support Arthur Tappan gave to the antislavery crusade. He also found that Weld was the leader of the Lane 1+5 See Chapter I. #6 Theodore C. Smith. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest (New York. 18977. ’47 Karl F. Geiser. "The Western Reserve in the Anti- Slavery Movement." Proceedings of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association. V (1911-1912). 82. 2.. .. . ~ . +u A. .. . C. v: . I . . a. t» a. ... a” .3 3 .1 k. A u ..h a: 72 a. no. a. 4 . . .... .n .. .-1 ... ... “u .1 .~ . o. A in a: r.. ... we .. ~ A.» AU “4‘ 2 . .. . .1 2. . l v” . . . . n . st .W 4.. a. . S .2 3 119 rebels.“8 Caroline C. Shanks said that Weld. whose Th; Bible Against Slavery was "one of the most popular" biblical arguments against slavery. was "already known as an eloquent abolitionist orator."49 However. none of them saw the real significance of Weld. Indeed. Geiser and Hart mistook Weld as a follower of Garrison. Nor did they recog- nize the close relation between Weld and Tappan. or where the inspiration of the antislavery impulse of Weld and Tappan came. It is Barnes who first put together Finney's revivalism. Weld's talents and Tappan's money to constitute the pivotal force of the entire abolition movement. Armed with modern techniques of research. supported by evidence drawn from hitherto unused material. Barnes presented his findings in a brand new interpretation with such solid scholarship that The Antislavegy Impulse really marked a solid contribution to abolition historiography. There is no doubt that Barnes' study has influenced subsequent abolition historians. The revivalist origin of the crusade. the British influence. the leadership of Weld. and the western center became fairly established and generally accepted by historians. They may not have shared his attitude toward the abolitionists. but the majority of them accepted most of his assertions. Although the 48 Eugene P. Southall. ”Arthur Tappan and the Antislavery Movement." Journal of Negro History. XV (April.1930) 162-179. “9 Caroline L. Shanks. ”The Biblical Antislavery Argument of the Decade 1830-1840." Jgurnal of Negro Histony. XVI (April. 1931). 135. (“7‘ Cu. '1‘. r ~V v; '9 ’Ahy U‘ c "-v. '~ :i J" L . A AV- it .‘V 120 revisionist historians attacked all the abolitionists. they generally followed his interpretation. Nor did those who defended the abolitionists question his basic ideas. Some even further explored one or the other of his suggestions. For example. Frank Thestlethwaite and Thomas F. Harwood both emphasized the influence of England on the American abolition movement.5O However. this is not to say that every later historian agreed with Barnes on all points. There were some who tried to modify his interpretation on some points. Others challenged him. For example. Elaine Brooks and Roman J. Zorn reasserted the pioneering labor of New England aboli- tion agitation and the pre-eminence of Garrison. while David Brion Davis claimed that the doctrine of immediatism emerged simultaneously in British and American antislavery thought.51 In fact. most subsequent major historians of the abolition movement differed from Barnes on one point or another.52 50 Frank Thestlethwaite. The Anglo-American Connection in the EarlygNinetggnth Centggy (PhiladelphiaT—l959): and Thomas F. Harwood. ”British Evangelical Abolitionism and American Churches in the 1830's.“ Journal of Southern Histogy XXVIII (1962). 287-306. 51 Elaine Brooks. "Massachusetts Antislavery Society." Journal of Negro History. XXX (July. 1945). 311-330: Roman J. Zorn. "The New England Anti-Slavery Society: Pioneer Abolition Organization.” ibid.. XLII (July. 1957), 157-176: David Brion Davis. ”The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought." Mississippi Valley Historical Review. XLIX (September. 1962). 209-230. 52 See following chapters. ..u :u 0'. my A. «F. .0. . PH qr ...“- Av ... «e. at .5 a ~\.~ 121 Yet no one could really completely disregard or repudiate all his basic opinions. Then. it may be concluded that designed to prove the possibility of a religious revival to produce an important social movement. Barnes' study restored the significance of the antislavery crusade as a moral issue in the sectional conflict. which had been drastically minimized or neglected by the Progressive historians. Influenced by the debunking spirit of his time. he looked askance at the abolitionists and their cause. But his personal fascination with Weld prevented him from making a total denunciation. The result was not only his ambivalent attitude but also an interpre- tation which oversimplified the entire abolition movement. Still. The Antislavery Impulsg was the first truly scholarly study of the organized antislavery crusade with some signi- ficant discoveries. Being such. it deserves to be regarded as one of the most important contributions to the under- standing of the abolition movement. CHAPTER IV IRRESPONSIBLE PROPAGANDISTS - THE REVISIONIST VIEW - It is well known that the revisionist interpretation of the Civil War. which reached its height of popularity during the decade from about the mid-thirties to about the mid-forties. was a revolt against both the nationalist and progressive interpretations. What is less emphasized is that it also represented a revision of the views of the latter two groups of historians about the abolition move- ment. While they were not quite clear on the question of the connection between the abolition agitation and the com- ing of the Civil War. the nationalist historians were in general favorable to the moderate and practical aspect of the abolition movement. It is true that the Progressive historians treated the abolitionists as a negligible minor- ity. But they did not indict them as warmongers because the abolition crusaders. they claimed. had little influence on the sectional conflict. To the revisionist historians.l 1 Thomas J. Pressly in Americans Interpret Their Civil War (New York. 1954). pp. 273-287. classified some of the historians. like Charles W. Ramsdell. Arthur Young Lloyd. and Henry H. Simms. discussed in this chapter as new 122 123 the contrary was true. Along with other agitators and politicians of "the blundering generation." the revisionist historians held the abolitionists guilty of bringing about the great American tragedy - the needless Civil War. In this respect. they were also different from Gilbert H. Barnes who was favorable at least to the Weldian abolition- ists. In the hands of the revisionists. however. there was no such distinction. All the abolitionists. whether Weldians or Garrisonians. were condemned as irresponsible extremists or fanatics. who. by constant propaganda. aroused the emotions of an otherwise peaceable people over dis- torted or unreal issues. and thus plunged the nation into a bloody war. With the advent of revisionism. therefore. the abolitionists met the most harsh treatment by historians. Revisionism of the Civil War was largely the product of the widespread disillusionment with the First World War. The close relation between the two is clearly indicated by James G. Randall. In 1940. he wrote: Just as Americans beginning about 1935 executed something like an about-face in their interpre- tation of the World War . . . so the retelling of the Civil War is a matter of changed and changing viewpoints. In the present troubled age. it may be of more than academic interest to reexamine the human beings of that war generation with less thought of the 'splendor of vindicators of the South. But so far as their backgrounds. attitude toward the South. and interpretation of the aboli- tion movement are concerned. there is not much difference between them and the leading revisionists. James G. Randall ind Avery Craven. So. no distinction between them is made ere. . r .-.~.-; 0‘. o..- ‘1.»- ‘- ‘5 c.~ NH“ «.4. I? J. t "P P“ \: 124 battle flags' and with more of the sophisti- cated and unsentimental searchlight of reality.2 In 1917. Americans went to war with the purpose to make the world safe for democracy. but only were to be shocked out of their high ideals by the results of the Peace in Paris. A general disillusionment ensued. Considering the British propaganda before the American entrance to en- list this country's help. and the heavy war propaganda con- ducted by George Creel's Committee on Public Information during the war. the disillusionment certainly put a heaty discount on the romantic notion of war. moral absolutes. abstract principles.emotions. and propaganda. It is no wonder that repudiation of absolutes and abstract principles became the central theme of the writings of the so-called "Lost Generation” writers and intellectuals like H.L. Mencken: and that economic determinism which minimized the role of morals in history and pragmatism which proposed to define values of ideas or institutions in terms of their practical utility in helping people to solve problems en- joyed a new popularity. The nature of all wars also came into question. To the generation of Theodore Roosevelt. war might be a heroic thing: but to the disillusioned post- war Americans. war meant nothing but waste. brutality. 2 James G. Randall. "The Blundering Generation." Missgssippi_Valley Historical Review. XXVII (June. 1940). 27-2 . A‘ U r w... J v 1'“ he 125 suffering. and futility. This disgust for war turned into a determination to keep this country from being dragged in- to another major killing. which. when the world was again threatened by a second global war. was hardened into the Neutrality Acts of 1935-1937. As for the widespread distrust of emotion-arousing propaganda. it was best exemplified by the investigation and report of the famous Nye Committee. This Committee charged that the United States was manipulated into the First World War by some devils. mainly the munition makers. the Wall Street bankers. and British agents. who aroused the emotions of the American people by propaganda and agitation on some lofty ideals. This interpretation of war causation in terms of irrational drives was made more convincing by psychology which began to have considerable impact on the way American intellectuals conceived human nature just before the great war. Psychology does not deny the notion of rational man. It. however. does seek to ex- plain human behavior by the subconscious or unconscious elements in men. and suggest the possibility of controlling human behavior by appealing to those elements. In fact. war propaganda during the war. and the theory of advertise- ment developed in the post-war years relied heavily on psychological principles. Not all Americans believed in psychology: but to many intellectuals psychological theories ”offered a way of interpreting . . . the senseless. by‘n'fl. A :S t. at v H U C war t tile 5 of propa :1 y! ..Ja h “‘V‘. y . sa‘ at h:: 0“ 126 destructive behavior that had seemed so large a part of life since 1914."3 Psychology. thus. gave the irrational theory of war causation a scientific respectability. Disillusioned with the First World War just as others were. the revisionist historians also shared the general suspicion of moralism. distrust of emotion and propaganda. and disgust for war. Both Randall and Avery Craven denounced reforming zeal and reformers. To Randall. the zeal for salvation. when "unrelieved by wisdom. toleration. tact. and the sense of human values." became "at its worst a means of self-promotion: it became at times an instrument of propaganda for collateral and unrelated causes that utilized it: and it remained an agent of destruction and disturbance. more than a force for genuine social improve- ment.”u Craven wondered "if the development of history might not have been more sound" without the extreme reformer. Anyway. he was sure that "mere desire to do'right' is no defense at the bar of history."5 Such remarks showed their suspicion of abstract moralism. The same attitude of other 3 Roderick Nash. The Neryous Generation: Americgn .Eflought 1917-1939 (Chicago. 1970): pp. 45-55. The quotation is taken from p. 55. A 'James G. Randall. Civil War and Reconstruction (New York. 1937). pp. 147-148. 5 Avery Craven. The Coming of the Civil War (New York. 1942). p. 117. and 118. 7‘, fl '7‘“ .Y‘Ououuc Ul- c flv 127 revisionist historians can be seen from their denunciation <1f the abolitionists as extremists or fanatics. Their distrust of emotions and propaganda was as ‘pzrcynounced as their suspicion of unbridled moral zeal. As ezagr‘ly as 1921. an obscure historian. Mary Scrugham. already singled out emotion as a leading factor for the coming of the Civil War.6 F.H. Hodder who did much to revise the traditional interpretations of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and TilfiLtsa decision of the Dred Scott case. expressed his deep C=<=>irfzcern over the extent to which propaganda had been ‘3—<:= <::epted as sources of historical evidence. and talked Et‘t:><:>ut "the poison gas of propaganda."7 Concluding his sur- "-EE=:§I of new trends in Civil War historiography. Charles W. I‘LZEi;rnsdell declared that ”to attack our present problems ‘“"5L.‘t .1ess of emotion and more of reason than we frequently a iSplay. . . should be [italics hi_s_7 one of the lessons of l"_“-5'|—-sstory."8 Craven thought that "we have begun to realize “' lrlzat it costa a people to permit emotion to rule. . . ."9 6 The Peacable Americans of 1860-1861: A Study of -..1ggp;1c Opinion (New York. 1921). See also Pressly. <§§E£11ericans Inteppret Their Civil Warl pp. 291-295. 7 I~ - F.H. Hodder. "Propaganda as a Source of American :ifi1.story.” Mississippi Vallgy Historical Review. IX (June. 922) 3-18. The quotation is taken from p. 18. 8 (:> Charles W. Ramsdell. "The Changing Interpretation If? the Civil War." Journal of Southern History. III (l937).27. 9 ‘t: Avery Craven. "The Repressible Conflict." in An His- ?35§E2rian and the Civil War. p. 63. This is a reprint from Craven. \h\ e Rppressible Conflict (Baton Rouge. Louisiana. 1939). pp.63—97. - . .. . f ., q a C. ...v n... 1. V. a . r. a: A: a Van . . . a a S. a c. p . o .. .. My . 3A1. . . N .0... Av ~ 4 . PV Adv “s 'K x h v ‘1‘ a 128 Not only this. They also used psychological terms in their writings about the Civil War. Scrugham attempted sometimes . . 10 tc> employ "psycholog1cal explanations' of events: Ramsdell mueritioned "war psychosis":ll Henry H. Simms believed "gassychological" as well as other factors were involved "in tzhiee spirited slavery controversy of this emotional decade" 12 (>1?’ 1851-1861: and Craven suggested that if living today. C}zaL3:rrison should consult a psychiatrist. and talked about nac3v get the impression that they considered emotion and propaganda to be very bad. The revisionists also shared the general disgust for war following the disillusionment with the First World War.” 1351;1‘t the most outspoken critic of war among the revi51on1st 10 293. Pressly. Americans Interpret Their Civil Warl p. ll Ramsdell. "The Changing Interpretation of the C3:14\ril War." Journal of Southern Historyl III (1937).4 . 12 J-EB. Henry H. Simms. A Decade of Sectional Controversy. -~__;§1.-l861 (Chapel Hill. North Carolina. 1942). p. viii. 13 Avery Craven. "Coming of the War Between the States: gnu Interpretation.“ originally published in Journal of ‘EE§ELQ_phern History. II (1936). 1-20. reprinted in Craven. An torian and the Civil War (Chicago. 1964). p. 36: and C\l.§ I3‘Ea.ven. The Coming of the Civil_Wari p. 117. 14 309. Pressly. Americans Ipterpret Their Civil War. p. :- .. no ‘VUVU .rh * ,1. 'to‘ I no (I) ‘: "NR ‘ WW. 4 "’Y‘n ¢. 1 a ‘Vv. a. o...‘” Q‘.“i w a t I V I 129 historians was Randall. "For the very word 'war'." he thought. "the realist would have to substitute some such wwyrd as 'organized murder' or 'human slaughterhouse.‘" He enavv in war only "its blood and filth. . . multilated flesh. arici other revolting things.” He criticized most historical accounts of war because in them "the war is offstage in 'tIQEEl‘t its stench and hideousness do not appear."15 Although (Izézaanen was not as outspoken on the horrible nature of war £153 IRandall. he agreed that war was unjustifiable. "Those urt1<2> force the settlement of human problems by war." he wa:‘<:> ‘te. ”can expect only an unsympathetic hearing from the fPL1‘1::IJre." Out of all these suspicions. distrust and disgust 62‘sr1:>»:1ved a theory of war causation which stressed irrational sza.<::'tors. This is most clearly set forth by Randall. On One occasion. he wrote: War-making is too much dignified if it is told in terms of broad national urges. . . when nations stumble into war. or when peoples rub their eyes and find they have been dragged into war. there is at some point a psychopathic case. Omit the element of abnormality. of bogus leader- ship. or inordinate ambition for conquest. and diagnosis fails. In the modern scene it fails also if one omits manipulation. dummies. bogeys. false fronts. Provocative agents. fifth columns. make-up incidents. frustration of elemental ‘fEiEL Randall. "The Blundering Generation," Mississippi “-——$L4§y Historical Review. XXVII (June. 1940). 7. l6 Craven. The Coming of the Civil War, p. 118. - _t...—. L {-1 L a. :n China: VV:.". 3 (t: Dfinv. ‘Vwio. I Pro. 'v '. .- A.. \ K I. f (I) L_l 130 impulses. negation of culture. propaganda that is false in intent. criminal usurpation, and terrorist violence. And again: There are writers who would have us believe that fundamental motives produced war . . . but a study of modern warmaking reveals that such an idea is a fallacy. In contrast to the normal and basically valid demand for peace. the desire for war. or the whipping up of hostile feeling by those who begig a war. is artificial. unnatural. and abnormal. Obviously. Randall believed that peace is the normal condition of living. Assuming peoples' desire for peace. 1162 just could not understand why people went to war over eac::c3nomic. or social. or cultural. or racial. or national rn&:>‘1:ives. War is not the result of peoples' rational choice. JZ-t: comes because they - the people - were manipulated. duped. or led into it by their irresponsible leaders who islclcnught war could best serve their purposes - or no purpose 21ft: £111. In other words. war comes only because people are enTtD‘tionally aroused and blinded by prOpaganda and agitation. 331741.53 theory of war causation is exactly the one which the di 8 illusioned Americans between the two world wars used to eJCIDJLain the American entrance into the First World War. Cc>rlEsidering this striking similarity. revisionism in the (3" - . . . 1“”’:11 War h1stor1ography was really a part of that debunking \ 17 Randall. "The Blundering Generation, " Mississippi ‘y‘§-~.‘;;_y Historical Review. XXVII (June. 1940). ll. 18 JL Randall. Lincoln The Liberal Statesman (New York. 9(#7). p. 88. 11 : ‘ a-‘ A \ \J '4 ma C o m: A. V H I'M-51“ 50.1.1.4 ‘wa ~ “Q.“ 1311 Ana 131 mood set off by the disillusionment with the First World War. When approaching the Civil War with such a dis- illusioned view of war and such an assumption of war causation. the revisionist historians. understandably. could not consider it as anything but a great national tragedy. To them. the Civil War was tragic not only be- cause it involved a great deal of killing and destruction but also because it was needless. Instead of solving old problems. the Civil War created a lot of new difficulties which have plagued the nation ever since. But the revisionist historians considered the war he edless in another. perhaps more important. sense. They be :Lieved that the Civil War could have been avoided. All the revisionists readily admitted that real differences did exi st between the North and South. In this respect. they were influenced by the Progressive historians. What differ- er1‘l3:i_ates the revisionist from the Progressive historian is the former's insistence that these sectional differences themselves did not make war inevitable. Given time. pat i ence. moderation. and understanding. they claimed. 1: he Se differences could have been peaceably adjusted through c on“promise. What made peaceable adjustment impossible and w ab unavoidable was the propaganda and indoctrination of ‘t he extremists on both sides. which turned normal differ- eh Q es of conditions into a conflict of sacred principles conv1ctions. and whipped up the emotions of whole sect1ons ‘1' no. at} l“ Fl—\ 5. 9t .4 A: .. o «J. A y-n and C. my"- ‘0. Co é. v are q s Vs A: nkv "A: “V: .. ‘5‘! in" v \ r \ 4“- u h, 132 to the point of hysteria which could be released only by .actual bloodshed. So. all the blame was put on the heads of the extremists. But who were these extremists? In answering this , question. the revisionists had no difficulty. The extrem- ists were abolition agitators and politicians in the North. and "fire-eaters" in the South. Though professing to criticize all extremists on both sides. the revisionists reserved their most bitter denunciation for the northern extremists. They were charged with wiping out antislavery sentiment in the South. arousing southern sectional con- sc: iousness. being insensitive to the South's racial dilemma. and finally forcing a needless war upon a peace-loving people. Applying the "devil theory" of war causation to the Civil War. the revisionist historians singled out the abolitionists and their political brethren as whipping- boys for all their suspicion. distrust. disgust. and anger growing out of the disillusionment with the First World War. There was another factor worked on the revisionist his “torians to treat the abolitionists harshly. This is the ing treasing conflict of opinion over the status of Negroes i . . . n ‘the South. With the opening of this century. Negroes g.J:‘a-<1ually became discontented with their lot and protested. T he Niagara Movement. Carter G. Woodson's Association for t 11% Study of Negro Life and History which later launched 1: b S Journal of Negro History. the Negro exodus from the S Q 11th just after the First World War. the Harlem Renaissance. 133 and Marcus Garvey's "back to Africa" movement all indicated in one way or another the awakening. unrest. and protest of the Negroes. At the same time. some liberal-minded white Northerners became interested in the Negro fight for equal- ity and better living conditions. Humanitarian sympathy. disgust for the lawlessness and lynching of the Klu Klux Klan. the upsurge of liberalism in the New Deal era. and the struggle between Nazism and Democracy might all contri- bute something to this change of opinion. The important thing is that the champions for the Negro cause necessarily criticized the South's racism and injustice in treating the Negroes as second-class citizens. This in turn provoked the To many Southerners. this was another crusade against South. t h e South. However. the first for Negro civil rights was an uphill struggle for racism was still strong throughout the thirties. During the First World War. the use of intelli- gence tests in the army strengthened already existing racial bias. In addition. many eminent scientists in various fi e lds were generally convinced that races vary greatly in J.‘1’11'1ate intelligence and temperament. Depicting the Negroes as an inferior race. such pseudo-scientific theories only be enforced the popularly held bias against the Negro. Ra~Qial discrimination remained unchallenged. The Ku Klux Klan once again swept over the entire country and did not bg gin to decline until 1930. The racial bias against the N Q gro was in fact so strong that even President A. Lawrence ... 134 Lowell of Harvard tried to establish a ban on Negro stu- dents' living in freshmen dormitories in the early 1920's.19 Such prevalence of racial bias must have caused many Americans indifferent. or even actively hostile to the Negro problem. It also made it easier for some historians to denounce the meddling of southern affairs by both the Negro civil rights advocates and the abolitionists. It is in thisatmosphere of new sectional tension that the revisionist historians produced their works on the Civil War. Most of the revisionists either were born in the South or had resided there for some time.20 As might be expected. they showed pro-southern and pro-slavery attitudes in their writings. Although it can not be said that all of them studied the Civil War history with an in- tension to vindicate the South against the attack of the Negro Civil rights advocates. the indignation is quite clear in at least one of the revisionist studies. "The entire galaxy of mob riots. killings. lynchings. burnings. and other atrocities published in 'Southern Outrages' by the abolitionist press." declared Arthur Young Lloyd. "can be cornIiared only . . . to the more recent crusade of certain I‘J ob‘thern elements to turn attention to the alleged political \\ _— 19 Am Thomas F. Gossett. Race: The History of An Idea in W (Dallas. Texas. 1963). pp. 372-373. 20 Ve Ramsdell was born in Texas. and taught at the Uni- ihbsity of Texas: Craven born in North Carolina: Simms born Virginia. Lloyd was a southern historian. But Randall WE S born in Indiana. Hi 1 "J- 'v ‘ 1 "' r U“: 135 and judicial discriminations against the Negro in the South.” Other revisionists were not so outspoken, but the resentment against "the recent crusade of certain Northern elements" must have been a subtle influence on their favorable atti- tude toward the South and slavery. In defending the South and slavery. the prevailing racial bias facilitated their work. In fact there are many remarks in their writings which indicate. if not their racial bias. at least their low opinion of the African. Perhaps few of them went so far as Lloyd whose racial preju- di ce was only thinly veiled. He talked about the "improvi- dence and criminality of freed blacks:" and asserted that “' the blacks thrived under a climate that caused the whites sicken and die" in the rice swamps of the Carolinas and to Georgia. In criticizing what he called "philosophical abOlitionists" like William Ellery Charming. he charged that "their theories were based upon the rights of all moral beings without regard for mental or physical dis- pa~I‘ities of the individuals: nor did they take into consider- ation the difference in the scale of civilization between 1: . . he African and the Caucas1an." He thought economically. t . . . he only ch01ce of the southern whites “lay between disciplined s le-Ves and the menace of uncontrollable. barbarous free blacks." \ 21 18 Arthur Young Lloyd. The Slavery Controver§yJ 1831- \60_ (Chapel Hill. North Carolina. 1939). p. 76. 22 Ibid.. p. 54, 17, 60 and 224. A HV‘Q ‘IJ ‘r U». (I) L”) ( ) y. o‘. C) D o, . -"|A ““9 :~.-. “4 lg. I 136 Others were not as racist as Lloyd, but contempt for the Negros' race or culture was not absent either. In con- sidering the difficulties of emancipation, Ramsdell posed a series of questions which indicated his view of the Negro. One of the difficulties of emancipation, he declared, was the question of what to do with the freed Negro. "Could he take care of himself without becoming a public charge and a social danger? . . . Should he not then remain under some form of control both in his own interest andin the interest of the larger social order?"23 Simms deplored that the abolitionists did not take into consideration the fact that some of the slaves in the early thirties were "natives of Africa," and that many were not very far removed from that "unfortunate condition which was theirs in Africa."2u Craven was in agreement with Ramsdell and Simms. In one place he declared that the Negro "should be thought of, first, only as a different racial element in this society, 21 human being of another color and with another cultural Emackground." While this statement might sound neutral. Ilis assertions elsewhere implied that black color and African culture meant racial and cultural inferiority. \ 23 Ramsdell. “The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," ..isssissippi Valley Historical ReviewI XVI (Sept., 1929). 24 Simms, "A Critical Analysis of Abolition Literature, 1i33O-18h0.” Journal of Southern History, VI (l9u0), 370. 137 Accustomed to slavery in his native land, Craven insisted, the Negro "brought directly from Africa was quite unfitted for the liberal nature of indenture. Savage that he was, he needed a longer period for adjustment and for the ac— quiring of skills; he reached a fitness for freedom much more slowly than the white European." The Negro needed slavery "for his own best welfare." On the other hand, slavery offered a system to protect social security because the slaveholder took over most of the functions of local government for controlling "the lowest and hence the most 25 troublesome, element in the population." Randall con- curred. He believed slavery lifted the Negro "above the level of savage life” he lived in Africa: and stated that in contrast to other races, "the Negro adapted himself to bondage with a minimum of resistance. doing cheerfully the manual work of the South and loyally serving those who held them in chains."26 Then, in one way or another, the revisionist his- torians expressed their contempt for the African's racial (Jr cultural background. Whether such expressions indicate 13hat they were also twentieth-century racists is hard to say. 3311t the significant point here is that their opinion found Sulpport in the prevailing racial bias, and made easier \ 25 Craven, The Coming of the Civil War, p. 36, 71, 81"82. _— 26 Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p. 48. 138 their work of defending the South and slavery and of attack- ing the abolition crusaders. The influence of the current climate of opinion during the nineteen-twenties and the following decade on the approach of the revisionist historians to the Civil War is, then, beyond question. All the sentiments produced by the disillusionment with the First World War and the new dispute over the Negro problem found their way into the revisionist studies. There is much truth in John S. Rosenberg's comment that the revisionists' interpretation of the Civil War was "written by a generation whose outlook was heavily influenced by the war of 1917 and its aftermath and which was largely indifferent to the problems of American Negroes."27 Both of the trends worked in differ- ent ways to the disadvantage of the abolitionists. Although the revisionist interpretation did not come to maturity until Randall and Craven began to publish their ‘works on the Civil War in the late thirties, signs of <3hange in the interpretation of the Civil War and the abolition movement already appeared in the writings of lklbert J. Beveridge and Ramsdell. Beveridge was born to a LTl’lion soldier in Indiana where abolition was glorified. In FHDlitiCS he was a waver of "the bloody shirt." Yet his dwenunciation of the abolitionists was unreserved. The 27 , John S. Rosenberg, "Toward a New Civil War Revision- 15Nn." The American Scholar, XXXVIII (Spring, 1969). 250. 139 pleatztsible explanation seemed to be his strong racial bias anci ciislike of moralism. In this respect, he was in agree- mezuft: \Nith the revisionists, though in background he differed frc>111 ‘them in that he seemed to have no connection with the SOIl'tZI1.. This fact may suggest that the revisionist inter- prea't:£a:tion was influenced more by the climate of opinion of the; age than by the background of individual historians. Whatever might be thereason, Beveridge's hostility to ‘t: he abolitionists was clear and strong. Calling them "tklea: abolition propagandists,"28 he regarded the abolition- 181253 as the typical products of "a sin-hunting age, a period 05' 1:’i.gid moral formulas when absolutist of right and wrong 1ssued decrees with uncompromising intolerance." He agreed ‘Ni:t:k1 Calhoun that abolitionism "originated in that blind, fkirlziftical seal which made one man believe that he was res- p0risible for the sins of others." Believing that they were 17r1€3 chosen interpreters and guardians“ of God's ordinances, tr1€3 abolitionists lashed out at both the sin of slavery and t he South.29 "Well calculated to terrify and madden the S (>‘thhern people,” the ”inflammatory” abolition propaganda C1li‘ove Southern men to something like frenzy."3 Sensing the danger of the abolition attack to all that they valued. \ 28 ( Albert J. Beveridge, Abraham Ligcoln, 1809-1858 :3 ‘Vols, Cambridge, Mass., 1928), II, 22. 29 Ibid., II, 30 1311., I, 188. 20, and 21. 140 the southern people were united and determined to preserve the ir constitutional rights and the old order by secession if :rlecessary.31 So, "the seeds of War" were sown. "Had it ru>13 't>een for what they‘ZThe Abolitionist§7 said and did and the fear and the anger they aroused," according to Beveridge, "it is not altogether impossible that there would been no war and that slavery would in time have given 32 ha‘vnee wasr ‘130 the pressure of economic forces." The last assertion anticipated Ramsdell's opinion In 1929, Ramsdell argued that by 1860 slavery Given a little by a year. had reached its natural and economic limits. time , perhaps a generation or less, it would have died of a natural death. But, unfortunately, in their "excited state 0f mind," the northern antislavery men "could not see the facts clearly," They,together with their counterparts in politics, and southern agitators, "backed by excited con- Stituents, threw fuel to the flames of sectional antagonism until the country blazed into a Civil War that was the greatest tragedy of the nation."33 To be sure, Ramsdell But even so, it mel'l‘tioned the abolitionists only casually. can be seen that his criticism of the abolitionists is \ _~ 31 Ibid.. 11! 59-700 33 Ramsdell, "The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," EELseiesipgi Valley Historical Review, XVI (Sept., 1929). he quotations are taken from p. 162, and 163. 141 almost the same as Beveridge's. The only difference is that while Beveridge accused the abolitionists ofbringing about the war by moral agitation, Ramsdell criticized them for agitating over a dying institution. Both accusations found their way into the writings of Randall and Craven. However, Ramsdell's "natural limits“ argument seemed more impo rtant to the revisionists because it provided one of the ways to challenge effectively the centrality of slavery the sectional conflict. in Following the direction pointed by Beveridge and Ramsdell, Craven and Randall, the best-known revisionists, pres ented an interpretation of the abolition movement not IATV-Lilte that of Beveridge or Ramsdell in their main points exc€313t that Craven, contrary to other revisionists, used 80me‘thing very like social psychology to explain the moti- vation of the abolitionists. Craven followed the Progressive historians in sur- He recog- Vey ing the ante-bellum situation of the nation. n1 Zed four major sections, the Northeast. Old South, North- West. and Southwest, each with its own particular social, But all these were economic, and political conditions. "no rmal differences," differences which by themselves could heVer make war inevitable. Even slavery was not important in the sectional differences because ”it was not the dis- tinguishing feature of the South: nor was it the thing l-F ! ..L‘ a; q, as,» Mr V U“- 0,... H.5' Fc ‘ n a . 1.. AN~ ". rd FL. n/h I. q .11 142 ..34 vhi ch gave the region a sectional flavor. Not only ;lavery "played a rather minor part in the life of the oath and of the Negro."35 36 It was also ”a faltering and ecadent labor system." By describing slavery as a dying, ”15.171330rtant institution in southern life, Craven minimized '16; ssignificance of slavery in the sectional conflict. With sectional differences made compatible and -airxareary's importance discounted, Craven naturally found no trlii.‘ted North", no "self-conscious South". No conditions 1c3. ‘the abolition crusade" and spread that crusade throughout thee 'whole Northwest.Q9 By making the abolition agitation idearltical with religion, and by denouncing slavery as a sin, ant:i.slavery evangelists added ”religious indignation to the coni‘lict.”SO The western abolition, however, had a hard- heel€ied, practical aspect absent in the New England branch. Thi? leaders of the western group "believed in action as well as Elgfitationz" and in the western way of thinking, action meant political action. Therefore, in spite of the use of (”IU113 meeting procedure in spreading the gospel of abolition, '%1C=1bion against slavery followed political precedent."51 \ 47 Ibid., p. 138. 50 a Craven, "The Repressible Conflict," in An Historian ~IH§_;§he_givil War, p. 54. 51 Craven, The Coming of the Civil War, p. 140. 148 They started the petition campaign and the Washington lobby to force the slavery question into politics, and kept it before the public by broadening it into a fight for civil liberties. Then, Birney took the next step by launch- ing the Liberty Party. Abolition was thus hopelessly tangled with politics, and prepared the way for the triumph of a "political party, purely sectional and openly hostile on moral grounds to the institution of another section."52 Although Craven admitted the difference between the Garrisonians and Weldians in their agitation against slavery, he indiscriminatingly accused all of them of creating out of an institution which ”may have been almost ready to break down of its own weight" an imagined slavery with "all the ills possible in its theory."53 All this was done by propaganda and indoctrination the techniques of which "reached new efficiency" in the hands of the abolitionists. With consummate skill and lasting effects, they used every agency possible to attack slavery and to discredit slave- holders. They argued and reasoned; but where argument and reasoning failed, "the abolitionists tried entertainment and . 55 appeal to emotion." Using such agencies and methods, the abolitionists finally succeeded in picturing the slaveholder 52 Craven, "Coming of the War Between the States: An Interpretation," in An Historian and the Civil War; p. 36. 53 Craven, The Coming_of the Civil Wari_p. 118. 54 55 Ibid.. p. 1&2. Ibid., p. 1&5. 149 as "the arch-aristocrat, the great enemy of democracy," and ”the flagrant sinner".56 In short, the slaveholder was made the symbol of all that the northern reformers hated and resented and feared. Thus, ”a handful of deadly-in-earnest men and women slowly built into a section's consciousness the belief in a Slave Power."57 The guilt of the abolitionists did not stop here, however. Their relentless attack killed the antislavery sentiments in the South, and drove Southerners to self defense. "Gradually the South became conscious and bitter."58 "A half-apologetic defense of slavery as a necessary evil" was turned into "an aggressive glorification of a way of life."59 The South began to meet unreasonableness with unreasonable- ness. Then the Civil War became inevitable. . Craven never said that the abolitionists were the only ones who were responsible for the coming of the Civil War. Politicians and editors, both North and South, were also guilty of making the war unavoidable. But his discus- sion of the abolition movement clearly shows that he regarded the abolitionists as the primary makers of the 58 Craven, "The Repressible Conflict," in An Historian and the Civil War, p. 58. 59 Ibid.. p. 590 m .. 150 Civil War. The South became bitter and resentful only after enduring the abolitionist attack and abuses so long. And even by then, its position was defensive rather than aggressive. His sympathy was undoubtedly on the side of the South. Despite his anger at the charge of being pro- South and his professed impartiality, he considered the Civil War as caused by "the North's Mistake."60 As a major part of that mistake, the abolitionists could only eXpect harsh treatment from Craven. The same is true in the case of Randall. So far as the cause of the Civil War, and the role the abolitionists played in bringing about the final conflict are concerned, Randall agreed with Craven on the basic points. But they differed considerably in details in their descriptions of the abolition movement. Like Craven, Randall conceded that sections and sectional differences did exist before the Civil War. Also like Craven, he insisted that sectional differences themselves did not work toward irrepressible conflict. "Differences between North and South - e.g. industrial interests in one region and agricultural in an- other - were by no means inconsistent with a diversified 60 For his denial of having a ”pro-southern” attitude and his stress on impartiality, see Craven, The Coming of the Civil WarI p. viii. It is said that the title of $23 Coming_of the Civil War in the manuscript was "The North's Mistake“. See Bernard DeVoto, "The Easy Chair", Harper's iagazine, Vol. 192 (Jan.-June, 1946), p. 12h. 151 and well rounded nation."61 He seemed to have the opinion that economic diversification encouraged interdependence rather than antagonism. As for the slavery question, Randall, like Craven, also reduced its importance. How- ever, he did this in a different way. While Craven dis- counted the importance of slavery in southern life, Randall lessened its significance as a sectional issue. He pointed out that the principal dispute over slavery really con- cerned only "two points, the fugitive slave question and slavery in the territories,"62 and that the actual number involved in both cases were too insignificant -Randall cited the census of 1860 to show that runaway slaves numbered only 803, while there were only two slaves in Kansas, fifteen in Nebraska - to lead the sections to war.63 Not only was the number of slaves in the territories negligible, but also slavery could not expand farther. The dispute over the question of slavery in the territories was consequently unnecessary. "Northerners forgot the legislative action concerning slavery exclusion in the territories was un- necessary; Southerners overlooked the fact that laws to 61 Randall, Lincoln the President (2 vols., New York, 1945). I. 78- 63 Ibid.. PP- 239-2h0. But in the Civil War and Regonstruction he talked about slavery in territories as the only disputed point, p. 111, and 11a. 152 stimulate slavery in such territories as then existed, would be unavailing because of geographical and economic factors.”6u He had obviously in mind Ramsdell's ”natural limits" argument. Whatever might be the reasons he offered, slavery in reality was no casus belli to Randall. Yet both economic sectionalism and slavery were dragged into the sectional conflict because they constituted "materia" upon 65 which "certain groups of politicians and agitators" could work to magnify sectional grievances. No matter what the realities were, ”let politicians and agitators work on them with pamphlets, tracts, and campaign speeches, let the stock phrases of sectionalism be repeated often enough, and there would come a wretched day when, 'to the astonishment of the actors themselves', an explosion would be set off by an incident or occasion that was not validly disruptive but 'comparatively trifling'."66 Apparently Randall believed that some politicians and agitators, by distorting realities, turned normally compatible differences into sectional antag- onism of North against South, and then created hateful symbols of the opposing sections which finally made the Civil War unavoidable. 64 Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p. 115. 65 Ibid., p. 1110 66 Randall, Lincoln the Prgsigent, I, 76. 153 The abolitionists were certainly among the politi- cians and agitators whom Randall held responsible for bring- ing about the Civil War. In this respect, he was in com- plete agreement with Craven. However, in explaining the motives of the abolitionists, they differed considerably. While Craven tried a social-psychological explanation, Randall accepted the more convenient explanation in terms of "humanitarian awakening and restless agitation for the betterment of civilization" 7 which caused many men and women to participate in the numerous reform movements. Ex- cept this, his description of the abolition movement followed in general Barnes' interpretation. Its more intense phase began about 1831. Though Garrison happened in that year to begin the publication of The Liberator, the tradition of referring to him as the leader of the crusade did not "fit the facts."68 Garrison was essentially a "free lance agitator-journalist". Without any workable plan but the demand of immediate emancipation, he offended influential leaders by his vituperative language and theological heresies and hostility to churches. His radical following in the North was extremely small and without serious political influence.69 His was not the guiding spirit of the 67 Randall, The Civil_War and Reconstruction, p. 100. 68 Ibid., p. 101. 69 Ibid., p. 101, 103, and 146; and Randall, Lincoln the President, I, 90. 154 antislavery crusade. Borrowing Barnes' words, Randall con- cluded that Garrison had "no qualification for leadership."70 The real leaders of the movement were the Finney- Tappan-Weld group, which organized the American Antislavery Society in 1833, only to have it taken away by Garrison seven years later. Although he recognized the Tappans as the pioneer organizers and financial supporters of the national society, and Weld as "the chief promoter of abolitionism as an organized crusade,"71 strangely enough, in his classification of antislavery sentiments ranging from Garrison's radicalism to the conservatism of Orville H. Browning of Illinois, he did not mention the name of either Tappan or Weld. But in his discussion of the religious aspect of the antislavery movement, he did talk about the influence of Finney and Weld. It appeared that their influence in the churches was small. "It would be a serious mistake," he warned, to think that abolitionists captured the northern churches. It is true that northern Methodists, Baptists, and Quakers showed considerable anti- slavery feeling. But it was mild. As for other denomina- tions, hostility toward abolition was the rule rather than exception. Such men as Finney and Weld, "who burned with antislavery zeal, were much like interlopers in the 70 Randall, Lincoln the President, I, 87. 71 Ibid., p. 88. 155 ecclesiastical field. They were evangelists, not church leaders." Not concerned with normal church activity, nor caring about their preachings creating dissension, "they made trouble within the churches in their drive for converts. His annoyance with the Weldian group is just as clear as his dislike of the Garrisonians. But his greatest hostility seemed reserved for the politician-abolitionists. This is shown in his harsh criticism of Joshua R. Giddings.73 Any- way, the fact that Randall regarded the abolition agitation as crucial in the coming of the Civil War cannot be missed. He cited the South's "reaction from abolition attacks" as one of the two factors which solidified "that consciousness of common culture and common grievance" into a southern nationalism.7n And in criticizing the abolitionists, he wrote that "the avenging force of Puritanism in politics" was a "major cause of the conflict itself".75 Even if he did not find the abolitionists alone guilty of warmaking, there is no question that Randall considered them chief 72 Ibid.. p. 890 73 Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p. 147. 72 156 among those who were held responsible for bringing about the Civil War. Though Craven and Randall have been generally recog- nized as the leading spokesmen of Civil War revisionism, they were not the only critics of the abolitionists at the time when their revisionist studies appeared. In the few years around 1940, at least two other historians, Lloyd and Simms, published their studies of the sectional conflict which also showed a strong hostility toward the abolition- ists. Whether they were influenced by the opinions of Craven and Randall is hard to decide. But one thing is cer- tain, and that is that they also considered the abolition agitation as a factor in the making of the Civil War. Of the two, Simms was more like Craven and Randall than Lloyd in his approach to the sectional conflict. He called the Civil War “tragic."76 He also played down the importance of slavery by pointing out the small number of runaway slaves and slavery running "out of its course in the territories." He believed these questions of "such little practical significance” might have been solved by "sound statesmanship." However, they were involved in the sectional conflict. The reason for the involvement was political because radical groups in North and South seized it as a means to secure control in their own section.77 In fact, Simms felt that in the whole sectional conflict, 76 Simms, A Decade of Segtional Controversy, p. vii. Ibid., p. viii. 157 political factors were more important than any other. But he also insisted that "the psychological factor" produced by the abolitionist attack on slavery not only was ever present but also became increasingly intensified with the development of sectional struggle. To him, therefore, the rise of the militant abolition movement was "a very signi- ficant factor in the development of the slavery controversy.”78 As for the reasons for the rise of the militant abolition- ism, Simms briefly mentioned a "diversified intellectual life," "a tendency toward critical inquiry," religious impulses, and the British example.79 To him all the abolitionists were just the same. In his critical survey of the abolition literature, he made no distinction between a Weldian and a Garrisonian.80 Though his tone of criti- cism was comparatively mild, still he blamed the abolition- ists for the effects their agitation had on the South. Be- side stamping out antislavery sentiments in the South, "the rise of militant abolitionists, however sincere, domiciled in a section which did not have the Southern prob- lem, denying, indeed, that there was a problem, frequently using violent language, and begetting its use by opponents, did much to cement the South in defense of her own way of 78 Ibid., p. 36. Ibid., p. 39. 80 Simms, "A Critical Analysis of Abolition Literature, 1830-1840," Journal of Southern_History¢ VI (1940), 368-382. 158 life, and to inject into the slavery controversy a psycho- logical factor henceforth never absent from it."81 His charge against the abolitionists differed in substance not very much from either Craven or Randall. Simms, as well as Craven and Randall, at least pro- fessed to be critical of extremists on both sides. Not so with Lloyd. Concerning himself more with vindicating the southern view in the dispute over slavery than with explain- ing the coming of the Civil War, he described the abolition- ists as aggressors in the sectional conflict. Though his criticism was more one-sided, his interpretation ran roughly parallel to that of Simms'. He divided all the abolition- ists into three groups: the philosophical group led by Channing and Wayland, condemning slavery as a moral evil; the political or Free-Soil group later led by Lincoln, which emphasized political action and were opposed to slavery expansion into territories: and the radical aboli- tionists led by Garrison and Weld who demanded immediate and unconditional emancipation. The function of each group was thus distributed: the radical group stirred up the agitation; the philosophical group gave it moral sanction; and the political group "reaped the rewards after nearly thirty years of propaganda."82 But in his discussion, he neglected the philosophical group, and concentrated on the 81 Ibid. , p0 3820 82 Lloyd, The Slavery Controversyl p. vii, and 59. 159 other two groups. Sometimes he even blended the radical and political abolitionists together. This is probably because many political abolitionists had been followers of Weld, who, over the question of political means, later broke with the Garrisonians, and went into politics. They "not only continued to spread propaganda discrediting the South but its leaders also aided in the formation of the Free-Soil Party and later the Republican Party."83 Except for this difference regarding proper means, it was "diffi- cult to separate the radical and political groups of anti- slavery leaders," admitted Lloyd. "Both were violent in their denunciation of slavery and the South."8u As for the background of the rise of abolitionism, Lloyd gave a confusing account. At first, he suggested that as a part of the general reform movement in the ante- bellum period, the appearance of the abolition crusade had a connection with humanitarianism, idealism, and transcend- entalism, and that western abolitionism grew out of Finney's revivals.85 Yet, later he challenged this humanitarian or religious interpretation because it failed to explain why the abolitionists were more interested in attacking slavery than in lifting the free Negroes in the North or overcoming 85 Ibid., pp. 55-56. 160 the evils of industrialization. Granting the sincerity of the abolitionists, it still could not explain why so many northern people who apparently had no interest in southern slavery supported the abolitionists. After repudiating the idealistic and religious explanation, he suggested a new one. "If economic motives can be assigned to the Southern defense," he declared, "it seems even more likely that be- hind the abolition propaganda lay deeper and more funda- mental motives than a mere desire to emancipate the blacks.“86 Apparently Lloyd believed that the abolitionists were moved by economic motives. But in what way did abolition propa- ganda serve their economic interests? The answer to this question is to be found in Turner's assertion that the slavery controversy was affected by a West to be won. In typical Turnerian terms, Lloyd pictured a commercial and industrial East struggling with an agricultural South over the control of the federal government in order to obtain policies favorable to its own section. With the rise of the West, it became necessary for each of the older sections to win the West to its side. As early as the Nissouri debate, some northern politicians like Ruffus King were al- ready determined to use the slavery question to discredit the South, and thus win over the South's natural ally, the agricultural West. The later abolition agitators simply 86 Ibid.. p. 264. l6l continued the unfinished work of King and other early anti- slavery politicians. Therefore, Lloyd concluded, "that the abolition agitation was used as a means of discrediting the South, especially in the Northwest, and aided in the later formation of a sectional party seems undeniable."87 So, to Lloyd, the abolition crusade was mainly propaganda designed to win the West by discrediting the South. The motives of the crusaders were economic and political rather than humanitarian and religious in nature. Lloyd's dislike of the abolitionists was perhaps the strongest of all the historians discussed. He talked about "fervid imaginations of zealous fanatics“ running riot in "heaping vituperation upon the South," and in "incendiary propaganda" which "flooded the country in the form of tracts, newspapers, and pictures.” But the most scathing indictment was set down in the following sentence: "Because the foundations of slavery lay deep, the unrestrained fanaticism of the abolitionists carried them to the point of denying the Bible which seemed to sanction slavery, attacking the American Church, burning the Constitution, flaunting the laws, advocating disunion, inciting the slaves to bloody race wars, and eventually carried the leaders off on tangents in the form of infidelism, anarchism, free- . . . 88 love, and communistic and utopian schemes of government." 162 The abolitionists were also held responsible for destroying southern antislavery efforts, consolidating southern pro- slavery opinion, pounding the South into sectional conscious- ness, and finally by breaking up the Democratic party and electing a president on a platform which ”threatened the rights of the Southern people,“ forcing the South to secede.89 In short,from the beginning to the end, the sectional conflict was caused by the aggression of the abolitionists. In Lloyd's The Slavegy Controversy, both the anti-abolitionist and pro-southern attitudes of the revisionist historians reached their extreme forms. It is really striking to notice that from 1935 to 1945, the leading historians of the sectional conflict approached and interpreted the coming of the Civil War with such a remarkable similarity. Except Lloyd who did not mention this question, all the other historians dis- cussed above thought the Civil War was an avoidable and needless "tragedy". They admitted the existence of section- al differences, but held that such differences were normal and peacefully adjustable. Even the most disputed question of slavery was not insoluble peacefully because the revision- ist historians agreed that slavery was on the way toward dying out; that Southerners were searching for a way to do away with it before the radical abolition attack: and that 89 Ibid., p. viii, 284, and 285. The quotation is taken from p. 284. 163 slavery in reality was really unimportant either in southern life or in the sectional conflict. In Randall's words, with "something more of statesmanship, moderation, 90 and understanding," all these ordinary differences could have been worked out through compromise, and the Civil War avoided. Yet against their vague sentiment that somehow the Civil War could have been prevented, war did break out: and the disappointed revisionist historian blamed all the extremists whom he held responsible for making the war in- evitable by emotionalizing and moralizying normal differences, and by villifying the opposing sections through incessant propaganda and agitation. This view of the cause of the Civil War naturally affected their attitude toward the abolitionists. The ex- planations of the revisionists for the motives of the aboli- tion crusaders varied. While Craven saw the crusade against slavery as motivated by frustration, fear, and resentment born of local socio-economic dislocation in the North, all the others considered humanitarian and religious impulses the primary factors which gave rise to the abolition move- ment. All the revisionist historians followed Barnes' division of the abolitionists into a New England and a western group. However, they did not discriminate between a Weldian or a Garrisonian in their criticism. All the 9O Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction, p. vii. 164 abolitionists were held guilty of bringing about the Civil War. They were virtually warmongers in the eyes of the revisionist historians, though no one so called them. This is the point which set the revisionist historians apart from other historians of the abolition movement. Others may have accused this or that group of the abolitionists of this or that blunder, but no other historians so vehemently, so indicriminatingly blamed all the antislavery crusaders for the supposed crime of driving an allegedly innocent people into a meaningless slaughter as did the revisionists. One of the reasons for the revisionist's dislike of the Civil War and of the abolition crusaders was their be- lief that no fundamental principles were involved in the sectional conflict. Indeed, sharing in the disillusionment with the First World War, they had a strong distrust of self-righteous moral agitation. However, this is not to say that they were really down-to-earth realists, as Randall deemed them to be. On the contrary, they were dis- illusioned idealist liberals.91 The impression from read- ing their writings is that they attacked "the blundering generation" not because men of that generation were evil, but because a "well-meaning", peace-loving people allowed emotion and moral sense to get upper hand over moderation, 91 For the discussion in this paragraph, see Pressly, Americans Interpret Their Civil War, p. 336. 165 understanding and reason. Idealistic and optimistic about human beings, the revisionists expected men to act rationally, to solve their problems by peaceful means. When people failed of their expectation, their disappoint- ment became all the more bitter, their reaction all the more stronger than if they held pessimistic views of human beings - indeed. if they were pessimistic, they might not have been disappointed at all. Disillusioned and dismayed, they became disgusted with all the resounding principles and unbridled emotions. Consequently, they lashed out at those agitators who appealed to abstract principles and emotions. But lingering behind all their denouncement and criticism was a hopeful message: only if men acted moderately and rationally, peace would be assured. Since the revisionist interpretation of the Civil War was essentially influenced by and reflected the in- tellectual outlook of a generation largely disillusioned with the First World War and indifferent to the Negro prob- lem, it is natural that the studies of the revisionist historians suited well the taste of many of that generation, and thus enjoyed considerable popularity among historians. The recognition of Randall and Craven as the leading author- ities on the Civil War history was by no means an accident. Their total denunciation of the abolitionists as war makers seemed to dominate the opinions of those who wrote books on the sectional conflict from the mid-thirties to the 166 mid-forties, with the exception of Dwight L. Dumond.92 However, the evidence from articles on the sectional conflict or abolitionism published in the American Historical Review, Mississippi Vallgy Historical Review, qurnal of Southern History, and Journal of Negro History from 1930 to 195093 seems not so conclusive. On the one hand, the general tone of all the four articles in Journal gfq§guthern History and most of the dozen or so articles in émerican Higtorical Review and Mississippi Xallgy_Historical Review was either critical of the abolitionists or pro- southern. On the other hand. all of the seventeen or so articles in the Journal of Nggro History were favorable to the abolitionists. The diverse nature and purpose of these several journals may account for the difference of view on the abolitionists as shown by their contributors. The significant thing is that writers other than those who 92 For discussion of Dumond, see Chapter VI. 93 There are only two articles having any relation with the antislavery movement in gmerican Historical Review, eight in Misgissippi Vallengistorical Reviewi seventeen in Journal of Negro History, and four in Journal of Southern 'History. But since several volumes of_these journals are missing from the library of this university, the actual numbers of articles may be larger than counted here. Some of the articles are no more than documents with short intro- ductions: others deal with very special aspects of the anti- slavery movement or particular persons. Few concern the abolition movement as a whole. But it is still possible to grasp the general tone of these writers. As for articles having anything to do with the abolition movement in the first three journals (Journal of Southern History did not begin to publish until 1935) from 1920 to 1930, there are only about five. 167 published their articles in Journal of Negro History were fairly much in agreement in their attitude toward the abolitionists. From this fact, it seems reasonable to assume that white American historians who were hostile or indifferent to the Negroes were in large part also hostile to the abolitionists. This is in accordance with the revisionist historians. But whether they were influenced by the revisionists is hard to say. Even if the revisionist view dominated the approach to the abolition movement during the period under dis- cussion, its predominance did not last long, for as soon as the Second World War was over, challenge to the revision- ist interpretation of the Civil War was voiced. Because the revisionists entirely neglected, or rather denied, the moral issue involved in both slavery and the sectional dis- pute over it, Bernard Devoto in 1946, and Arthur M. Schlsinger, Jr., in 1949, charged that the revisionist his- torians timidly evaded the responsibility of the historian to make moral judgment by seeking refuge in "a vague senti- ment: that if the South had been left quite alone, somehow the slaves would eventually have been freed, an equitable system established, and evils of war and reconstruction n94 prevented. Perhaps because of such criticism, perhaps 94 Bernard DeVoto, "The Easy Chair," Harper's Magazine, Vol. 192 (Jan.-June, 1946), pp. 123-126, and 234-237. The quotation is taken from p. 237. And Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., "The Causes of the Civil War: A Note on Historical Sentimentalism," Partisan Review, XVI (Oct., 1949), 969-981. 168 because they themselves sensed the changed intellectual atmosphere, or perhaps because of further study as Craven 95 insisted, some revisionist historians began to yield grounds and to soften their hostile tone toward the aboli- tionists. The shifting amounted to not much, to be sure. Yet it can be discerned even in the writings of the most famous revisionists. Randall in 1947 defended himself by arguing that when a historian recognized complex factors, he "should not be thought of as neglecting the ethical merits of the issue." He admitted that "slavery was a moral question,” that "the moral issue of slavery con- stituted indeed a great question," that "the intensely un- favorable caricature of such men as Garrison was. . . un- fair. . .” and that among the abolitionists there were men .96 of "pure souls" and "fine caliber. Craven made the same concessions. At the end of the reprint of "Coming of the War Between the States: An Interpretation? in his 53 Historian and The Civil War which appeared in 1964, he put a significant "Note" in which he said, "It was never the intention of the author of this article to say that the Civil War was simply the product of emotion, as some have 95 Craven, Civil War in the Making, 1815-1860 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1959), pp. v-vi. 96 Randall, Lincoln the Liberal Statesman, pp. 23-24. 169 97 charged." On another occasion, he denied the charge that he neglected the moral issue by pointing out that "this is not saying as some have charged, that great moral issues were not involved. They certainly were. . ."98 But the most significant thing was his consideration of the argument over the unavoidability or avoidability of the Civil War as "absurd". "Of course it could [be avoideg7," he continued, 'that is, i§‘[Italics hi§7 men had been willing or able to pay the price required for maintaining the peace. Some- things, however, are priceless."99 He came very close to the opinion that the sectional conflict did involve some- thing priceless, and that the Civil War was inavoidable. This shift of attitude is also clear in Simms' study of the abolition controversy from 1830 to 1845 which appeared in 1960. This study is nothing more than a collection of quotations from published materials, public speeches, and private letters bearing on the pros and cons in the aboli- tion controversy among the abolitionists themselves, and in the North and South. Simms' manner of treating his subject 97 p. 45. 98 Craven, "The 1840's and the Democratic Process," originally published in Journal of Southern History, XVI (1930), 137-147, reprinted in Angistorian and the Civil War, p. 3. 99 Craven, Civil War in the Making, p. vii. 170 matter was extremely neutral and detached. Preferring not assessing "blame or praise for the actions of people several generations ago,"100 he adventured no judgment, not even a conclusion, only a few introductory remarks. Except that he deplored the involvement of abolition in political maneuver, the title of the book, "Emotion at High Tide," and the assertion that ”out of this medley of conflicting opinions there emerged an unhealthy emotional climate which boded ill for the future of the nation,“101 there is nothing indicating that the author had once argued that the abolitionist's attack on slavery was a significant factor in the making of the tragic Civil War. The critical attitude toward abolition literature was gone. Despite the title, he did not emphasize the emotional aspect of the controversy in the book. From this book alone, it is hard to imagine that a generation ago, the same author had Written in much the same spirit as the well-known revision- ist historians did. In view of this change in the opinion of the leading revisionists and in the general intellectual outlook, it is surprising to notice that in 1960 Arnold Whitridge pub- lished his N9 Compromise: The Story of the Fanatics Who Paved_the Way to the Civil War.102 The theme is already 100 Simms, Emotion at High Tide: Abolition as a Con- troyersial Factor; 1830-1845 (Richmond, Virginia, 1960), p. vi. 101 102 Ibid., p. vi. (New York, 1960). 171 clear in the title. However, Whitridge made it even clearer in these words: "This is a book about fanatics, about the handful of words: "This is a book about fanatics, about the handful of men North and South who fostered hatred be- tween the two sections of the country, who magnified every- thing that might lead to misunderstanding, blocked every effort at compromise, and finally drove a reluctant people into a war they did not want to fight."103 He admitted there were "real grievances and anxieties" in both North and South. However, they alone could not cause the war: nor could the dispute over slavery because it was "doomed" and "would never live to see the twentieth century."lol‘L The war came because of the "incessant propaganda" of fanatics - abolitionists in the North and fireeaters in the South - that "so upset the emotional balance North and South that any suggestion of conciliation, any appeal to common sense, was made to appear like treason or cowardice in disguise."105 The arrangement of the book is just as simple and straightforward as the theme. The first two chapters deal with the fire-eaters and the abolitionists respectively, while the third and last chapter with the 103 Whitridge, No Compromise! p. 7. Ibid., p. 1950 105 Ibid., p. 11. 172 problem how these fanatics blocked the last efforts for peace. The abolitionists appeared to be the principal war criminals. Whitridge seemed particularly to hate Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Charles Sumner, and John Brown.106 In short, every main point of the revisionist interpretation can be found in it. But he did a disservice to the I credibility of the revisionist interpretation. Without explaining why or how it could have happened that a "reluctant" people were driven by "a handful of fanatics" into a war they did not like to fight, Whitridge over- simplified the revisionist argument almost to the point of absurdity. It is no wonder that Louis Filler called it "a curious book."107 In conclusion, it may be said that when Whitridge published his study the revisionist interpretation already had passed the high mark of popularity, though the revision- ist historians continue to write about the Civil War well into the sixties. In part a reflection of the feeling and attitude of a generation disillusioned with the First World War and indifferent to the problem of racial relations, revisionism enjoyed the widest popularity in the decade 106 Ibid. . pp. 85-].“6. 107 Louis Filler, "Review of Whitridge, No Compromise!" American Historical Review, LXVII (October, 1960), 230. The book was ignored by Journal of Southern History and Mississippi‘ Valley Historical ReView. 173 from the mid-thirties to the mid-forties. Undoubtedly, the revisionist historians contributed much to the understanding of the causes and nature of the Civil War. But so far as the abolition movement is concerned, they added few really original insights except the total denunciation of the abolitionists and the hint on the psychological aspect of the crusade. As times changed, when historians with a different outlook came to try to understand the abolition movement, some of them repudiated the whole revisionist interpretation: others worked on the psychological aspect and turned the abolitionists into neurotics. Then with the rise of reassessment, the revisionist interpretation of the abolition movement gradually lost ground to other new view- p01nts o CHAPTER V Abolition as a Means of Tension Reduction - The View of the Consensus Historians - Revisionism in Civil War history was the product of the climate of opinion of a particular period. As that general outlook changed, it could be expected that the revisionist interpretation of the abolition movement would also change. Thus, during the 1950's, a new image of the abolitionists emerged from the writings of David Donald and Stanley M. Elkins who produced during the 1950's the most influential studies on the abolition crusade. This new image of the abolitionists differed from that presented by the revisionist historians. Primarily interested in explaining why or how the Civil War came, the revisionists found among others the abolitionists guilty of bringing about the great national tragedy by emotionalizing and moralizing ordinary sectional differences. While shar- ing the revisionists' dislike of extreme abolitionism, Donald and Elkins sought to exonerate the abolitionists from war guilt by blaming the unhealthy situation of ante-bellum society for making the war unavoidable. But this shift in 174 175 opinion about the relation of the abolitionists to the com- ing of the Civil War did not result in a more favorable image of the abolition crusaders. It only created another bad composite picture of the militant antislavery agitators. In the writings of Donald and Elkins, the abolitionists were transformed from warmongers to neurotics. This change of image was largely the result of a psychological approach. Following the example of the revisionist historian Avery Craven, Donald and Elkins inter- preted the abolition movement in psychological terms. They did not deal with the same aspect of the crusade; but both of them built their interpretations on a particular behavior- ist theory which emphasized "tension reduction" as the main goal of men's thought and action. According to this older and by now much discredited theory, individuals were motivated by "a state of tenseness that leads us to seek equilibrium, rest, adjustment. satisfaction or homeostasis. From this point of view, personality is nothing more than our habitual modes of reducing tension."1 Applying this theory to the abolitionists. Donald found the motives of the abolitionists in their frustration produced by a change in social status; and Elkins thought that the goal of the abolitionists was to ease their sense of guilt. In so far 1 Gordon Allport, Becoming: Basic Considerations for .g_Psychology of Personality TNew Haven, 19557, pp. hB—DQ. for criticism of this theory, see Silvan Tomkins, ed.. ,éffect, Cognition and Personality (New York, 1965): and .Rudolf Herberle, Social Movements (New York. 1951). 176 as the tension-reduction theory admitted no room for ideals in men's behavior. the logical implication in the inter- pretations of Donald and Elkins is that the abolitionists were not genuine reformers who sought to remove some evils in society. They were concerned primarily with the reduc- tion of their own inner tensions. In this respect. the psychologist-historians were different not only from most revisionist historians but also from other historians dis- cussed thus far. With the notable exception of Craven, most of them agreed that the abolitionists were motivated by humanitarian, religious. or social ideals. Thus, whether intentionally or not, Donald and Elkins by the use of a personality theory which put emphasis on tension reduction as the all-inclusive factor in human thought and action added to the already bad image of the abolitionist a new unfavorable touch: they were neurotics who turned reformers to seek personal equilibrium, satisfaction, or fulfillment for themselves. Like other prevailing interpretations. that of Donald and Elkins was affected by and reflected the general and historical thinking of the 1950's and the early 1960's. Considering its widespread influence, their interpretation of the abolition movement can be in a sense regarded as representative of the view of the abolitionists of what John Higham called the consensus historians2 whose approach 2 The first historian who saw and delineated this new 177 to the American past had dominated the study of American history during the 1950's and the early 1960's. The rise of the consensus, or neo—conservative his- toriography as it is sometimes called, was closely connected to changes in the general climate of opinion during the post-World War II period. In these years, a series of events brought about a new outlook which leaned toward consensus and conservatism. Culturally, America became in- creasingly homogeneous as sectional or rural-urban differ- ences were eliminated by cars, radios, and televisions. The affluence caused the living standard of most Americans to rise. While America grew more harmonious and richer than ever before, what Eric Goldman called "the Half-Century of Revolution" went so breathlessly and changed America so much that by the early fifties, many American people wanted to slow down social reforms in order to consolidate what they newly obtained, and by the mid-fifties, a broad con— sensus on moderation or a middle-of-the-road policy resulted.3 But the most powerful factor in turning American opinion to trend in American historiography was John Higham. See his "The Cult of 'American Consensus': Homogenizing Our History," in Commentary, XXVII (Feb., 1959), 95-100; History: The Development of Historical Studigs_in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1953) pp. 212-232: and "Beyond Consensus: The Historian as Moral Critic," in American Historical Review, LXVII (April, 1962), 609-625. Eric Goldman, The Crucial Decade: America, 1935- 19§§ (New York, 1956). — _— 178 the right was the disturbing international scene. The struggle for survival with totalitarianism turned many Americans to re-embrace and uphold American traditions, and to doubt whether reform was always good. And the fear about human future created by the Cold War and Atom bomb disposed many intellectuals to adopt a grimmer view about , human nature and progress than their progressive predecessors. Rejecting the Progressives' faith in progess as naive, the powerful neo-orthodox theologian Reinhold Niebuhr revived the doctrine of original sin and reasserted the existence of evil in the universe, the tragedy in life, and the com- plexity of human problems.“ Echoing Niebuhr, the chastened Progressive historian, Arthur M. Schlessinger, jr., declared in 1949: "man generally is entangled in insoluble problems: history is consequently a tragedy in which we are all in- volved, whose keynote is anxiety and frustration, not pro- gress and fulfillment."5 The intellectuals and the general public became more conservative and less interested in 6 reform. L; Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (New York, 19Hh73 Arthur M. Schlessinger, Jr., ”The Causes of the Civil War: A Note on Historical Sentimentalism,” in Partisan Review XVI (OCto. 19,49), 98].. 6 Arthur Mann pointed out that the widespread criti- cism of reforms among intellectuals was reinforced in the post-World War II years by "A rising standard of living, , increasing opportunities for scholars, cultural pluralism, 179 Consciously or unconsciously, historians also felt the impact of those events and became "interested in find- 7 Given this ing evidence to support social harmony." mentality, the consensus historians were bound to be dis- satisfied with the method and interpretation of the Pro- gressive historians. As said by Ray F. Nichols, as early as 1946, the correspondence with, and the discussions arranged by the Social Science Research Council showed a definite desire among historians to restudy methodology and dominant concepts of historical study.8 Nichols himself urged historians to redirect their thinking by engaging in “a species of historical atomic exploration" and by under- taking "a high level of performance." He believed that this historical reorientation would free historians from the clutches of a heedless optimism and present-mindedness, and thus enabled them to see "the more grim endurance, struggle, and discouragement," and to promote philosophical and v—— the welfare state, and a healthy balance of power between high business, big labor, and big government. Living in such a going concern, few scholars acquired the kind of com- passion, resentments, and hopes for a more equalitarian society that had enabled a previous generation to identify itself with economic and political reform. "Instead, new perils to human welfare, like racism and totalitarianism, directed attention to the dark sides of reform....in such an atmosphere some liberals were ready to join disillusioned maxians in saying goodby to ideology as they had known it." See his "The Progressive Tradition," in John Higham, ed.. The Reconstruction of American History (New York, 1962). p. 167. 7 Dwight W. Hoover, "Some Comments on Recent United States Historiography,” in American_guarterly, XVII (Summer, 1965). 300- 8 Ray F. Nichols, ”Post War Reorientation of 180 ethical stabilization.9 Two years later, in 1950, Samuel Eliot Morison in a presidential address to the American Historical Association criticized the Progressive methodology and urged his audience to return to the scientific method and to an emphasis on tradition in American history.10 Tired of strife and uncertainty, the consensus historians regarded as unrealistic and outmoded the Progressive his- toriography which stressed historical relativism in method- ology, and class struggle and revolutionary change in the interpretation of American history. In their criticisms of the Progressive historians and in their own studies, the consensus historians gradually built up a new general view of the American past. Not all of them interpreted American history in the same way. Some stressed stability and therefore continuity of American experiences over the centuries: others emphasized instabil- ity and gave more attention to changes.11 What united them all was the denial of ideological and class confrontation ———— v—r Historical Thinking,‘ in American Historical Review; LIX (Oct., 1948), 81. 9 Ibid., 82-89. 10 Samuel Eliot Morison, "Faith of a Historian," in Ameglcan Historical Review, LVI (Jan., 1951), 261-275. 11 Higham, HiStOEY, pp. 222-2260 181 and of convulsive changes in American history. Even those consensus historians who paid more attention to changes viewed such changes as gradual rather than revolutionary, and as brought about by general economic growth or geographic- al and social mobility rather than by conflicts between definite groups. The consensus historians emphasized the existence of a broad consensus on basic values whether that consensus running through the whole length of history or changing from age to age. In short, the common aim of their efforts was "to find a consensus in American history,"12 Being such, their view of American history was strikingly conservative. However, at different times in American history, people believed that their country was ripped open by con- flicts, even if there were no real struggles. Apparently, the consensus historians had to account for such imagined or real strifes before they could prescribe a general con- sensus. This they achieved in several ways. But the most effective one was the use of psychological approach. Al- though a few historians had applied psychological inter- pretations to the study of American history before the Second World War, its widest acceptance by historians was during the 1950's and early 1960's. Many leading historians such as Henry Nash Smith, Richard Hofstadter. Marvin Meyers, 12 Hoover, "Some Comments on Recent United States Historiography," in American Quarterly XVII (Summer, 1965), 300. 182 Charles G. Sellers, Seymour Lipset, and others used psycho- logical approach to a variety of topics.13 Even the economic determinist historian, Charles A. Beard, confessed 1“ Per- in 1948 that "I may have neglected the irrational." haps it is dogmatic to say that these consensus historians deliberately chose psychological approach with the sole in- tention to explain away social cleavage or protest. Their acceptance of it might have been because of the insight it provided for their task. Still, the coincidence of the widest use of psychological approach by historians and the rise of the consensus historiography many suggest that something other than its mere usefulness for historical study was involved. In fact, psychological interpretation suited the need of the consensus historian to minimize con- flicts remarkably well. It enabled them to internalize or subjectivize external conflicts or class struggle. Social divisions could thus be turned into generalized psycho- logical tensions running through the society as a whole:15 13 Henry Nash Smith, Virgin Land: the American West as Symbol and Nyth (Cambridge, N5Ss., 1950): Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (1955): Narvin Neyers, The Jacksonian Persuasion (1957): Charles G. Sellers, "The Travail of Slavery," in Seller, ed., The Southerner as American (Chapel Hill, 1960), pp. 40— 71: and Seymour Lipset, 'Sources of the 'Radical Right', " in Danie Bell, ed., New American R_ght (New York, 1955). ——— l4 Diary of Alfred Vogts, quoted in Higham, History, p. 230. 15 Higham, ”The Cult of 'American Consensus': Homo- genizing Our History," in Commentary, XXVII (Feb., 1959). 95. 183 and socio-economic conflicts could be dismissed either as mere rhetorics or as myths. With divisions or conflicts explained away, it is easy to establish a consensus on some basic values. "All in all," as Higham said, "the psycho- logical vogue has given an implicit sanction to harmony...."16 It is needless to say that not all consensus his- torians adopted psychological approach. But the fact still remains that it had a greater vogue among the con- sensus historians than among their professional predecessors. Its attractiveness to the consensus historians was largely because it provided an effective means for them to achieve their aim: the minimization of conflicts and the assertion of consensus. Living through all the experiences which moved the post-war America to the right, Donald and Elkins must have felt the impact of those events in the same way as most 17 Americans did. If the prevailing conservative outlook stirred other contemporary historians to emphasize consensus in the American past, it is scarcely surprising to find that Donald and Elkins showed the same tendency in their historical writings. If Elkins was a conservative as . 18 Eugene D. Genovese so labelled him, Donald could certainly l6 Higham, History, p. 230. 17 Donald was born in 1920, and Elkins in 1925. 18 _ "Review of Elkins, Slavery," in Science ang_ 30318121 . xxv (Winter, 1961), T1. 184 be counted as one, too, for the two historians not only shared a deep concern with institutions, traditional values, and society as a whole, but also described the ante-bellum society in almost the same way. To them, the forty years before the Civil War was a period during which traditional America broke down. Economic growth and the expansion of democracy disrupted traditional institutions, diffused powers, eroded established authorities, and freed people from the bonds of prescription and custom. The only thing left was an excess of individualism to Elkins or an excess of democracy to Donald.19 Whatever they might call this 19 Donald argued that "the expansion of the frontier, the rise of the city, the exploitation of the great natural wealth" produced "not cohesion but individualism." Under the impact of these forces, "all the recognized values of orderly civilization were gradually being eroded:” society was atomized; precedent and authority were thrown off: "every institution...was challenged and overthrown:" and the power and authority of the Church, the squirearchy of the Middle States and the South, the Second Bank of the United States, and the government, both federal and state, declined. See his "An Excess of Democracy: the American Civil War and the Social Process," This was his inaugural lecture as Harnsworth Professor of American History at the University of Oxford in 1960, reprinted in David Donald, Lincoln Re- considered: Essays on the Civil War Era (New York, Second Edition enlarged, 1965), pp. 209-235. Quotations are taken from p. 235. 223 and 226. Elkins had the same opinion. He said: "the very success of his society-~of capitalism, of religious liberalism, and political democracy”--made it un- necessary for the American "to be concerned with institutions." As a result, traditional institutions such as the Church, the bar, the Federalist party, and the stable economic organ- izations maintained by the great trading families of the East 'were broken down: traditional centers of power and reference ciissolved: and individualism and its counterpart, anti- Lnstitutionalism, became so prevailing that Americans could rurt think and act concretely. See Stanley M. Elkins, Slavegy: ALgflggblem in American Institutional and Intellectual Lif_y (Cumicago. 1959). PP- 27- 37- 185 structural breakdown, its effect on society were believed by them to be disastrous. To Donald the "excess of liberty” made Americans "unable to arrive at seasoned, in- dependent judgments upon the problems which faced their society,‘ and impeded the rise and crystalization of a con- servative statesmanship which might have prevented the nation from going to war: to Elkins, individualism with its counterpart, anti-institutionalism, tended to lead ante- bellum thinking and action toward abstractness, and caused that generation of Americans to be unable to deal with slavery as well as other problems in a concrete, institution- al, and pragmatical way.20 The conservatism implicit in their blaming excessive individualism or democracy, and in their deploring the breakdown of authorities and institu- tions already put them in the camp of the consensus his- torians. But there is another point on which they were in agreement with other historians of their time. This is the stress on consensus. Both Donald and Elkins insisted that the institutional breakdown and the excess of democracy or individualism were national phenomenon, not confined to any particular section or class. All sections and classes were hostile to established sources of authorities and exalted 21 the individual. 20 Donald, "An Excess of Democracy," in Lincoln Re- _9nsidered. pp. 229-235! and Elkins, Slavegy. 21 Donald urged historians "to emulate the best of these European observers” who "stressed the basic unity of 186 Not only in outlook and emphasis, but also in method of investigation, Donald and Elkins were in accordance with other consensus historians. They also used psychological approach. Their acceptance of it is perhaps more easily understood because it had a double appeal to them. It en- abled them to explain away probably the most obvious con- flicts in American history--the conflicts which led to the Civil War. But it also provided an escape for the embarrass- ment they must have felt in dealing with the slavery problem in the 1950's. This was the decade in which sympathy to the Negroes was increasing, though racism was still strong.22 And they must have been aware of the fate of revisionism. These facts must have caused them to be unwilling to dis- miss the abolitionists as nothing more than troublemakers as the revisionist historians had done. However, their essential conservatism precluded the possibility of an all- out embrace of abolitionism. Caught between their own conservative preference and their unwillingness to denounce American culture," and to draw "a broad picture of the com- mon American values in the early nineteenth century," and insisted that the same social process of disorganization "affected all sections of the country.” See "An Excess of Democracy," in Lincoln Reconsidered, p. 216, and 235. Elkins made no sectional distinctions in his discussion of the in- stitutional breakdown, the lack of institutional restraints, the exaltation of individualism, and their effects on the thought and action of the ante-bellum generation. See, Slavegy. 22 For the changing opinion on the race problem during the period after the Second World War, see Chapter VI. 187 totally the abolitionist, it is possible that they were trapped in a dilemma in approaching the dispute over slavery. Anyway, the fact is that they were unable to decide whether or not to blame the abolitionists. On the one hand, they excused the abolitionists' extremism by regarding it as the logical product of the unhealthy situation of society or conceded something good to the abolitionists. On the other hand, it is quite clear that they were annoyed by what they considered as the extremism of the abolitionists. If this inability can be regarded as a symptom of dilemma, then psychological interpretation gave them an opportunity to solve their uneasiness by divorcing the abolition movement from the problem of slavery both in cause and aim. Then, in method and emphasis, Donald and Elkins were under the influence of the general conservative climate of opinion of the 1950's, and moved toward a stress on consen- sus in history. But in homogenizing the ante-bellum society, they met a formidable difficulty. After all, the Americans of that generation fought a terrible Civil War. Conflicts were too obvious to be ignored. If they could not be ignored, however, they could be explained away. With the help of psychological approach, Donald and Elkins turned the most obvious of the sectional conflicts leading to the Civil War, that over slavery, away from a sectional dispute into a means by which the abolitionists sought to ease their own psychological tension. When the conflict over slavery was removed or minimized, a broad national consensus could thus 188 be established. Considering the remarkable similarity in method and historical outlook between Donald and Elkins and many other consensus historians, it is reasonable to regard the interpretation of the abolition movement by Donald and Elkins as part and parcel of the consensus historiography. Of course, Donald and Elkins were not the only his- torians of the 1950's who tried to interpret the abolition movement in psychological terms. Before them, Hazel C. Wolf produced a psychological study of the abolitionists in 1952.23 So far as the significance of the slavery dispute for the coming of the Civil War is concerned, she seemed still under the influence of the revisionist historians. She considered the controversy over slavery as "actually least involved with differences in the fundamental needs and interests of the north and south." Yet, the combination of efforts of the moral and political abolitionists con- vinced in 1861 both the protagonists and antagonists of slavery that "only force could resolve the differences be- tween the two sections."24 But unlike the revisionist historians, her primary interest was not in the relation of theabolition agitation to the Civil War, but in the role 23 Hazel C. Wolf, On Freedom's Altar: The Martyr Com- plex in the Abolition Movement (Madison, Wisconsin, 1952). 24 Ibid., p. vii, and xii. 189 played by the martyr complex in the abolition movement. And in tracing that role, she helped to change partially the abolitionists' image from that of warmongers to that of neurotics. According to Wolf, drawing their antislavery in- spiration from "the combination of the revivalist-taught personal responsibility for salvation and the natural- rights humanitarianism," the abolitionists sought to capital- ize on the American tradition of martyrdom to impress their cause upon the public by making themselves identify "with 25 early martyrs of Christianity." They courted persecutions, welcomed sufferings, and gladly sacrificed family, wealth, social standing, and even life. When Elizah Lovejoy, Charles Torrey, John Brown, and Abraham Lincoln actually died for the cause of freedom, and when Garrison, Weld, Birney, Prudence Crandall, Alanson Work, George Thompson, the "Seventy," and many other abolitionists were actually prisoned or rough-handled by mobs, the abolitionists were never tired of publicizing these persecutions, sufferings, and sacrifices, and of calling the public attention to the similarity of their ”immolation to that of the heroes and heroines of John Foxes' Book of Martyrs,"26 The strategy of playing upon the martyr tradition paid off in achieving finally publicity for their cause.27 25 26 Ibid., p. 16, and 4. Ibid., p. 147. 27 Ibid., p. 99. 190 So far, Wolf seemed to describe the function of the martyr complex in the abolition movement primarily as a "propaganda device."28 And for that matter, she gave the impression that this strategy was deliberately chosen by the abolitionists, or at least they were aware of its use- fulness to their cause, for she repeatedly asserted that the abolitionists "know reaction to martyrdom would favor the abolition cause," that they "welcomed persecution for its advantage to the cause of the slave,” and that the favorable response of Americans to the death of Lovejoy "reaffirmed the abolitionists' conviction that one martyrdom converted more men to the cause than could all the lecturers and pamphleteers in two score years."29 The martyr complex was treated not as a psychological drive but as a means rationally chosen. However, this is only one aspect of Wolf's treatment of the role of the martyr complex in the abolition crusade. In other places, she also conveys the impression that the martyr complex was a psychological drive. She declared that Weld "glorified in the persecution he suffered:" that Garrison "knew he wanted a cause...he had a mania for uniqueness and for attention," that the abolitionists were "eagerly biding for a martyr's crown," and that "for a decade after Lovejoy, lust for martyrdom permeated abolition 29 Ibid., pp. 27, 49, and 78. 191 ranks."30 Such assertions, together with the use of "the martyr complex"--a psychological term-~in the subtitle of her book, may suggest the abolitionists' inner desire for martyrdom for its own sake. In the final analysis, there- fore, it seems that Wolf was unable to decide whether to treat the abolitionists as true reformers who used the American tradition of martyrdom merely as a means of achieving their goal of abolishing slavery or as neurotics who, obsessed with the martyr complex, sought persecution in order to glorify in it. Wolf was in essence a transition figure from the revisionist historians to Donald and Elkins. She recog- nized the pathological features in the abolition crusade, but was unprepared to absolve the abolitionists from res- ponsibility assigned by the revisionists for bringing about the Civil War. This was done by Donald and Elkins in their more fully psychological interpretations. Donald addressed himself exclusively to the question of the motivation of the abolitionists. And he found the answer in a "status revolution." This was not an entirely new theory. In 1906, Frank T. Carlton already suggested that the ante-bellum humanitarian reformers came mainly from an old ruling class which was decaying and losing its 30 Frank T. Carlton, "Humanitarianism, Past and Present," in International Journal of Ethics, XVII (Oct., 1906), “8'55. 192 hold on social and economic supremacy with the advent of industrialization. This was essentially the theme of Donald's argument except that while Carlton saw the reformers as motivated by ideals, Donald found the motives of the abolitionists in frustration felt by members of the dis- placed ruling class. Unsatisfied with all the previous explanations of why the abolition movement appeared particularly in the 1830's, Donald came to the belief that “the best way to answer this difficult problem is to analyze the leadership of the abolitionist movement." And based on the findings obtained from an analysis of the backgrounds of one hundred and six abolition leaders, he drew a composite portrait of abolition- ist leadership: "Descended from old and socially dominant Northeastern families, reared in a faith of aggressive piety and moral endeavor, educated for conservative leadership, these young men and women whoreached maturity in the 1830's faced a strange and hostile world. Social and economic leadership was being transformed from the country to the city, from the farmer to the manufacturer, from the preacher to the corpora- tion attorney. Too distinguished a family, too gentle an education, too nice a morality were handicaps in a bustling world of business. Expecting to lead, these young people found no followers. They were an elite without function, a displaced class in American society.”31 Unable to make terms with the new money-grabbing order, and yet prohibited from idleness by family tradition 31 David Donald, "Toward a Reconsideration of Aboli- tionists.“ This essay was included in the first edition of his Lincoln Reconsidered, first published in 1956, p. 33. 193 and education, these young members of the displaced class found in agitation "the only chance for personal and social self-fulfillment." They supported a variety of reforms: but "an attack on slavery was their best, if quite uncon- scious, attack upon the new industrial system."32 Although dangerous and sacrificing, participation in abolition "offered these young people a chance for a reassertion of their traditional values, an opportunity for association with others of their kind, and a possibility of achieving that self-fulfillment which should traditionally have been theirs as social leaders." Indeed, "reform gave meaning to the lives of this displaced social elite." "Viewed against the backgrounds and common ideas of its leaders," Donald concluded his analysis, "abolitionism appears to have been a double crusade. Seeking freedom for the Negro in the South, these reformers were also attempting a restoration of the traditional values of their class at home. Leader- ship of humanitarian reform may have been influenced by revivalism or by British precedent, but its true origin lay in the drastic dislocation of northern society. Basically, abolitionism should be considered the anguished protest of an aggrieved class against a world they never made."33 In spite of the title, "Toward a Reconsideration of Abolitionists," Donald dealt in this essay with only a very 32 Ibid., p. 34. 33 Ibid.. pp. 35-36. 194 narrow aspect of the abolition movement, the motivation of abolition leadership. On this point, Donald made himself quite clear. He believed that the abolition leaders were motivated by the suffering of a displaced social elite class, and the basic aim of their crusade was not so much to free the slave as to restore the traditional values of their own class and to achieve their own self-fulfillment. Beside this, there is no way to know from the essay what were the motives of the rank and file of the abolition movement, though Donald implicitly considered his findings about the leaders as applicable to all abolitionists, or how the crusade as a whole fared. However, it is still possible to discover how he viewed the abolitionists. His attitude toward them seemed marred by an inability to decide whether to blame the abolitionists or not. On the one hand, he made some efforts, albeit casual and perfunctory, to paint the abolitionists in a less unfavorable portrait. In his revised edition of James G. Randall's The Civil War and Reconstrugtiopy he considerably watered down Randall's indictment of the abolitionists}!+ He admitted that at least a part of the 34 James G. Randall and David Donald, The Divideg Union (Boston, 1961), pp. 21—26. On the request of Randall's widow and publishers, Donald revised and updated Randall's The_Civil War and Reconstruction. The Divided Union is the result of this revision with the omission of Lincoln's abortive attempts at reconstruction. A full text of the revised edition was published as J.C. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstructign. 195 aim of the abolitionists was to free the Negro slave, and granted the sincerity of their devotion to the cause.35 Though still considering the abolition agitation a factor in the sectional conflict, he indicated in "An Excess of Democracy" that the Civil War came not so much because of the emotion itself aroused by the abolition propaganda as Randall and other revisionist historians maintained as be- cause the unhealthy situation of the whole ante-bellum society rendered it unable to bear emotional shocks, how- 36 ever weak. Thus, the abolitionists were cleared the charge of being responsible for the coming of the Civil War. Yet all these concessions could not conceal his antipathy toward the abolitionists. He still regarded at least ”a small group" of abolitionists as ”extreme" and "doctrinaire". He softened Randall's indictment, but did not change his basic hostile attitude. Functioning as a psychiatrist, Donald undertook a psychoanalytical and un- favorable diagnosis of the career of the political abolitionist, Charles Sumner. Frustrated by failure in family life and business, obsessed with a neurotic craving for persecution, 35 Donald wrote: "Abolitionism was a dangerous creed of devotion, and no fair-minded person can believe that men joined the movement for personal gain or for conscious self- glorification. In all truth, the decision to become an antislavery crusader was a decision of conscience." Toward a Reconsideration of Abolitionists," in Lincoln Reconsidered, p. 22. ‘7 36 In Donald, Lincoln Reconsigeggg. pp. 215 and 234- 235- 196 Sumner became so extreme in the abolition cause that Donald felt Sumner responsible in no small part for the sin of the Civil War.37 However, the most unfavorable reaction of Donald to the abolitionists was implied in his description of them as psychologically and socially maladjusted persons. He was very annoyed by some abolitionists' violent attack on President Lincoln. And in his attack, he discovered "a symptom of some profound social or psychological disloca- tion" in the abolitionists.38 He then reduced the whole abolitionist motivation to a neurotic disturbance by writing: "by his (Lincoln's) effective actions against slavery he left the abolitionists without a cause. The freeing of the slaves ended the great crusade that had brought purpose and joy to the abolitionists. For them Abraham Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator: he was the killer of dreams."39 What is implied here is that deep in their hearts, what the abolitionists really wanted was merely a "cause" to agitate for the easing of their own psychological tension rather than for the realization of the aim of that cause. This implication was in direct contradiction to his own concession about the abolitionists' sincere devotion to the slaves' 37 . . David Donald, Charles ngner and the Coming of the C1v1l War (New York, 1961). 38 . . Donald, "Toward a Reconsideration of Abolitionists," 1n Lincoln Reconsidered, p. 20. 39 Ibid., p. 360 197 freedom, for, if the abolitionists were so eager to have merely a cause to agitate in order to alleviate theirown sufferings from psychological dislocation that they became so angered over Lincoln's killing that cause by emancipating the slaves, how could they also have been moved by a "decision of conscience" to work sincerely for the abolition of'slavery? Concerning the problem of abolition motivation, Donald suggested that the abolition agitation was used by the abolitionist as a means to achieve personal or social self-fulfillment and inner equilibrium rather than a genuine humanitarian crusade. He admitted the sincerity of the abolitionists' devotion to the slaves' cause, but his ad- mission was contradicted by his basic argument. This is undoubtedly an indication of his indecision as to whether to blame the abolitionists or not. This indecision can al- so be found in Elkins' discussion of the abolitionists. Elkins was less interested in the problem of moti- vation than in why ante-bellum Americans were incapable of dealing with the problem of slavery in a concrete and practical way. He was struck by the abolitionists' anti- institutionalism, individualism, abstractness, and moral aggression. And he found that these traits were only the reflection of the ante-bellum state of mind. With the general breakdown of traditional institutions and diffusion of power, American mind tended to be anti-institutional and individualistic. Cut from the sources of power and thus 198 from responsibility too, the intellectuals, particularly the Transcendalists, to whom society and reformers looked for cues and wisdom, came to celebrate individualism. Anti- institutional and individualistic, their thinking also be- came abstract. Americans and their thinkers could not confront social problems institutionally and concretely. When in this state of mind, intellectuals and reformers approached the subject of slavery, "not only did these men fail to analyze slavery itself as an institution, but they failed equally to consider and exploit institutional means #0 Despite the existence of several for subverting it." antislavery groups with different slogans at the beginning, Garrisonian individualism triumphed at last in the nation- ally organized abolition movement. The denunciation of existing institutions, the breakup of the national anti- slavery society, the demand for immediate and unconditional emancipation, and the assertion of the moralityof the slaves as individuals all came to exhibit the characteris- tics of ante-bellum American mind--anti-institutionalism, individualism and abstractness.u1 But what is of greater interest for this discussion is Elkins' analysis of another trait of the abolition move- ment: moral aggression or its counterpart, the sense of guilt. According to Elkins, the sense of guilt was a 40 Elkins, Slavery, p. 168. Ibid.. pp. 175“].930 199 necessary element not only for the abolition crusade but al- so for all other reform movements.“2 A latent element co- existing with slavery itself in time, the guilt sense suddenly became acute in the 1830's. Why? Elkin's answer was the expansion of slavery in the South. "By 1830 the spread of slavery had begun to force upon Americans a catalogue of unsuspected revelations. And accordingly, their guilt and outrage were harassed and quickened from the days of Garrison's first blasts in 1831...unti1 the up- heaval of 1861 in which slavery was destroyed by fire and “3 sword." In the unique American social and intellectual setting, this "harassed and quickened" sense of guilt assumed "a unique and disproportionate role in American "an reform activity. It tended to be personal and destruc- tive because of: the absence of clear channels for the harnessing of these drives that made it so.... Guilt must be borne as an individual burden to a degree not to be observed elsewhere. Guilt in a structured situation has formalized outlets, limits within which it may be expressed constructively and with effect. Otherwise, it has no such channels. It will thus accumulate, like static electricity: it became aggressive, unstable, hard to control, often destructive. Guilt may at this point be transformed into implacable moral aggression: hatred of both the sinner and the sin.u5 Ibid., p. 161. Ibid., 0. 36. Ibid. ’ p. .1610 Ibid., p. 161. 200 This is exactly what happened in the abolition movement. Without "the traditional mechanism" whereby the sense of guilt or moral aggression could be controlled, oppressed by accumulated and undischarged guilt, "the gentle Americans of mild vices was transformed into the bloody avenger."LL6 Thus, anti-institituionalism, individualism, abstractness of thinking, and the cutting sense of guilt inclined the abolitionists to reduce complex problems to simple moral absolutes, and turned them into uncompromising, self- righteous moral aggressors crying: "Destroy the evil... root it up, wipe it out."u7 So far as he blamed the ante-bellum society for the moral absolutism and extremism of the abolition agitation, Elkins seemed to exonerate the abolitionists. In rebuffing the revisionist historians, he argued that "a healthy cul- ture can afford "radicalism and propaganda. He believed that it was a good thing for such a culture to have "its fanaticism and moral passion." The real difficulty was not fanaticism and moral passion as such, but "the lack of 48 proper channels“ in American society to direct them. In this society, moderate and gradual solution of the slavery problem was not really a possible alternative.“9 Clearly, 46 Ibid.,p. 164, and 35. 1+7 Ibid., p. 164. 48 Ibid., p. 201. 49 Ibid., p. 194. 201 Elkins suggested that the fanaticism of the abolitionists was the logical child of the unstructured situation of ante- bellum American society. If Elkins considered the fanaticism of the abolition crusade inevitable, he still disliked the abolitionists for not approaching the problem of slavery in an institutional and concrete way. "But while our thinkers and reformers considered the issue in such abstract purity, in such simple grandeur, there was. in principle if not in fact, an alternative philosophical mode. Slavery might have been approached not as a problem in pure morality but as a ques- tion of institutional arrangements-~a question of those institutions which make the crucial difference in men's relationship with one another. . ."50 He even suggested a series of "separate short-term reforms" which might have 51 eventually removed slavery without bloodshed. He seemed to maintain that even if gradual reform was impossible, it was still the responsibility of thinkers and reformers to think and act in regard to slavery concretely and institu— tionally. Anyway, it is quite obvious that Elkins was critical of their anti-institutionalism. His discussion on the Transcendentalists whom he called "intellectuals without responsibility" is a prolonged criticism. Although 202 he declared that "Garrison or no Garrison," abolition was "bound to move" in the direction of simplicity, fragmenta- 52 tion, and diffusion of effort, he could not suppress his dislike of Garrison. According to Elkins, Garrison, "with his egocentric singleness of mind, antagonized most of those who tried to combine with him in any action requiring concerted effort." While the New England Antislavery Society "split wide apart over the venom of his attack on the clergy," the vitality of the American Antislavery Society itself "had been. . . sapped by Garrison's reputa- tion." Borrowing Weld's words, Elkins charged that all the enterprises Garrison's name touched acquired a "vague and "53 Garrisonism meant to Elkins "radical o o o o o o qu doctrines, intran81gence, intolerance, fanaticism."“ infinite odium. In contrast to the practical British abolitionists, "who was poor Garrison?" Asked Elkins, "what plan had he, what were his resources--other than the impotent fury of his own ?IISS poisoned pen If Garrison and other abolitionists were not responsible for the rise of the pro-slavery consensus of the South, their violent and uncompromising attack cer- tainly "did much to bring it into focus." "What the 52 Ibid., p. 184. 53 All the four quotations are taken from Ibid., p.183. 54 Ibid., p. 18“. 55 Ibid., pp. 204—205. 203 abolitionist blasts of Garrison and others could then do, and did with peculiar effectiveness, was to bring that con- «I . 'C sensus to an acute pitch of self-awareness.">' To such F...‘ usual charges, of course, Elkins, ike Donald, added a new one by his psychological interpretation. By declaring that "the easing of guilt is always a most important hidden r functioning")7 of American reform movements, Elkins seemed to hint that the abolitionists were concerned not so much with the elimination of an injust and evil institution as with the alleviation of their own guilty feelings. Accusing and excusing the fanaticism of the abolition- ists in the same breath, Elkins showed the indecision com- parable to Donald's to blame or not the abolition agitators. In this respect, even Wolf, though still under the influence of the revisionist historians, was not very different from the other two historians because she was also unable to make up her mind to describe the abolitionists as true reformers or neurotics. This indecision was largely a reflection of the dilemma in which they were caught when they dealt with the abolition movement. Influenced by the general intellectual outlook of the 1950's, Donald and Elkins at least, like other consensus historians, went conservative in their historical writings. This conservatism prescribed their basic antipathy toward the abolitionists. 5: Ibid., pp. 207 and 211-212. 57 , Ibid., p. 164. 204 Yet, the 1950's also witnessed a decline of extreme racial bias and a growing sympathy to the Negroes. Aware of this trend in public opinion on the racial problems, they must have been unwilling to treat the abolitionists as nothing more than irresponsible troublemakers. Hence, the dilemma and indecision. They reluctantly made a few concessions, and even tried to absolve the abolitionists from charges of being either warmongers or fanatics. But these efforts, al- ready overshadowed by their more pronounced criticisms, were repudiated by their application of the "tension reduction" theory to the abolitionists' behavior. Inten- tionally or not, by the use of this theory, they effec- tively divorced the whole abolition movement from the real social evil, and turned it into a means for the abolitionists to ease their own tension. Thus, the final and overall image of the abolitionist as portrayed by Wolf, Donald, and Elkins was not that of a true reformer motivated by ideals or humanitarian compassion and seeking to free the Negro slaves, but that of a neurotic who used the abolition agi- tation to mitigate his own suffering from either a longing for martyrdom, or from a sense of frustration or guilt. Viewed from this image, their concessions, at best only Casual and reluctant, can only be regarded as signs of their Conscious efforts to ease their own troubled minds. Probably because of the novelty of and the new OPportunity of investigation opened by their interpretations, the writings of Wolf, Donald, and Elkins have been generally 205 regarded by historians as significant studies of the aboli- tion movement, and, judged by their acceptance as well as refutation, had a great influence on some historians who dealt with reform movements. David Brian Davis predicted that "future studies of American reform will be heavily in- debted to the new approaches taken by Donald and Elkins."58 The importance accorded their interpretations is further attested by the inclusion of Donald's article in one, and I Elkins discussion in two anthologies on the abolition move- 5 \O ment widely used in college history courses. Noreover, several historians incorporated the approach of one or the 60 fl other of the three historians in their studies. Bor example, George H. Fredrickson in his study of the impact 58 David Brian Davis, ed., Ante-bellum Reform (New York, 1967), p. 7. 59 Both Hugh Hawkins, ed., The Abolitionists (Boston, 1964), and Richard 0. Curry, ed., The Abolitionists: Hefpgmers or Fanatics? (hew York, 1965) included Elkins: Donald appears only in the latter. 60 So far as articles in the leading historical jour- nals between 1950 and 1960 show, the influence of Wolf, Donald, and Elkins was negligible. Out of about fifteen articles which have any bearing on the abolition movement in these journals, only one indicates the influence of Donald, this is Nerton L. Dillon's article. Another one is Robert Allen Skotheim's criticism of Donald's article. This is probably because the two most significant studies, that f Donald and Elkins, of the three historians did not appear until the late 1950's. The number of articles in Journal of Negro History are eight, in Kississippi Valley Historical Review four, in Journal of Southern History _— three, and in Am—ricgn Historical Hgview none. 206 of the Civil War on northern intellectuals discussed some abolitionists essentially in Elkins' terms. John L. Thomas discovered the same characters in the abolitionists as those stressed by Elkins, and sometimes used a psycho- logical approach. Nerton C. Dillon depended heavily on Donald, Wolf, and Clifford S. Griffins' concept of social control in proving the total failure of the abolition move- ment. Joseph R. Gusfield was influenced by Donald and Griffin in his study of the temperance movement. Walter M. Kerrill also borrowed from Wolf and Donald in his un- sympathetic psychoanalytical study of Garrison. And Kinley J. Erauer used carefully some of Donald's analytical con- cepts in tracing the antislavery political movement in Massachusetts.“1 However, the importance of their studies was not only shown by approvals. It was also attested to by the widespread 61 George N. Fredrickson, The Inner Civil War (New York, 1965): John L. Thomas, The Liberator: A Biography of Eilliam Lloyd_§arrison (Boston, 1963): herton L. Dillon: "The Failure of American Abolitionists," in Journal of .Sguthgrn History, XXVI (1959), 157-177: Joseph R. Gusfield, Symbolic;§rusade: Status Politics and the American Temper- ance hovement (Urbana, 111., 1963); Walter M. Kerrill, and ‘ééainst Tide and Wind: A Biography of Wm. ngyd Garrison (Cambridge, 1963); and Kinley J. Brauer, Cotton Versus _gonscience: Massachusetts Whig Politics and Southern Expansion,_18h3-l€h8 (Lekington, Ky., 1967). For Clifford S. Griffins‘ concept of social control, see his "Religious Benevolence as Social Control, 18l5—1860," in Fississippi _Kalley Historical Review, XLIV (Dec. 1957), u23-nuu. —* 207 critical reaction their interpretations, particularly that of Donald and Elkins, provoked. It is really surprising to find so many articles in historical journals which directly or indirectly challenged the validity of their conclusions or the method they used to arrive at those conclusions. Suffice it to mention only a few names here. Robert Allen Skotheim pointed out that Donald's interpretation was not clear in some important respects, and lacked necessary evi- dence to establish the thesis. Aileen S. Kraditor criti- cized Elkins for his identification of the entire abolition movement with Garrionism and for his failure to provide relevant evidence for his conclusions. Martin B. Duberman complained about the hastiness of the psychologist- historians in making unsympathetic sweeping generalizations about the abolitionists' behavior at a time when so few of the elements possibly involved in their motivation was known and when psychology itself was in a state of fluidity. Because of the myriad of personalities and diversity of experiences of those who decided to join the abolition cru- sade, Betty Fladeland seriously doubted the validity of categorizing the whole body of abolitionists in any psycho- logical terms. In repudiating Elkins, Robert D. Karcus argued that the middle period was not an age of chaos or destruction because of the breakdown of old institutions: instead, it was an age rich in the creation of new institu- tions under which Americans have since lived. And Gerald Sorin in a study of the New York abolitionists drew n\. F" 208 (a conclusions in direct opposition to those of Donald.“ The list can be further enlarged. But the above named are al- ready enough to show the dissatisfaction among many his- torians with the methodology and interpretations of Donald and Elkins. It is worthy of pointing out that these critics are historians of a younger generation with a new outlook completely different from that of Donald and Elkins, and that they are very impatient with their predecessor's critical treatment of the abolitionists. From this fact, it is particularly significant that they picked out Donald and Elkins for targets of attack. It indicated how import- ant they estimated the interpretations of Donald and Elkins. Like other prevailing interpretations of the aboli- tion movement of particular periods, the rise of the con- sensus interpretation of the crusade had a close relation to the intellectual conservatism of the decades after the Second World War. Being such, the interpretations of 62 Kobert Allen Skotheim. ”A Note on Historical hethod: David Donald's Toward a Reconsideration of Aboli- tionistsz" in Journal of Southern Histogy, XXV (1959), 356-365; Aileen'S. Kraditor, "A Note on Elkins and the Abolitionists," in Civil War History, XIII (Dec., 1957), 330-339; hartin B. Duberman, "The Abolitionists and Psycho— logy," in Journal of Nenro History, XLVII (1962), 183-l9l: Betty Fladeland, "Who Were the Abolitionists?” in Journal of Negro History XLIX (1964), 99-115; Robert D. Farcus, "Wendell Phillips and American Institutions," in Journal of American History, LVI (June, 1969), 41-58; and Gerald Sorin, The New York Abolitionists: A Case Study of Political Radicalism (Westport, Conni,—l97l). O 20, Donald and Elkins, and to a lesser degree, that of Wolf, suited well the taste of their fellow-historians and the public in general, and had considerable influences on the study of the abolition movement for some years around 1960. But when the general climate of opinion changed, their views of the abolitionists fell into disfavor, and they became the target of criticism. The duration of their influence on abolition historiography was short. But they did not come and leave without adding something to the image of the abolitions. They put the final touch, that of the aboli- tionists as neurotics, to finish the bad historical portrait of the abolition agitator. CHAPTER VI Fighters for the Rights of hen - A Dissenting Voice - It should be clear from the discussion so far that the fate of the abolitionists went from bad to worse at least since the Progressive historians. Although the nationalist historians were critical of the radical aspect of the abolition movement, they upheld the significance of the moral dispute over slavery in the making of the Civil War, and reacted favorably to the moderate abolitionists. With the emerging of the Progressive historiography, the abolitionists suffered their first setback at the hands of historians. It is true that the leading Progressive his- torians criticized the fanaticism of the abolitionists only mildly. But they drastically reduced the significance of the abolition agitation in the sectional conflict. Then came Gilbert H. Barnes. Despite the fact that he restored the importance of the moral agitation of the abolitionists and that he was favorable to th Weld-Tappan group, Barnes dealt another blow to the image of the abolition agitators by suggesting that their primary concern was not the 210 le abolition of slavery but the denunciation of slavery as a sin in order to dischar:e the duty they felt owed the South. From then on, historians, though recognizing the existence of different groups within the abolition concert, made no distinction in denouncing all the abolitionists. In the writings of therevisionist historians, the abolitionists be- came irresponsible propagandists responsible for bringing about the needless Civil War; and in those of the consensus historians who employed psychological approaches to the sub~ ject, they were described as psychologically dislocated per- sons who used the abolition agitation to reduce their own inner tensions. The resulting composite image of the abolitionist emerging from the studies of these historians was that of an extreme, impractical, blind, and irrespons- ible moral zealot or neurotic who in the attempt to dis- charge his moral duty or psychological tensions drove a reluctant people to a tragic war, or failed to effect any- thing except, perhaps, nuisance. This unsympathetic View of the abolitionists dominated abolition historiography from the 1920's down to the early 1960's. But it had not completely pre-empted the field. Dissenting voices could always be heard. They might not have drawn attention as widely as the dominating interpre- tations of a given time, but historians with a more favor- able view of the abolitionists, even of the Garrisonians, now and then put forth studies to challenge the prevailing view. For example, contributors to the Journal of Nerro 212 .gistogy ever since its first appearance in 1915 have been in general sympathetic to the abolition crusaders. Put the most noted historians who disagreed with the dominating revisionist and psychological interpretations during the period from the late 1930's to early 1960's were Dwight Lowell Dumond, Alice Felt Tyler, and Russell B. Nye.l Needless to say that these three historians differed in details in their treatment of the abolition movement. But they were remarkably similar in approach and attitude toward the abolition movement which distinguished them from the Progressive masters, Barnes, and the revisionist and psychologist historians. The most distinct feature common to them all is their contention that the abolition crusade involved something more than the mere abolition of slavery. The abolitionists were not only crusaders for the freedom of slaves but also defenders of the fundamental principles and practices of democracy. 3y describing the abolitionists as genuine reformers fighting for the realization of the American ideals of equality and liberty for all men against the slave power and its northern allies, these historians challenged the Progressive historians' minimization of the 1 In emphasis and attitude, Arthur F. Schlesinger, Sr., was similar to these three historians. But because his discussion of the abolition movement was too general, he is excluded from this discussion. See his The American As Reforme§_(Cambrid§e, Kass., 1950). 213 significance of the antislavery controversy, the revision- ists' war-guilt charge against the crusaders, and the psychologist historians' demoralization of both the motiva- tion and object of the abolitionists. They were further separated from the other historians by their more sym— pathetic attitude toward the abolition aaitators. They were even less harsh toward Garrison than were historians of the other group. The dissenting View of Dumond, Tyler, and Nye was the product of their liberalism and commitment to American democracy rather than a reflection of the prevailing out- look of their times. Born, learning, and teaching in the hidwest, they inherited a strong midwestern Progressivism.2 This is very clear in their writings. In a survey of the history of the United States of the first four decades of the twentieth century, Dumond dismissed both laissez-faire capitalism and "crack-pot" radical collectivism, and came out strongly for the New Deal which to him represented a healthy "compromise program between socialism and indivi- dualism, between capitalism and communism."3 Probably 2 Dumond was born in Ohio in 1895 and taught at Uni- versity of Richigan after receiving his Ph.D. from that institute; Tyler born in Illinois in 1892 and graduated from and taught at University of Minnesota: Nye born in Wisconsin in 1913 and has been teaching at Michigan State University shortly after receiving his Ph.D. from University of Wisconsin. 3 Dwight L. Dumond, Roosevelt to Roosevelt: The United States in the Twentieth Century (flew York, 1037), 214 because of this liberal thinking, he was very critical of the reactionary activities of the Ku Klux Klan and the religious and economic fundamentalists during the 1920's and the early 1930's. He was particularly annoyed by their attacks on academic freedom. "Academic freedom," he wrote, ”was seriously imperilled all over the country by Red hunts and legislative investigations," and the teachers oath laws.” Believing in the vital importance of free discussion to democracy, Dumond thought the damage of these encroachments on academic freedom "no one can adequately measure."5 This concern with civil liberties was later reenforced by the development of events. During and after the Second World War, the threat of totalitarianism to democracy brought about another wave of interference with the freedom of ex- pression which reached its height in KcCarthyism in the early 1950's. Bothered by the totalitarian threat from abroad and the violation of civil rights at home, he was convinced that the proper way to save democracy was not to curb personal liberties but to commit more fully to democratic way of life. Thus, he urged in l9b9 "our young men" to "raise their voices and never be silent until every person enjoys the inalienable rights of man, free from the -‘ p. #19. For his criticism of individualism, capitalism, the conservatism of the 1920's, see pp. 13, 401, 262-286, and 371-1400 0 11 Ibid., p. 278. For his criticism of the teachers oath laws, see pp. 279-285. 5 Ibid., p. 2814’. 215 persecution of his fellow man." "living in a period of world revolution," he further declared, nothing but the combination of truth, intelligence, and deep devotion of all men to the freedom of "expression of our thought and opinions in speaking, writing, and printing will save us."“ Bothered by the communist threat and the violation of civil rights at home, Dumond appealed to young men to protect democracy. Professor Eye's liberal inclination is attested to by his sympathetic treatment of the midwestern Progressive movement as a struggle between agrarianism and capitalism. Though the old midwestern Progressivism, "so alive, vital, and pulsing with ideas and personalities," died in 1932, yet he hoped with an aging Progressive worker that "maybe someday my grandson will have the chance to do it again."7 He was apparently troubled by the postwar tendency toward increasing military influence in politics and economy, 0 0 8 "corporate concentration,' and conservatism. Yet he saw lights of hope in Americans' firm belief in equality, pro- . I O O gress and free enterprise modified through the years,/ and 6 Dumond, ”The Nississippi: Valley of Decision," kississippi Valley Historical Reviewi XXVII (June,1949), 75. 7 Russell 3. Nye, Kidwestern Progressive Politics: A Historical Study of Its Origin§_and Development, 1820-195§ ‘(East Lansing, Mich., 1959), p. 382. 8 Ibid.. pp. 351-354. 9 Russell E. Nye, This Almost Chosen People: Essays in (J\ 21 upheld the importance of civil liberties "to the present and to the future America" because they are the essential social process "that made constitutional democracy possible and workable."10 Thus, Professor Nye, like Dumond, also deemed unhampered civil liberties vital for the preservation of American democracy. Although Mrs. Tyler was not so ex- plicit as Dumond or Nye in her concern with the present menace to democracy, her faith in the ability of the reformers to advance the cause of democracy and freedom was just as optimistic as that of the reformers whom she . . 11 studied and praised. Out of their liberalism grew these three historians' conviction of the necessity of unimpeded civil liberties for the preservation and growth of American democracy and their opposition to the interferences with those liberties in their times. Such belief and reaction to contemporary events go far to explain the way in which they interpreted the abolition movement. Since they believed in the posi- tive value of reform, they were likely to approach the abolitionists favorably, And since they stressed the vital _the Histgry of American Ideas (East Lansing, Nich., 1966). 10 Russell 3. Nye, Fettered FreedomigCivil Iiberti ‘gnd the Slavery Controyersy, 1830:1560 TEast LanSing, h 1914'8) 9 p. X. H4 (D O :3“ O 0 ll Alice Felt Tyler, Freedom' 5 Ferment: Phases of American Social History From the Colonial Period to the Outbreak of_ the Civil war (Binneapolis, Linn., 194L7,_ pp. 5L8- 549 - 217 importance of civil rights, it is only natural that they would accentuate the abolitionists' role as fighters for the civil rights of all men. It is in this sense that their own beliefs influenced their interpretation of the abolition movement more than any other factors did. But their view of the abolitionists was also affected by their attitudes toward the contemporary controversy over racial relations between the Negro and the white. Ever since the Niagara movement and the organization of the hational Association for the Advancement of Colored People at the beginning of this century, Negroes and their white sympathizers have struggled to win for the Negroes equality and civil rights. But the efforts of almost forty years had achieved little in the face of deep-rooted racial bias. Beginning in the late thirties, however, the Negro civil rights movement gained forces, and the Negro problem once again threatened to divide the nation. Among other factors, the embarrassment felt in battling against fascist and communist countries by professing democracy While tolerating racial inequality at home must have been powerful in causing the government to take action to better race relations.12 Anyway, it was the executive and judicial branches of the federal government that took initiatives 12 For factors which contributed to the increasing sympathies to the Negro. see C. Vann Woodward, The Strange QEEEGT Of Jim Crow (hew Yor“, Second Revised Edition, 1036), Pp. 122-l3hg—Kye, This Almost Chosen People, pp. 350-351: 32d Thomas J. Gasset, Race: The History of—an Era in America Wallas. Texas, 19.63), Chp-ts. XVI and NH. 17 21‘ K during and after the Second World War in eliminating racial segregation and discrimination. The public and Contress remained at first indifferent, but the massive southern resistance to the famous Supreme Courts' decisions of 1954 and 1955 eventually stirred many civil righters and Con- 13 gress into action. To be sure, racial bias remains strong and pervasive even today. But during the last two decades, sympathy to the Negroes and hostility to racism have been on the increase, and leral sanctions for segrega- tion have been chopped away one after another. Given their liberal mentality and the changing opinion on the race problem, Dumond, Tyler, and Nye could be expected to be anti—racist and pro-Negro. Unlike the revisionist historians and the psychologist historians who ’ ' ° ° 7 lu’ were either indifferent to or aVOided the heyro problem, the dissenting historians were disgusted by racism and dis- crimination against the Negroes. As early as 1939, Dumond denounced racial prejudice.15 But his strongest indictment 13 Woodward, The Stranse Career of Jim Crow, p. 135. 14 By attributing the factors which produced the "Sambo" type of personality of slaves to the "closed system" of southern slavery, Elkins seemed to be challenging the concept of the Negro's racial inferiority. Donald's dis- cussion of slavery in J.C. Randall and Donald, The Divided gnion (Boston, 1961),pp. 50-77, largely in terms of the new findings of such historians as Allan Nevins and Kenneth h. Stampps, seemed more critical of slavery than the revision- ist historians. But neither Donald nor Elkins attacked rac— ism directly or showed sympathy to the Negro. 15 Dumond, Antislavery Qrigins of the Civil in? I|IIL.H 219 of slavery, segregation, and racism was in his study of the antislavery crusade. "Slavery was the subordination of nearly four million Negroes to the status of beasts of the field," he indignantly assaulted human bondage. "Slavery b was a deadly virus which twisted and distorted intellectual o o O O O "16 processes, SOCial attitudes, and religious philosophy. The Americans pulled down the temple of slavery; but only to reduce again the Negroes "to a second-class citizenship which is and always has been a modified form of slavery from colonial times to the present."17 Eoth slavery and second-class citizenship "rest upon the barbaric, un- "18 Professor Nye was scientific concept of racialism. equally strong and clear in this respect. he pointed out that the position of the Negro in American society had II ’ ' ° ‘ "19 Changed very little in many respects Since slavery days. Resting on "prejudicial assumptions" and depending "for the United States (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1939), p. 14 and 18. lo Dumond, Antislavery: The_Crusade for Equality_in £22£;g§ (Ann Arbor, hich., lgcl7, Trpreface", p.v. 1? . Ibid., "preface,‘ p.v. Dumond's denunciation of raCism can be found in many places of the book. 19 Nye, This Almost Chosen People, p. 337. 220 support on pseudo-scientific evidence, most of it discredited by reputable scientists,"20 the prevailing belief in late nineteenth century in white racism sanctioned Negro seare- ion. "So the South lost the war, and won the argument over the hegro's position in society. So far as the 1. hegro's equality was concerned, by 1890 the Civil War might ]. 1f. 0 0 2 his censure of raCial bias was not have been fought." also clearly expressed in his contrast of "the mindless racism" of R. Carter Pittman of Alabama with the criticism of racism by William Faulkner, ”a thoughtful and sensitive observer...caught like his homeland in the struggle between ’5 anCient wrongs and new beliefs."2‘ Though not as explicit as Dumond and Nye, Hrs. Tyler was no less annoyed by the racial bias underlying the ante-bellum treatment of free Negroes and the colonization movement.23 This anti—racist and pro-Negro attitude was certain to affect their view of the abolitionists. Explicitly or implicitly, the three historians agreed that second-class citizenship was nothing but a modified form of slavery, and saw as Professor Nye that, "parallels do exist" between the ante-bellum antislavery agitation and the present Negro p 221 civil rights movement in so far as the question of civil rights is concerned.2u \_. Since they were sympathetic to the present Negroes' struggle for equality, it is only natural that they would emphasize the abolitionists' fight for civil liberties. To them, there was really no difference between the abolitionists and the civil righters: both groups were crusaders for freedom and equality for the black as well as the white. Unlike most other groups of historians with similar views about the abolitionists, the interpretation of Dumond, Tyler, and Nye was influenced more by their own ideals than by the general perspective of the times. This is probably the reason why they presented a view of the abolition move- ment so different from those of their contemporary historians. Being liberals, they were disturbed by the attacks on civil liberties during the periods after the two world wars and the prevailing racial prejudice against the black. Believing that unhampered civil liberties were the cornerstone of democracy, confident in the relevancy of reform, and sym- pathetic to the Negro's struggle for equality, they natur- ally approached the abolitionists with sympathy and viewed them as crusaders not only for the slave's freedom but also for the freeman's liberties. Among the three historians, it was Dumond who wrote the first and last dissenting opinion on the abolition move- ment. his first study of the crusade came out in 1939, 24 Rye, Fettered Freedom, p. Xi. 222 the last one in 1961. The interval of more than thirty years had not changed his view at all. In both books, he hammered home the thesis that the antislavery crusaders were fighters for the fundamental principles embodied in 25 the Declaration of Independence and the Christian teachings. Dumond believed that the roots of antislavery sentiment reached back to the revolutionary epoch. It sprang primarily 25 Dumond has been regarded by some historians as one and the same as Gilbert H. Barnes in their interpretations. Richard 0. Curry in his edited, The Abolitionists: Reformegs _gr Fanatics? (New York, 1965), p. 3, pointed out that there were many parallels between Barnes and Dumond: C.S. Griffin in his The Ferment of Reform, 1830-1860 (New York, 1967), p. 25, included Dumond as—One offiBa'rnesr converts; and herton L. Dillon, in “The Abolitionists: A Decade of His- toriography, 1959—1969." Journal of Southern History, XXXV (Nov.. 1969), 518, labelled their views as "the Barnes- Dumond interpretation." It is true that Barnes and Dumond had a very close relationship, and that their studies had similarity in some respects. For example, both were critical of Garrison and discredited his leadership. Then, they upheld the pivotal importance of western abolitionism and the influence of the Great Revival. But the differences, far outweiqhing the similarities, did not warrant such a classification. Among others, the following differences are quite clear. Dumond never thought the Great Revival as the only source of abolitionism as Barnes did. While Weld was Barnes' hero, Dumond put more emphasis on the importance of Birney. Larnes treated lightly the third party movement which to Dumond was the mainstream of the antislavery crusade after the schism of lEbO. Dumond denounced vehemently both slavery and the South in contrast to Barnes' mild disapproval. But the greatest difference is in their attitude toward the abolitionists. Barnes was ambiguous while Dumond was frankly partisan. Barnes regarded them as no more than denunciators of slavery as a sin; Dumond considered them as heroic fighters for civil liberties. 223 up from the Christian teaching, particularly the Quaker doctrine of equality of all men before God, and the doctrine of natural right set down in the Declaration of Independence, though later it received a mighty impulse from the Great "r .4 hevival.4q The organized antislavery movement passed through three stages. The first, centering around the activities of the colonization society, was a failure; but it prepared the stage for the appearance of he second. This stage, extending from 1833 to 1839, was essentially a religious movement, using churches as forums, denouncing slavery as a sin, and demanding immediate emancipation. Under the effective direction of the American Antislavery Society, the abolitionists succeeded during this period in abolitionizing and converting the North.27 The most signi- ficant development in this stage, however, was the evolve- ment of the higher Law doctrine. This was largely the result of the efforts to put down antislavery agitation. The slaveholders, determined to perpetuate slavery, not only stamped out free discussion in their own section but also developed a political philosophy of concurrent major- ity to butress their demand for federal protection of slavery and suppression of agitation against it.28 The Northerners for political, economic or racial reasons also (3 26 Dumond, Antislavery Oririns of the Civil h’arl p. 121; and Antislavery, p. 17 and 26. 27 Dumond, Antislavegy Crisins of the Civil War, p. 5. a 28 Ibid., pp. 68-70; and Antislavegy, pp. 231-232. 224 endeavored to suppress the abolitionists by legislation or lawless mob actions, and thus violated the rights of petitions, and free discussion and expression of a minority c f . . . . . group.2/ Seeing "the full Significance of the denial of free inquiry and discussion," Birney and others developed "the thesis that slavery was incompatible with the funda- mental principles of Americanism, and expanded the movement to free the hegro into a movement to preserve the essence "30 of freedom for the white man. To justify their demands, they combined natural law and moral law to produce the 1" higher Law doctrine. So it was that natural and moral law--natural rights and moral obligations-~bacame one and the same in the anti- slavery movement. Freedom of individuals to perform all the obligations arising out of the relationships between persons and between persons and God is what they called the natural rightswof man [Italics hig7. The natural law and the moral law lead to the same basic concept in all human relationships: the equality of all men in the eyes of God. The first words and the most import- ant words of the Declaration had been an affirma- tion of human equality and the natural rights of man. It was no accident, therefore, that the first amendment should have been a guarantee of those rights...nor that antislavery men...should have reaffirmed it with such clarity and unanimity. The Declaration became the most quoted of all documents for thirty years. This was the higher 1aw.31 29 Dumond, Antislavery, pp. 229-231. 30 Dumond, AntislaveryCrigins_of the Civil War, p. 50. 31 Dumond, Antislavery, pp. 232-233. 225 Resting their authority on the supremacy of the Declaration of Independence, the abolitionists argued that the Con- stitution was an antislavery document, and that Congress had constitutional powers to abolish slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia, outlaw inter-state slave trade, exclude slavery from territories, and refuse to admit into the Union new slave states. What the abolitionists had to do was only to capture the federal government to change its policies. With such a philosophy, and with local anti- slavery societies already acting as local political units, it was natural that the abolition movement went into politics, the third stage of organized antislavery movement. Beginning with the organization of the Liberty party in 1840, and broadening its popular basis through the Free- Soil party, the antislavery crusaders finally brought their cause to triumph in the election of Lincoln in 1860. The platform of the Republican party was in direct tradition of the antislavery movement, according to Dumond, and Lincoln a great abolitionist. "If Birney and Weld were abolition- ists," he declared, "Lincoln was one: and if they had a plan, he had a better one."32 After all, it was Iincoln who saved the Union while realizing the aim of the abolition- ists by freeing the slaves. There is not the slightest doubt that Dumond saw the abolition movement as more than just a crusade for the 32 Dumond, Antislavery Crisins of the Civil War, p. 103. 226 emancipation of the slaves. It was also a movement to save ”the civil rights of free men"33 against the slave power's encroachment upon free inquiry and discussion with- no democratic government can survive a single "34 OUt VVhiCh generation. Justified by the higher Law doctrine, the antislavery men were fighting for the basic principle of democracy; the exaltation of the individual, recognition of his natural rights, and protection aeainst restraints by the govern- ment and his fellow men that he might develop his talents to the utmost of his ability. In short, they were fighting to free four million men, women, and children from slavery, and a half million more from the cruel oppression of the Northern black laws and spoilation by their neighbors. They were fighting for justice and equality under the law for all men. They were fighting for the survival of law itself, for this was a contest between government by law and government by man.35 "A small group in the beginning, a constitutional majority é‘ a o o o o in the end,")” never heSitating and dev1atinp, they carried the crusade through “to a successful conclusion, and saved d- 3‘ (D Union in the process," and scored "this country's great- "37 Then, to Dumond. the est victory for democracy. abolitionists were the great liberators of the slaves as ‘Well as the great savers of American democracy. Ibid., p. 67. 34 Ibid., p. 11 O\ Dumond, Antislavery, p. 232. Ibid., "preface," p. v. D Dumond, Antislavery Origins o: the Civil Y ”8.1", p. C8: (\J 2 V This is also the thesis of hrs. Tyler, Like Dumond, she considered the abolitionists to be fighters for the principles of democracy. She found the origins of the abolition movement in religious humanitarianism and the doctrine of natural rights. ”At the same time," she said, ”these religious humanitarians were democrats with a deep conviction of the worth of the individual and of the equal- ity of all men." They opposed slavery because it violated democracy, degraded the individual, and denied "the most elementary ‘uman rights." Koreover, the North in silencing the abolitionists trespassed the rights of free speech and petition, while the South in protecting slavery had attacked the safeguards that had been placed in the constitution and in every revolutionary bill of rights to protect the civil rights which alone could guarantee the democratic way of life. Freedom of discussion was the lifeblood of democracy, and the denial of that freedom in respect to slavery was regarded as an attack upon liberties too vital to be surrendered without a struggle. Slavery thus became a menace to the white citizen and to the non-slavery North as well as to the South. 38 To fight against this menace, the abolitionists called "the democrats of the North to aid in preserving the liber- ties of :hite men as well as in securing freedom of the O , . . . . . slaves."3/ Their call did not fail, With each instance of éand Antislavery, "preface", p. v. 38 All the quotations are taken from Tyler, Freedom's Q89. i?erment, M p 1 Ci J / 228 interference with the freedom of speech, some persons were won "to the antislavery cause and to the demand for free no . . . peech." At last, there presented in northern opinion "a U) passionate interest in the we fare of the Negro and a clear conviction that abolition of slavery and the continuance of #1 American democracy were irrevocably connected." And "the growing antislavery feeling of the country" prepared the u2 In way for the triumph of the Republican party in 1860. short, hrs. Tyler not only saw the abolition crusade as be- ginning in the same sources, but also painted the abolition- ists in the same manner as Dumond did. The implication for civil liberties in the anti- slavery controversy was so vital, yet so neelected that Professor Eye wrote several articles and a book to expose the significance of this side of the abolition movement. he pointed out tiat the attention paid by historians to the political, social, and economic causes of the Civil War tended to obscure the fact that "it was motivated as well bv J 'the desire of the North to protect democratic government Ibid., p. 513. 42 - Ibid., p. #99. Tyler never argued that ideological Cia.fferences were the only issue that divided the nation over 'tfde problem of slavery. Sectional interests were also import— ?LTlt. But she asserted that "the moral issue was of far more {Inlmortance than economics or sectionalism to countless 1‘0rtherners." Ibid., p. 545. 229 and the rights of Northern white freemen. rights considered by many to have been under attack for thirty years by a , . ,"u3 . , . . . slavepower conspiracy. To him, all the abolitionists were ”sincerely concerned with the preservation of freedom in their struggle to end slavery." sor hve located several roots of the great the ’3 ( D L? r0' 1 The Enlightenment, "d ante—bellum reform movement. Declaration of Independence, Christianity, European reform and the militant movements, Romanticism, Revivalism, Jacksonian democracy--a11 these elements converted to pro~ liberal- duce the reform impulse, a compound of idealism, ism, humanitarianism, and democracy, and a general movement 5 The abolition seering to perfect human institutions. but it movement was at first only one of several reforms, "bulked larger and larger until at the end it overshadowed This is mainly because the abolition move- ' / 40 all others." ment involved the future of democracy more intimately than Denying the validity of the slavepower other reforms. conspiracy as expounded by the abolitionists, Professor Nye 43 Nye, "Civil Liberties and the Antislavery Contro- ‘versy," Science and Society, IX (1945), 125. an Nye, Fettered Freedom, p. 317. Jilliam Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian 45 II T e g “I :3 -, ,, _ ‘r— . - Axefbrmers (eoston, 1953), pp. 37—40. and 3; and nye. .EEEEtgred Freedom, p. 2. Garrison and the Humanitarian it. C\ Nye, William Lloyd formers, p. #0. m '11 -7) X 23o nevertheless contended that there did exist an "excellent support" in the South and a "significant support" in the North for the theory of slavery being a positive rood which was itself "a counterattack on free institutions,"47 and "in the South and also in the horth, among those who would be most affected economically by agitation of the emanci- pation question, an agreement to suppress discussion of the slaverv issue, and if possible, to promulgate neutral or . u . . proslavery sentiments.“ In order to put down the aboli- (7) tionist agitation, the slaveholders and their northern sym- pathizers were willing to infringe upon personal and civil rights. The abolitionists soon found this out and never ceased telling the public that slavery jeopardized "nearly . . . . . . . . "49 every magor prinCiple of American c1v11 rights ’. And the events since the 1830's gradually convinced many hortherners who were concerned less with the wrones of the Negro than with the rights of white men that the abolition— . -. 1 . . . . . . 5O ists were right and JOined the ranks of the abolitionists. As a result, "the attempt of Southern ruling class to suppress the movement in the free states as it had been done 47 — W " Nye, F ttered Freedom, p. 315; and "The Slave Power C3onspiracy: 1530-1630," Science and Society, K (lQMd), 273—274. Q \J r‘ #8 Nye, "Civil Liberties and the Antislavery Controversy,” ébczience and Sociegy, IX (19b5), 125. 231 in slave states, involving as it necessarily di‘ an abridsement of the civil rights of the abolitionists, prob- ably did more to consolate anti-Southern feeling in the horth and West than any other single factor."51 By success- fully merging antislavery with civil rights, the abolition- ists mobilized northern opinion on their side, and turned . . . . 52 anti-southern into antislavery sentiments.“ Those North- erners "whose sympathies led them to see slavery as a threat to freedom” eventually joined the abolitionists "to protect those rights, basic to a democracy, by abolishing slavery."5 In the interpretation of Professor Nye, then, the protection of democracy and freedom played from beginning to end a imary if not exclusive role in the whole abolition move- *0 "S ment. Dumond, Tyler, and Nye all believed that the aboli- tion agitation began because some people considered slavery a violation of the principle of the freedom and equality of all men taught by natural as well as moral law. Furthermore, they held the opinion that its final success was helped by ‘the identification of the antislavery cause with that of Ebreservina the civil rishts of all men which were seriously 51 Ibid., p. 127. 52 Nye, Fettered FreedomL p. 316. 53 232 threatened by the slaveholders' drive to protect slavery. The crusade for the freedom of the slave was broadened into a movement to prevent civil liberties from being submerged by slavocracy. To them, the abolitionists were not only true reformers, sincerely concerned with the evils of slavery. They were important reformers as well because in their fighting to liberate the slaves, they at the same time preserved the fundamental principles of American democ- racy. This emphasis already put them in direct contrast to their contemporary revisionist and psychologist his- torians. The sympathies implied in the description of the abolitionists as fighters for equality and freedom further removed them from the later group of historians who were critical of the abolitionists, particularly the Garrisonians. It is true that Dumond, Tyler, and Nye followed Gilbert H. Barnes' dichotomy of the abolitionists, and in general were there favorable to the western group than to the Garrisonians. LEut they were less harsh even in their evaluations of (Barrison and his followers. Dumond was the most outspoken among the three his- 't<3rians to glorify the non-Garrisonian abolitionists among vvifiom Birney, Weld, and Stanton, "the great triumvirate"5LF <>:f the antislavery cause received the most lavish praises. 54 Dumond, Antislavery, p. 28@. 233 his admiration for them was so great in fact that he felt no qualm in quoting Birney's daughter, Catherine, who was of necessity partisan, to pay his homage: their moderation, good judgment, and piety had been seen and known of all men. Faithful in the exposure of unfaithfulness to freedom on the part of politicians and clergymen, they denounced either the Constitution, or the Bible. Their devotion to the cause of abolition was pure; for its sake they suppressed the vanity of personal notoriety and of oratorial display./5 These men were "neither fanatics nor incendaries." They unhesitatingly devoted themselves to the preservation of the Union and to the defense of the freedom of men. And they succeeded in both.56 But if the abolitionists were giants, Birney was the giant of giants. His "public career extended through the entire span of the antislavery crusade, no other man was so prominantly identified with every aspect of it."57 "A man of indomitable courage and unyield- 58 ing conviction...a humanitarian by instinct," and "the very soul of dignity, integrity, and Christian virtue," Eirney's emphasis on the incompability of slavery and the {fundamental principles of Americanism "blossomed eventually, ‘through his leadership, as the principle upon which Northern 55 Ibid., p. 190. 56 Ibid., "preface," p.v. 57 fl Dumond, ed., letters of James_Gi11espie Birney, ]-&>§1-1852 (New York, 1938), "Introduction", p. xii. * 58 Dumond, Antislavery Origins of_the Civil War. pp. 21-22. 23M . . . . "59 sectionalism sought to administer the government. The praises of Mrs. Tyler and Professor Nye were more moderate. "Lundy's coverage and devotion,‘ in Tyler's opinion, "were characteristic of the early abolitionists, and his lack of fanaticism and yet unwillingness to com- . . . . . 60 promise were shown in all his writings." Congressman fighting against the gag rules were called "doughty / r\ fighters.”l "Fortunately" not all the abolitionists were of the Garrisonian type, there were in the field revival- ist-abolitionists who "coupled a practical interest in social betterment with their concern over the souls of their flocks."62 The "backbone" of the publicity program conducted by the American Antislavery Society was "the Weld-Finney group in the West" who were "responsible for much of whatever measure of success was achieved."63 But the most favorable comment came with her eulogy of all the ante-bellum reformers of whom the abolitionists were a part: "the fundamentals of American faith and the American way of life had been set by the pioneers and the crusaders of the Ibid., p. 35. Tyler, Freedomfs Ferment, p. #02. Ibid., p. 511. Ibid., p. #90. Ibid., p. 49A. 235 early years: men to whom the life of the perfect Christ gave hope that their lives and their institutions might be perfected...men who were proud to fight in the cause of democracy and freedo.n."6LL Dr. Nye also praised all the abolitionists. But he seemed to consider the western- political group to be more effective than the Garrisonians. He believed that the Tappan-Weld group was larger, better- 65 organized, better-financed, and better-skilled. The work of organization and publicity campaign was mainly carried out by this group. And after lBuO, because abolition was "no longer a moral but a political issue," those who favored political action became the mainstream of abolitionism. Kore and more western abolitionists came to believe that "success lay in politics, in the Liberty party, in the Free-Soil party, and eventually in the Republican party.... By 1856 abolitionism was the great political issue facing the nation-~a question with moral implications, but one that could be answered only in political terms...the vote of the old abolitionist territories, state by state, made Lincoln president."66 And with the Emancipation Proclamation the abolitionist crusade to free the slave was brought to a successful conclusionf’7 Like Dumond and Tyler, Professor Nye Ibid., p. 549. 65 Nye, William Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Iieformers, p. 59. 66 67 Ibid., p. 131. Nye, Fettered Freedom, p.xi. 236 seemed to regard the practical New York-western-political abolitionists as the most effective and important group in the antislavery crusade. So far as the classification of the abolitionists into two groups and the admiration for the western group are concerned, Dumond, Tyler, and Nye were not unlike Barnes. What set them apart from Barnes as well as other leading historians of their age was their remarkable leni- ence toward Garrison. It is true that they still could not embrace wholeheartedly Garrison. Criticisms of Garrison permeated their works. To Dumond, Garrison was "notoriously intolerant even toward his strongest friends," ignorant of American history and constitutional law, and "a timid soul . . . 68 . except when safely behind the editorial desk." Essentially he was "a man of distinctly narrow limitations among the . . 69- . . giants of antislavery movement." He did nothing to help the free Negro as Weld and Birney did. What was more in- tolerable to Dumond appeared to be Garrison's bad effects on the crusade. He became "insufferably arrogant at times in his treatment of other men, to the detriment of the Cause."70 his wrong interpretation of the Constitution as 21 pro—slavery document deprived the abolitionists of an 68 Dumond, Antislavery, p. 283, 167, and 182. Ibid., p. 174. 237 effective means to end slavery by Congressional legislation. his denunciation of the Constitution and federal government, and his refusal to vote "hurt the cause of emancipation... played into the hands of the proslavery men. It was an obstacle to political action against slavery. It split the American Anti-Slavery Society.... It need not have done so had the colossal conceit of the man not led him to claim credit for almost everything that was done in the "71 movement before 1840. To Tyler, the Liberator was un- reasoning and unreasonable in its demands, unguarded and unequivocal in its accusation."72 The American Antislavery Society was handicapped by its inheritance of "the public dislike" of Garrisonism which meant "radicalism, lack of practical planning, and the advocacy of everything ultra in the way of reform."73 To Garrison "everyone who opposed him was enemy, and since he was convinced of the validity of his position, all opponents were of necessity wrong."7u And the Garrisonians were determined to capture the American Antislavery Society and use it for their own ends of advo- cating nonresistance, women's rights, and disunion.75 Nye Ibid., p. 174. ’1'] (D Tyler, Freedom‘s ' rment, p. 485. 238 was definitely of the opinion that the abolition movement was not begun by Garrison, nor organized and dominated by him. "The movement, set in motion by others, was carried to its conclusion bv methods he could not accept and ideas he could net understand. Abolition passed through him, not "76 from him. He not only denied Garrison's originality and leadership but also criticized Garrison's egotism and vagaries. Garrison's "moral self-righteousness" and "absolute self-confidence" made him "unconsciously dictorial.“ he refused personal praise and credit; yet he "constantly sought it with a real inward hunger." His ideas sometimes were ”ill~advised, wrong, or downright foolishz" yet he always obstinately identified with them to such a degree that it was "almost impossible to persuade him he was wrong."77 t-jl {is "own addiction to women's rights, religious unorthodoxy, non-government, and nonresistance as well as his imperious self-righteousness" alienated friends and helped to force the division of the American Antislavery Society.78 Nye's dislike of Garrison was just as plain as Dumond's or Tyler's. However, this is not the whole story. Though they found it hard to swallow all his radicalism, vagaries, 76 Eye, William Lloyd_Garrison and the Humanitarian :teformers, p. 205. 77 Ibid., pp. 202-203. 78 Ibid., p. 131. 239' violent abuses, and self-righteousness, Dumond, Tyler, and Nye either made efforts to justify him or accorded him some significance in the antislavery movement. To measure Garrison's contribution to the movement, Dumond thought that it “must be paradoxical." Against his heavy liabilities, Dumond gave him certain credits or exonerated him from some accusations. his harsh language provoked the anger of slaveholders, but "that was of little consequence" because they "hated anyone who spoke against slavery." Moreover, "nothing short of intense, uncompromising, even violent denunciation of slavery and slaveholders would have aroused the country.... It did not retard emancipation because there was nothing to retard. It did not evoke a violent defense of slavery because slaveholders had always been vehement 79 in its defense." On the positive side, Garrison had a contribution, not an overpowering one to be sure. He pro- vided in the Liberator "an opportunity for the Negro leaders to express their views and encourage their people. His strong, relentless championship of human rights; his refusal to recognize distinction of color or race with respect to ability, achievement, and rights; his condemnation of every Sort of injustice were an encouragement and a blessing to an.oppressed people which cannot be measured but was very W b0 ;great." Tyler conceded on the other hand that the Liberator Dumond, Antislavery, p. 173. 80 Ibid., p. 174. it} was "the cry of the outraged conscience of North." It "broke up the 'conspiracy of silence' with which the in- stitution of slavery had been protected."81 In his overall estimation of Garrison, Rye considered him "a person of real historical importance, for he was a symbol to his generation of the moral and ideological conflict that took “82 1 its final snape in the Civil War. During the first decade of the movement, he was pre-eminent; and after 1840, even though his support remained regional, he was still .. . . , ..83 an effective speaker and tireless leaoer. To the North, he was "a goad,a prick to the conscience, a symbol of the moral problem of slavery.... Garrison, more than any other one person, shattered the 'conspiracy of silence'.... To disagree with Garrison, men had to face up to the prob- lem, rethink their beliefs, examine their own conscience. When men did this, slavery was doomed.... Garrison's career aptly symbolized to the victorious North" the moral causes of the Civil War.32+ In essence, the three historians made substantially the same evaluation of Garrison's contribution, though they differed in the matter of Garrison's sisnificance. he did more harm than good to the abolition movement with Tyler, Freedom's ferment p. U85. 82 a Nye, William lloxgycaIELEOH and the Humanitarian figeformers, p. 205- 83 Ibid., p. 132. 84 2181 his anarchism, violent invectives, vagaries, and esotism. But at the same time he contributed much to the cause by breaking up the conspiracy of silence over the slavery ques- tion by pricking the national conscience, and thus spread- ing the antislavery feeling. however, they varied in details, Dumond, Tyler, and Nye agreed on two basic points in their treatments of the abolition movement. One is that the abolitionists were q‘ fighters for both the slave‘s freedom and the free man's civil rights. The other is that they were sympathetic to the abolitionist. This view of the crusaders seemed to be the natural result of the reaction of their liberalism to the recurrent conservative attacks on civil liberties after both the First and Second World har and the general racist bias against the Negro. Offended by the encroachments on the freedom of thought and expression they firmly believed that the best way to protect democracy was for Americans to commit themselves more fully to civil liberties and person- al rights, the cornerstone of American democracy. This emphasis on personal and civil rights was bound to affect their View on the Negro problem. If for nothing else, the Deed to make democracy more perfect rendered it imperative to pull down social segregations which turned the boast of democracy into a big joke. However, their pro-Negro atti- tude was further reinforced by their liberalism. This stress on unimpeded civil liberties, and this sympathy toward the Negro's struggle for equality were clearly reflected 2&2 in their interpretation of the abolitionists. After all, there are parallels between the present and the ante-bellum situation, and between the civil righters and abolitionists. Then, there is no wonder that their liberal mentality re- acting to their contemporary experiences determined their sympathetic view of the abolitionists as brave fighters for the equality and freedom of men, white and black. Though they failed to achieve full equality for the Negroes, the abolitionists nevertheless succeeded in freeing the slaves, and in saving the Union and democracy. It is in this way that Dumond, Tyler, and Nye challenged the prevailing bad image of the abolitionists as described by the Progressive historians, Barnes, the revisionists, and the psychological historians. They were indeed dissenters. Precisely because they were dissenters, their view of the abolitionists was not accepted widely by their con- temporaries. As shown before, the major studies on the abolition movement during the period from the late 1930's to the early 1960's showed little sympathy to the crusaders, and almost none described them as constructive reformers. For that matter, few of the contributions to American Historical neview, hississippi Valley historical Review and igurnal of Southern history took up the cause of the abolitionists. Some writers in the Journal of Nesro History emphasized the role of the abolitionists as fighters for human rights, or sustained the importance of the New 2M3 England abolitionists, or excused the abolitionists from some accusations.85 But considering the nature and the traditional tone of the journal, the views of these writers can hardly be thought to be influenced by the three his- torians. Even the reviewers of the writings of Dumond and Nye were not all favorable.86 While most reviewers of the two books of Nye praised his scholarship, clarity of presentation, or contribution to the understanding of the abolition movement, at least one of them complained that Nye presented only "a unilateral view of a complex subject.” Another one showed his own dislike of Garrison- "87 ism. Dumond fared far worse than Nye. In general, most of his reviewers disapproved his strong pro-abolitionist 85 R.P. Ludlum, "The Antislavery 'Gag Rule': History and Argument," Journal of Negro History, XXVI (April, 1941), 203-243; Kenneth M. Stampp, hThe Fate—of the Southern Anti- slavery kovement," ibid., XXVIII (Jan., 1943), 9-22: Dorothy B. Porter, "David N. Ruagles, An Apostle of Human Rights," ibid; XXVIII (Jan., 19b3). 23-50; Charles H. Wesley, "The Participation of Negroes in Antislavery Political Parties,” ibid; XXIX (Jan. 1944), 32-74; Elaine Brooks, "Nassachusetts Antislavery Society", ibid, XXX (July, IQMS), 311-330; Louis Ruchames, "Race, Narriage, and Abolition in Nassachusetts", ibid., XL (July, 1955), 250-273: and Roman J. Zorn, "The New England Antislavery Society, Pioneer Abolition Organization," ibid; XLII (July, 1957), 157-176. 86 Reviews of Tyler's book has not much use here because reviewers commented little on her treatment of the abolition movement. 87 howard C. Perkins, "Review of Nye, jettered Freedom", Journal of Southern History, XVI (1950), 92; and Henry Lee Swint, "Review of Nye, William Lloyd Garrison and the 241+ and anti-southern stand, or his insensitiveness to the . . . . . 88 . . . findings of his contemporary historians. Such criticisms indicate that the warm endorsement of the abolitionists by Dumond, Tyler, and Eye ran counter to the taste of their times. It was not until the 1960's when a younger generation of historians began an all-out reassessment of the aboli- tionists that the interpretation of the three historians came to be appreciated. Humanitarian Reformers," Mississippi ValleypHistorical keview, XLII (Oct., 1955), 320—327. 88 Frank L. Owsley, "Review of Dumond, ed., letters of Birney", Journal of Southern History, V (1939), 2533 Theodore Clarke Smith, "Review of Dumond, Antislavery Origins of the Civil War,“ American Historical Review, XLV (April, 1960), 663-664} E. Eerton Coulter. “Review 0? Dumond, Antislavery Origins of the Civil War," Journal of Southern History, VI (1940), 270—271; and the following reviews of Dumond, Antislavery, by David K. Potter, in American Historic~ al_Review; iarcus Cancliffe, in The Spectator, vol. 208 (Jan.—June, 1962), p. 688; David Donald, in Political Science Quarterly, LXXVII (June, 1962), 273-276; Arthur Bestor,—in kississippi Valley Historical Reviewi XLIX (Dec. 1962), 521; and C. Vann Woodward, "The Antislavery Kyth", in American Scholar XXXI (Spring, 1962), 312-328. CHAPTER VII Practical Revolutionaries - The View of Historians of the Last Decade - For almost a half a century, the abolitionists had faced a largely unsympathetic academic audience. They had been neglected, derided, and denounced. Whether they were described as irresponsible fanatics or as psychologically maladjusted persons, their aim of agitation had been dis- credited, and their efforts seen as doing more harm than good to society as well as to the slave. The description of the abolitionists was so stereotyped that such terms as ”extreme”, ”radical", ”impractical“, ”zealous", ”irrational”, "self-righteous", "irresponsible”, and ”ignorant" became the most frequently used adjectives in describing them. In reading the works of these anti-abolitionists historians, it is hardly possible for one to escape the impression that it would have been far better and healthier for the development of the anti-bellum America if the abolition crusade had never existed. Of course, not all historians prior to the 1960's accepted this stereotyped image of the abolitionists. Even 245 246 in the heyday of condemnation, some historians like Dwight L. Dumond, Alice Felt Tyler. and Russell B. Nye raised a dissenting voice, and granted the abolitionists a warmer hearing. Approaching the abolition movement with greater sympathy, they restored the image of the crusaders as true reformers moved by certain ideals and compassions for the downtrodden to remove a genuine social evil. But their sympathies were still limited, especially toward Garrison. If they wholeheartedly applauded the moderate abolitionists. they still found it difficult to embrace Garrison without reservations. It is true that they exonerated him from certain charges, and gave him agreater degree of significance in the abolition movement, but they also found fault with his radicalism and personality. They were not unqualified defenders of Garrison. Yet, in comparison, it is still correct to say that their overall view of the abolitionists was more favorable than that of the detracting historians. The full swing of the pendulum of interpretation began by Dumond, Tyler, and Nye did not come until the recent decade when historians familiar with a radical reform movement came to explore the meanings of the abolition move- ment for the present-day racial problem. Recent historians showed a broader range of interest and covered a greater variety of topics than previous historians. 0n the surface, they seem to have little in common. However, beneath the apparent differences, there is an unreservedly sympathetic 247 view of the abolitionists uniting them all together. Generally speaking, they described the abolitionists as practical revolutionaries struggling not only to abolish slavery but also to eliminate deep-rooted racial prejudice. To them, the abolitionists, particularly Garrison, became l the objects of respect and admiration, if not affection. In this regard, they were drastically different from most previous historians. In fact, their studies amounted to,a complete. sympathetic reappraisal of the abolition movement. How great was the change in attitude is shown by Martin Duberman's futile effort in 1965 to solicit some critical writings about the abolitionist from historians. Historians of the older generation declined his request on the ground that they had nothing new to say, while the younger historians were not willing to criticize the aboli- tionists. Indeed, as one historian indicated to Duberman, ”as for 'anti-abolitionists', you are right - they are hard to find“ in the mid-1960's.2 l Bertram Wyatt-Brown, ”Abolitionism: Its Meaning for Contemporary American Reform,” The Midwest Quarterly, VIII (Autumn, 1966), 54: and Merton L. D on, The Abolitionists: A Decade of Historiography, 1959-1969,” Journal of Southern Histogy, XXXV (Nov.. 1969), 501. 2 Martin Duberman, ed., The Antislave Van ard: rNew Essays on the Abolitionists (Princeton, N.J.. I953). Introduction," p. vii . 248 More clearly than any previous change in the inter- pretation of the abolition movement, the recent alteration in abolition historiography was related to the intellectual shift in the last decade. The most obvious trend during the last ten years has been the rise of a radical protest movement and radical thought. The root of this radicalism was the growing tension over the problem of Negro civil rights which came to a head by the 1960's. But'it was also helped by a gradual relaxation of the confrontation between communism and democracy. The thawing of the Cold War mentality brought about by the relaxation released many Americans, in particular the young Americans, from the con- cern with survival, and turned their attention to domestic problems. The Negro's struggle against discrimination naturally drew their attention and sympathy: but other re- lated problems such as poverty and the Vietnam War also fanned the fire of discontent. Full of idealistic zeal, the young on campuses protested against discrimination, poverty, the Vietnam War, and other evils. When their pro- tests brought no results, these persons became more militant. Angry and frustrated, they now cried out against the "establishment“ and vowed to destroy the monster in order to make America a better place to live. They turned to radicalism. Out of this dissatisfaction with the present soon grew 9. dissatisfaction with the consensus historians' desscription of the past. How could so imperfect a present 249 come from a perfect past? This doubt made them impatient with the smugness and complacency which seemed to charac- terize the historical studies of the 1950's. Moreover, regarding them as part of the establishment, the young radicals charged the established historians of using their academic positions to discourage dissenting. However, the most important reason for their outrage against the applogists for the past was because the young radicals felt that the established historians did not provide them with a ”usable past.“ They were keenly aware of the need for a historical justification for their radicalism. They could not find it in the writings of the consensus his- torians who for the most part minimized the significance of past reform, to say nothing of radicalism. If the established historians gave them no usable past, the young radicals were determined to build one for themselves. So. some of them turned to American history to search for a radical tradition. The result was the emerging of the New-Left historiography which by and large revived the Beardian concept of class struggle.3 So far as their aim was to establish a radical tradition in the American past, abolitionism in general and Garrisonism in particular, For the rise of the New Left historiography, see Irwin Unger, "The 'New Left' and American History} Some Recent Trends in United States Historiography,” American Historical Review, LXXII (July, 1967), 1237-1263: and the same, ed., Be nd Liberalism: The New Left Views American History (Waltham, Mass., 1971), 'Introduction,‘ pp. xi-xvi. 250 naturally attracted both their attention and sympathy. Hewever, the search for a radical past was not the only factor which contributed to the change in attitude toward the abolitionists. Another even more important reason was the intensification of the Negro Civil rights movement and the growing sympathy to it. Decades of mild protests finally resulted in a militant movement during the 1960's. Angered by the massive southern resistance to desegregation and the pervasive racial bias, Negroes them- selves fought against discrimination in the courts, on the campuses, and in the streets. A few of them became even- tually so disillusioned and despaired of integration that they began to advocate African nationalism and Black Power. The Negroes' struggle for equality drew increasing sympathy and support from white young Americans. They participated in sit-ins, freedom-rides. peaceful marches, and other protesting activities. Historians were not immune to this growing enthusiasm for the Negro civil rights movement. 4 Some New-Left historians were deeply involved in it. But this favorable reaction was not confined to the radical 4 Howard Zinn was extensively involved as advisor and participant in the civil rights activities, especially those of SNCC. Martin Duberman contributed “a little money" to the Negro civil rights movement in addition to writing about it, and took part in the 1965 march to Montgomery. Staughton Lynd lost his job at Yale University because of his involvement in protests. 251 historians. Perhaps, even more indicative of the changing attitude among historians toward the Negro movement was a New York Times report about twenty historians, including some of the most distinguished scholars on slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. who planned to join the march led by Martin Luther King from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery in the Spring of 1965.5 According to Merton L. Dillon, the sympathy shown by these historians seems to have been rather widely shared by other historians who did not venture to Alabama.6 The sympathy underlying these historians' active participation in or support to the Negroes' struggle for equality was bound to influence their view of the abolition movement. Since there are certain similarities between the present civil rights movement and the nineteenth-century crusade against slavery, it is easy for the recent advocates of civil rights to identify their activities with those of the old abolitionists. Indeed, one participant called them 7 "the New Abolitionists.” And their own experiences in the 5 New York Times, March 23, 1965, p. 28. 6 ”The Abolitionists: A Decade of Historiography égg9-l969”, Journal of Sguthern Histogy, XXXV (Nov.. 1969), 7 1 64) Howard Zinn, SNCC: The New Abolitionistg (Boston, 9 . 252 civil rights movement made it possible for them to approach the abolition movement with greater perception and under- standing than ever before. Then, it is no surprise that the recent studies of the crusade against slavery show a greater sympathy to the abolitionists than any previous writings on the same subject. However, this is not to imply that all the studies on the abolition movement in the last decade were produced by young radical historians. While it is true that most of the recent abolition historians were young scholars, there were others who belonged to an older generation. The sig- nificant thing is that even these older historians were no less sympathetic to the abolitionists than their young colleagues. This fact seems to indicate that the change of attitude toward the abolitionists owed more to the grow- ing sympathy to the Negro civil rights movement than to the rise of radicalism. Whatever may be the relative significance of radical- ism and sympathy to the Negro for the recent interpretation change, it is beyond doubt that it was influenced by them. The influence is attested to by the historians' recognition of the relevance of the experiences of the old abolition- ists to the new abolitionists. It is highly significant that Howard Zinn entitled his article on the abolitionists “Abolitionists, Freedom-Riders, and the Tactics of 253 Agitation,“8 and Bertram Wyatt-Brown his "Abolitionism: Its Meaning for Contemporary American Reform."9 Martin Duberman in introducing The Antislavery Vanguard said that by presenting the past debate on the Negro question, the contributors to this volume would feel rewarded if they made "any small contribution toward its present foreshortening."10 Aileen S. Kraditor expressed the hope that her study of the means and ends of the abolition movement would benefit the ‘ current movements for change.11 The connection between the present and the past movement was clearly in the minds of these and other historians who wrote about the abolition movement during the last decade. Given this recognition, it is understandable that they would project their sympathy to the present-day civil righters back to the abolitionists in their studies. It is easier to locate the roots of the charge in abolition historiography in recent years than to summarize the interpretations of the historians whose studies con- stituted that change. This is not only because their writings took the form of biographies, monographs, articles, 8 In Duberman, ed., The Antislavery Vanguard, pp 0 ”17"“510 9 In The Midwest Quarterly, VIII (Autumn, 1966), 41-55. 19 “Introduction,” p .x. 11 Means and Ends in American Abolitionism: Garrison And His Critics on Strategy and_Tactics, 1334-1350 (New York, 19 7 n P03- 254 or review essays dealing with specific aspects or indivi- duals of the abolition movement, but also because of the diversity of their interests. Some of them reexamined old problems, others took interest in hitherto seldom explored topics. Yet, despite the difference in interest and in interpretation, the sentiment underlying most recent studies was a sympathy for the abolitionists and an indignation against the views of previous disparaging historians. The overall image of the abolitionists emerging from these writings was one of tough-minded revolutionaries who agi- tated to end slavery as well as to change men's thought. Recent historians continued to search for an answer to the question raised by David Donald: Why abolitionism appeared particularly in the early 1830's. Although they themselves provided no answers, Martin Duberman, Betty Fladeland, and Robert Allen Skotheim. showed their interest in this problem in their criticism of Donald's status revolution theory.12 More positive were the efforts of David Brion Davis, Anne C. Loveland, and Robert H. Abzug to account for the rise of immediatism. In a very influ- ential article published in 1962, Davis attributed the appearance of immediatism in both England and the United States to the development of the romantic and evangelical frame of mind as well as the slaveholders' resistance to 12 See Chapter V. 255 even the most indirect and gradual attack on slavery.13 Loveland traced the rise of immediatism to evangelicalism growing out of the theological Speculations of Joseph Bellamy, Samuel Hopkins, Timothy Dwight, Nathaniel William Taylor, Lyman Beecher, and Charles G. Finney.“L Drawing on the conclusion of Loveland, Abzug argued that immediatism was the product of the combination of the principles of evangelical religion and the Garrisonian abolitionists' fear of slave violence. Fearing the danger of a general slave revolt, the Garrisonians believed that theoonly way to remove it was ”immediate recognition of the sin of slavery and immediate repentance which would result in the abolition of slavery because benevolence would replace evil self-interest.”15 Davis, Loveland, and Abzug paid no attention to Donald. Nor did they describe the aim of the abolitionists as Gilbert H. Barnes did, despite the fact that they, like Barnes, stressed the importance of evangelical thought for 13 David Brion Davis, ”The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought," Mississippi 209-23 . valley Historical Review, XLIX (Sept., 1962), 14 Anne C. Loveland, ”Evangelicalism and 'Immediate Emancipation' in American Antislavery Thought," Journal of Southern Hj§to§y, XXXII (May, 1966), 172-188. 15 Robert H. Abzug, ”The Influence of Garrisonian Aboli- tionists' Fears of Slave Violence on the Antislavery Argument, 1829-1840,” Jogrnal of Negro Histogy, LV (Jan.,l970), 15-26. 256 the appearance of abolitionism. From the revival principles Barnes derived the aim of the crusaders as denouncing slavery as a sin and immediate repentence. Davis, Loveland, and Abzug arrived at a different conclusion from the same source. They never doubted that the object of the abolitionists was to end slavery. In fact, Loveland criticized Barnes for his distorting of the meaning of immediatism as originally understood by the abolitionists.16 To her and the other two historians, the antislavery cru- saders were no mere denunciators. They were true reformers aiming at the destruction of a real evil. Davis pointed out that “in one sense immediatism was simply a shift in strategy brought on by the failure of less direct plans for abolition.“ If the public could once be convinced of the wrongness of slavery and of the necessity of doing some- thing about it at once through the propaganda of immediate emancipation, "the governments would be forced to take care of the detail."17 Loveland argued that the abolition- ists preached immediate repentance and emancipation “in an effort to persuade the American people of their duty and 16 Loveland, ”Evangelicalism and 'Immediate Emancipa- tion' in American Antislavery Thought,” Journal of Southern Histogy, XXXII (May, 1966), 174. 17 Davis, ”The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought,“ Mississi i Valle Historical Review. XLIX (Sept., 1952), 227. 257 ability to abolish slavery immediately. They called for immediate repentence of the sin of slavery, believing that repentence would ultimately result in total abolition."18 And what underlay the whole argument of Abzug was the notion that the Garrisonians advocated immediate emancipa- tion as a practical means to remove the danger of slave violence. Such opinions clearly indicate that these his- torians viewed the abolitionists not as mere denunciators or neurotics, but as true reformers dedicating themselves to arousing public action against slavery through the preaching of immediate repentence. Recent historians also showed continuing interest in the problem of the effects the abolition agitators had on ante-bellum events, institutions, or the sectional con- flict. In an examination of the petition campaign and the controversy over the gag rule, James M. McPherson came to the conclusion that the abolitionists finally broke up the conspiracy of silence around slavery and ”bust the bonds of intersectional party alliance and foreshadowed the breakup of parties.”19 Robert T. Lewit found that the growth of 18 Loveland, 'Evangelicalism and 'Immediate Emancipa- tion' in American Antislavery Thought,” Jgurnal of Southern Hi to , XXXII (May, 1966), 188. 19 James M. McPherson, “The Fight Against the Gag Rules Joshua Leawitt and Antislavery Insurgency in the Whit Part , 1839-1842,” Journal of Negro HistogyI XLVIII (July, 1963 a 177-195- 258 antislavery sentiments in the North disrupted the mission- ary activities of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in the slaveholding Cherokee and Choctaw Indians.20 Challenging Barnes' belittling the significance of the postal campaign, Wyatt-Brown contended that Southerners' violent reaction to the sending of anti- slavery material to their section helped the abolitionists to convince many Northerners of the danger of slavery to their own civil liberties and hence of the necessity of emancipation.21 Larry Gara discovered the same effect on the North in the controversy over the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. It not only brought the whole slavery question home to the people of the free states but also contributed much to the breakup of the remaining ties between the North and South.22 By this, he seems to suggest that the anti- slavery people's resistance to the execution of this law was one of the reasons for the making of the Civil War. 20 Robert T. Lewit, "Indian Missions and Antislavery Sentiment: A Conflict of Evangelical and Humanitarian Ideals," Misgissippi Valley Historical Review, L (June, 1963)! 39-5 0 21 Bertram Wyatt-Brown, ”The Abolitionists' Postal Campaign of 1835,” Journal of Negro Histogy, L (Oct. 1965), 227-238. 22 Larry Cars, ”The Engitive Slave Law: A Double Paradox," Civil War Histogy, X (Sept., 1964), 229-241. 259 However, it is significant that he did not blame the abolitionists for this. On the contrary, he, McPherson, Lewit, and Wyatt-Brown, while varying in their judgments about their relative importance, all considered these issues and the abolitionists involvment in them as help- ing the triumph of a just cause. As McPherson said of Joshua Leawitt, “it is certain that Leawitt's 'upandicular' perseverance and unwavering belief in the righteousness of his cause were important factors in the triumph of antislavery insurgency,” his great contribution to the antislavery movement.23 In addition to the reexamination of such old problems, recent historians also ventured into some aspects of the abolition movement which had previously seldom received systematical attention. Aware of the problem of proper strategy and tactics confronting present-day reformers, several historians found interest in the dilemma of means and ends which troubled the abolitionists and split their crusade. Repudiating the opinion that Garrison's come- outerism was a deviation from abolitionism, Lewis Perry argued that all the abolitionists shared in anarchism.”+ 23 McPherson, ”The Fight Against the Gag Rule: Joshua Leawitt and Antislavery Insurgency in the Whit Party, 1839- 1842," Journal of Negro Histogy, XLVII (July, 1963),195. 24 Lewis Perry, "Versions of Anarchism in the Antislavery Movement,” American Quarterly, XX (Winter, 1968), 768-782. 260 However, other historians found the abolitionists not so united as Perry's study may suggest. According to John Demos, there was a shift in the abolition strategy and tactics from non-violent to violent means, leaving Garrison isolated from the antislavery mainstream.25 To Larry Gare, the division of opinion within the movement was not over proper means but over the object opposed. The Garrisonians and other moral suasionists were opposed to the system of slavery itself and agitated to abolish it as a sin. Oppos- ing them were the political antislavery men who cared little about the morality or immorality of slavery. What they objected to was the slavery power: and their aim was to destroy the southern power based on slavery which they be- lieved was encroaching upon northern rights and interests.26 Aileen S. Kraditor disagreed with them all. In the most systematic study of this problem, she pitched the Garrisonians against the non-Garrisonians in both ends and means. The Garrisonians were radicals who regarded the American society as fundamentally immoral and sought to remake its institu- tional structure and ideology. To reach this object, they favored moral suasion and a "broad” antislavery society to 25 John Demos, ”The Antislavery Movement and the Problem of Violemt 'Means',” ew England Quarterly, XXXVII (D600. 1964). 501-5260 26 Larry Cara, ”Slavery and Slave Power: A Crucial Distinction,“ Civil War HistogyI XV (March, 1969), 5-18. 261 include all those who adhered to the abolitionist's prin- ciples regardless of their views on politics, religion and society. The non-Garrisonians were conservative reformers who wanted to abolish slavery in order to strengthen and preserve the basically good and moral American society. They desired a "narrow” antislavery organization which would admit as members only those whose religious and social views were not such as to alienate the general t northern public: they demanded, from 1839 on, a formal endorsement of political action by antislavery societies.27 Although more favorable to the radicals than to the reform- ers. Kraditor treated both factions with respect and understanding. There is much truth in Dillon's observation that she "conceded to the abolitionists a seriousness of purpose and a degree of intellectual responsibility not ”28 always acknowledged elsewhere. The same can also be said of Perry, Demos, and Cars. Another topic which drew greater attention from recent historians is the abolitionists' view on the racial problem. Up until 1960, almost no one of the major historians of the abolition movement had dealt exclusively with this aspect of the antislavery crusade. But with the growth of 27 Kraditor, Means and Ends in American Abolitionism. 28 Dillon, ”The Abolitionists, A Decade of Historio- graphy, 1959-1969,” Journal of Southern Histogy, XXXVI . (NOV.. 1969). 5120 262 Negro civil rights into one of the major domestic issues in recent years, the interest of historians in the abolition- ists' racial attitude also increased. Several historians have devoted themselves to this subject. Their conclusions varied. But in general, their studies conveyed the impression that the racial prejudice of Americans was simply too strong for the abolitionists' struggle for racial equality. Leon F. Litwack documented the existence of racial bias and discrimination in both the North and South, though in the North Negroes could challenge the assumption of the Negro's racial inferiority and strive to improve his position.29 While Lorman Ratner emphasized racial bias as the main reason for the northern opposition to the anti- slavery movement,30 Merton L. Dillon believed it was so strong that it accounted for the abolitionists' failure to move the public to act against slavery and for racial equality.31 Eric Foner and Robert F. Durden not only con- curred in Litwack's conclusion, but also found that deep-rooted and permeating racial bias was responsible for the silence 29 Leon F. Litwack, North of Slave : The Ne ro in the Face States, 1220-1860—(Chicago, I961). 30 Lorman Ratner, Powder Ke : N rthern 0 osition to the Aptislavepy MovementI 1831-18E0 (New York, £968). 31 Merton L. Dillon, "The Abolitionists as a Dissent- ing Minority,” in Alfred F. Young, ed., Dissent: Explorations in the Histor of American Radicalism (DeKalb, IllinOis, 19 I pp. 85-10 0 263 i or ambivalence of the Free-Soil party and the Republican party on the issue of Negro civil rights. Racist or not, Free-Soilers and Republicans deemed it politically ex- pedient and effective to acquiesce in the prevailing racial prejudice by keeping quiet on the problem of Negro equal- ity.32 Their findings are indirectly supported by Eugene H. Berwanger's study of the nature of the Westerners' opposition to slavery. According to him, the frontier favored non-extensionism not because Westerners hated slavery itself but because of their anti-Negro prejudice.33 However, the political antislavery men were not the only abolitionists who were ambiguous on the racial issue. In fact, the whole abolition movement was characterized by this ambiguity, according to William H. and Jane H. Pease. In abstract, the abolitionists idealized the Negro, and accepted the principle of racial equality. But in prac- tice and in daily contact with the Negro, they succumbed to the dictates of expedience, and temporized their principle. The result was their inability to decide whether the Negro 32 Eric Foner, ”Politics and Prejudice: The Free-Soil party and the Negro, 1849-1852,” Journal of Ne o Histo , L (Oct. 1965), 239-256: Robert F. Durden, ”Ambiguities in the Antislavery Crusade of the Republican Party,” in Duberman, ed., The Antislavepy VangpardI pp. 362-394. 33Eugene H. Berwanger, The Frontier Against Slavepy: Western Anti-Ne ro Pre‘udice and the Slave Extension Controversy (Chicago. 1967). 264 was really equal to the white, and whether immediate social and political equality for the Negro should be stressed or not. The abolitionists, the Peases found, often maintained a paternalistic attitude to the Negro which was more often 31" TO 1‘ than not a mere patronizing of a superior class. Litwack, this patronizing attitude, coupled with the double- standard by which some abolitionists judged the respective abilities of the two races, infuriated the black abolition- ists, and contributed to the development of the black's demand for ideological and political indepdence and the emergence of a strong race pride and consciousness among Negroes.35 Thus, not only the abolitionists were not free from racial prejudice but also their patronizing attitude alienated the black abolitionists. These historians took notice of the existence of racial prejudice in society in general, in the antislavery parties, evenin the abolition concert. They criticized the ante-bellum society and showed dissatisfaction with the Free-Soil and Republic parties for it. But they seemed 34 William H. Pease and Jane H. Pease, ”Antislavery Ambivalence: Immediatism, Expediency, Race,” Americap Quarterly, XVII (1965), 682-695. 35 Leon T. Litwack, ”The Emancipation of the Negro Abolitionist,” in Duberman, ed.. The Antislavepy Vangpard, pp. 137-55. See also his North of Slavepy, and “The Aboli- tionist Dilemma: The Antislavery Movement and the Northern Negro,” ew England Quarterly, XXIV (March, 1961), 50-73. , 265 unwilling to condemn the abolitionists for their ambiguity on the matter of race. Neither the Peases nor Litwack said the abolitionists were consciously racist: and they stressed that the abolitionists at least believed in the principle of racial equality, and worked for the uplifting of the oppressed free Negro. Instead of condemnation, they rather sympathized with the abolitionists for their powerlessness in the face of strong popular racial bias. This is clearly shown in Dfllon's blaming the racist society for the failure of the abolitionists. If the Peases and Litwack found the abolitionists ambivalent on the race issue, most other historians who studied this subject saw the abolitionists as fighters against racial bias and discrimination both in words and in deeds. In an investigation of the successes of four anti- slavery agents appointed by American Antislavery Society to work among the Negroes in the North and Canada, John L. Myers concluded: ”by these appointments and through this financial support, the American Antislavery Society demon- strated a sincere interest in the welfare of the colored peOple and indicated a channel of service and a direction of endeavor which the state antislavery societies. . . could follow" after the decline of the national society.36 ‘— 36 John L. Myers, “American Antislavery Society Agents and the Free Negro, 1833-1838,” Journal of Negro HistopyA LII (July, 1967), 219. 266 Gerda Lerner warmly praised the Grimke sisters' ”life-long struggle against race prejudice."37 Kempes Schnell demon- strated the effectiveness of antislavery anti-racial arguments in the courts for securing freedom for slaves who entered a free state with the consent of their masters. While conceding the unwillingness of Pennsylvania Courts to grant political and social rights for Negroes, Stanley I. Kutler contended that their decisions after the Pennsylvania Abolition Act of 1780 gradually established equal legal rights for Negroes.39 To these hkxorians, the abolitionists espoused the cause of Negro equality both in principle and in practice. In addition, they scored some successes in helping the free Negroes in the North. The abolitionists' work for the elimination of racial discrimination did not stOp with the outbreak of the Civil War as some previous historians claimed. This is clearly shown by the studies of Louis Ruchames. Jdmes McPherson, and Willie Lee Rose. Challenging John L. Thomas' assertion 3? Gerda Lerner, ”The Grimke Sisters and the Struggle Against Race Prejudice,” Journal of Negro Histopy, XLVIII (Get-n 1963): 2770 - 38 Kempes Schnell, ”Antislavery Influence on the Status of Slaves in a Free State," qurnal of Negpo Histopy, L (Get-n 1965): 257-2730 39 i Stanley I. Kutler, ”Pennsylvania Courts, the Aboli- t on Act, and Negro Rights,” Pennsylyania Histopy, XXX (Jan., 1963), 14-27. 267 about Garrison's growing conservatism in the matter of race equality, Ruchames concluded his review of Garrison's opinion and activities regarding Negro rights during the Civil War by writing that ”at no time did he depart from his affirmation of Negro equality in all areas involving political, social and economic rights, including the suffrage."uO Not only Garrison, but other abolitionists also did not abandon the Negro during And after the Civil . War. According to Rose, many abolitionists took part or actively backed the Port Royal experiment during the war in order to create on the Sea Islands of South Carolina "a model for the regeneration of Southern society, a model which would include the education and rehabilitation of the slave, and a conclusive demonstration of his capacity for freedom.“ Although the experiment failed, nevertheless it did accomplish its purpose in setting an example for the broader reconstruction and demonstrating beyond any ques- tion the freedmen's willing and able response to freedom.“1 In a much broader scope, McPherson examined the abolitionists' struggle for Negro equality during and after the Civil War. He gave the impression that the abolitionists 40 Louis Ruchames, ”William Lloyd Garrison and the Negro Suffrage,” Jgurnal of Nggro Histogy. L (Jan.l965), 48. 41 Willie Lee Rose, ”Iconoclasm Had Its Day: Aboli- tionists and Freedmen in South Carolina,” in Duberman, ed.. The Antislavepy Vanguard, p. 184. The Port Royal Experiment . is fully treated in her Rehearsal for Reconstruction: Thg_ Port Royal Experiment (New York, 19 . 268 were not only scientific disclaimers of the concept of Negro racial inferiority but also practical and far-sighted fighters for the realization of racial equality for the freedmen. Drawing on social science, they rebuffed the prevailing belief in the racial inferiority of the Negro. participated in education and relief work for the freedmen. and advocated a Freedmen's Bureau and a federal program of aid and rehabilitation. And finally when they realized , that without political and economic power the Negro could never be truly free, could never hope to be the social equal of the white, they supported the military occupation of the South in order to carry out the needed social and economic changes.“2 While doing no special study on this subject himself, David Brion Davis gave his complete consent to the conclusions of Rose and McPherson in a review article.u3 So, the abolitionists fought against racial prejudice and for the Negro's freedom and equality both before and after the outbreak of the Civil War. HOwever, in spite of their noble intentions and unceasing efforts, they failed to achieve one of their purposes. After all, Dillon was right. Racial prejudice in society proved too strong for 42 James M. McPherson, ”A Brief for Equality: The Abolitionist Reply to the Racist Myth, 1860-1865,“ in Duberman, ed., The Antislavepy Vangpar . pp. 156-177. See also his The Struggle for E ualit : Abolitionists and the Negro in the Civil War ang,Reconstructiop (Princeton, N.J. 1964). 43 David Brion Davis, "Abolitionists and the Freedmen: ’r' 269 the abolitionists. There was simply no chance for them to convince enough people of the falsity of the concept of the Negro's racial inferiority for the necessary social and ideological revolution. They could not realize their purpose of establishing racial equality and integration. Yet, even in failure, their insistence that the Negro was a human being and as such was entitled equally to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by other Americans, their daring challenge to the racist myths and their tireless efforts to establish racial equality and social justice won the admiration of historians sympathetic to the modern Negro's struggle against racist discrimination. ”The his- tory of our own time," declared McPherson, "has demonstrated that the abolitionists had perhaps a deeper understanding of the racial problem than any other men of their time -- and many of ours."uu He spoke of the general view of these historians. A third topic which received more attention from historians than before was the activities of the black abolitionists in the crusade against slavery. Captivated by Frederick Douglass, few previous white historians paid attention to other Negro abolitionists. “They passed into An Essay Review,” Journal of Southern History, XXI (May, 1965), 164-170. 44 McPherson, ”A Brief for Equality: The Abolitionist Reply to the Racist Myth, 1860-1865,” in Duberman, ed., The Antislavepy Vangpard, p. 177. 270 an historical limbo,” as Robert T. Smith said, ”to be resurrected, now and then, as minor footnotes in the history of the Negro."45 In recent years, this neglect has been remedied, though only partially. Smith's own article documented the activities of one of theless known but equally important black abolitionists, William Cooper Nell, from 1831 to his death in 1874. Litwack's study of the emancipation of the black abolitionists mentioned above traced the development of the independent movement of the black to end slavery. And Robert 0. Dick devoted his research to the contributions of black orators to the 46 abolition movement. But the most comprehensive study of the black abolitionists was Benjamin Quarles, Black Abolitionists.)+7 In highly sympathetic terms, Quarles told the story of how the Negro abolitionists cooperated with the white crusaders, how they organized independent activities to agitate for the emancipation of their brethren in bond- age and to help those in freedom, how they reacted to current 45 Robert T. Smith, “William Cooper Nell: Crusading Black Abolitionist,” Journal pf Negro_Histopy, LV (July, 1970). 196. 46 Robert C. Dick, ”Negro Oratory in the Antislavery Societies, 1800-1860,” Western Speech1 XXVIII (Winter, 196“)! 5.14. 47(New York, 1969). 271 events, and how they finally became disillusioned with the method of moral suasion and tended more and more to violent means for the achievement of their aims. Such studies un- doubtedly contributed to the understanding of an important aspect of the abolition movement. But the investigations of most individual black abolitionists remain to be made. Whether they re-examined old problems or dealt with hitherto little touched aspects of the abolition movement, ‘ the writings cited so far clearly show the favorable dis- position of the authors toward the abolitionists. But even more clearly their sympathy was shown in their defense of the abolition crusaders. When Fawn M. Brodie asked ”who “8 she defends the abolitionists?" and could find none, simply expressed the general impatience of recent historians with the interpretations of their predecessors. Out of this dissatisfaction, some of them purposively set out to rescue the abolitionists from condemnation. A persistent notion held by most historians before 1960 had been that there was a strong antislavery movement in the Upper South before the early 1830's, and that if there had been no vicious abolitionist attacks on slavery and slaveholders, this antislavery sentiment might have gradually ended slavery. Dumond and Nye already challenged 48 Fawn M. Brodie, "Who Defends the Abolitionists?“ in Duberman, ed., The Antislavepy Vangpard, pp. 52-67. 272 the validity of this assertion: but it was not until Gordon E. Finnie published his study of the antislavery movement in the Upper South that evidence became available to demon- strate the weakness of the movement.“9 His conclusion was supported by the early findings of Robert McColley's study of slavery in Virginia, and Don B. Kates' study of the 50 early antislavery movement. By demonstrating the weak- ness of the southern antislavery movement, they effectively ~ refuted the charge that the abolitionist attacks hardened the South's pro-slavery stand, and resistance to emancipa- tion. A second familiar charge against the abolitionists had been their denunciation of the Constitution. It was met by Staughton Lynd. His own analysis of the sectional conflict during the revolutionary era and the sectional compromises in the making of the Constitution confirmed the abolitionist critique that slavery helped to shape the Constitution. He ended his study by claiming that ”The Abolitionists were right in seeing the American Revolution as a revolution betrayed."5l 49 Gordon E. Finnie, ”The Antislavery Movement in the Upper South Before 1840,” Journal of Southern Histopy, XXXV (August 1969), 319-342. 50 Robert McColley, Slaver and Jeffersonian Vir inia (Urbana, 1964): Don B. Kates, "Abolition, Deportation, Integration: Attitude Toward Slavery in the Early Republic,” Journal of Nggro Histogy, LIII (Jan., 1968), 33-47. . 51 Staughton Lynd. "The Abolitionist Critique of the 273 Directing his charge against another familiar criticism that held that the abolitionists had no proper understanding of slavery, and therefore were irrational in their attack on the South, Donald G. Mathews asserted that behind the abolitionists' exaggerated rhetoric and elaborate condemnation, there was "a legitimate critique”, and "a balanced view” of slavery which was the result of a combination of “astute insight, humane sympathy, and wide knowledge.‘I They understood slavery better than anyone else. To Mathews, even the unconditional attack was not undefensible, for, in the first place, this method of agitation was used by other reform movements of the time, and, in the second, the abolitionists understood the "balky, stubborn American democrat” too well to be con- tented with sweet reason and careful analysis.52 At least one recent historian has sought also to absolve the abolitionists from the revisionist indictment of war-guilt. While most recent historians believed ex- plicitly or implicitly that the slavery issue was a primary factor in the coming of the Civil War, no one was willing to pin the responsibility on the shoulders of the abolitionists. ——7 _ _— w ——— United States Constitution,“ in Duberman, ed., The Anti- slavepy Vangpar . pp. 219-239. The quotation is taken from P- 239- 52 Donald G. Mathews, “The Abolitionists on Slavery: The Critique Behind the Social Movement,” Journal of Southern Histopy, XXXIII (May, 1967), 163-1 2. 274 Indeed, Howard Zinn insisted that the abolitionists had no connection whatsoever with the making of the Civil War. The agitators, Zinn argued, had the power to arouse feelings and tensions, but they were outside the policy-making machinery which alone had the power to make a war. More- over, the war came not because of the feelings and tensions heightened by the abolition agitation, but because of the determination of leading Southerners, holding state power, to create a separate nation, and the equally determined resistance to it by the Republicans, in possession of the national government. The abolitionists had nothing to do with this policy-decision.53 However, the modern defenders of the abolitionists have not confined their justificttion of the crusade against slavery to repudiating such specific charges alone. Some of them upheld the abolitionists' radicalism in general. Familiar with the growing violence of radical protests and sympathetic to the frustration felt by the protesters, these historians certainly had no fear of radicalism. And it is only natural that they defended the “extremism" of the abolitionists. Thus, Howard Zinn considered slavery so monstrous that it justified all the abolitionists' radicalism, extremism, emotionalism, harsh language, and 53 Howard Zinn, ”Abolitionists, Freedom-Riders, and the Tactics of Agitation,” in Duberman, ed., The Antislavery vanguard, pp. 443-446. 275 exaggeration of the truth. In the face of the intransigent defense of slavery, he seriously questioned the effective- 54 ness of moderation. Martin Duberman believed the lukewarm response to the abolitionists' demand in the North and the intransigency of the South were the chief factors for the shift of the abolition agitation from a ”reform” to a “revolution”. He doubted whether anybody except the abolitionists could have roused the public debate on slavery, and, without this heated debate, whether any action would have been taken against the institution.55 In essence, this is also the conclusion of Howard R. Temperley's com- parative study of the British and American antislavery move- ment. Confronting formidable obstacles posed by the question of what to do with the Negro after emancipation, and the fact that slavery was an integral part of American economy and that slavery was confined to and protected by the constitutional right of the South without whose consent -- an improbability -- there was simply no way to abolish it, the radical abolitionists resorted to the policy of un- conditional denunciation because there was nothing else they could do. If they were vulnerable judged by the 54 Ibid.. pp. 417-451. 55 . Martin Duberman, “Black Power and the American Radical Tradition,” in his The Uncompletgd Past (New York, 1971), pp. 242-245: and ”The Northern Response to Slavery,” in Duberman, ed.. The Antislave Van ard, pp. 395-413. See particularly footnote 12, on pages 411-412. . 276 strict standard of political responsibility, so too were the political leaders of the time such as the Jacksons and the Websters, and the moderate, respectable citizens who deplored the excess of the extremists, yet refused to co- operate with them to find a reasonable solution to the problem. In the final analysis, according to Temperley, the failure to abolish slavery peacefully was not that of the abolitionists or any particular group. “It was the failure of a whole society."56 Like Dillon and Duberman, Temperley blamed the whole ante-bellum society for the abolitionists' extremism, and failure. All in all, what had been once regarded as deplorable excess in the aboli- tionist attack on slavery and demand for immediate emanci- pation has now been defended as either an appropriate response to a monstrous evil or an inevitable result of the hostile reaction of the public in both the North and South to the abolition agitation. But the most clear sign of a turn-about in the in- terpretation of the abolition movement is revealed in the sympathetic treatment of Garrison and his followers. Most recent historians stressed the primary importance of Garrison in the movement as well as justified his radical- ism. Dillon was quite right in his claim that ”much of the 56 Howard R. Temperley, ”The British and American Abolitionists Compared,” in Duberman, ed., The Antislave Vangpard, pp. 343-361. The quotation is taken from p. 351. 27? writing on abolitionism in the 1960's had the effect of rehabilitating Garrison and New England abolitionists in general."57 It cannot be denied that not all the studies on the abolition movement in the last decade were favor- able to Garrison. For example, the year 1963 saw the publi- cations of two of the most harsh treatments of Garrison, those of waiter m. Merrill and John L. Thomas.58 But their disparagements of Garrison were definitely out of tone with the rehabilitating trend in recent years when com- pared with the highly favorable comments about Garrison and his circle by most recent historians. Historians sympathetic to Garrison were united in their emphasis on the importance of Garrison in the crusade against slavery. But they could not agree completely on the exact nature of Garrisonism. While most of them recog- nized and approved his radicalism, at least one historian denied his radicalism. Calling them liberal nineteenth- century reformers, Bertram Wyatt-Brown believed that Garrison and his followers differed little from others of their kind in the attempt to reach the middle-class by using 57 Dillon, ”The Abolitionists: A Decade of Historic- graphy, 1959-1969,” Journal of Sopphern Histogy, XXXV (NOV-o 1969). 5090 58 Walter M. Merrill, A ainst Wind and Tide: A Bio- grappy of Wm. Lloyd Garrison ECambridge, Mass., 1963): John . omas, The Libera or: A Bio ra h of William ngyd Ggrrison (Boston, 1963). 278 the tactics of shock and exaggeration. Far from being an irresponsible fanatic, Garrison's own respectability and refusal to go beyond pleas for national repentence and the platform measures of disunionism not only restrained abolitionism from turning into a violent revolfitiOn but al- , so was a great asset to the antislavery unity.59 Although sharing Wyatt-Brown's warmth about Garrison, other historians have not tried to explain away Garrison's t radicalism. 0n the contrary, they accepted his radicalism and praised him for it. The trend began with Louis Filler's book published in 1960. In probably the most com- prehensive study of the antislavery movement in all its personnel and relations with other reforms of the times, Filler emphasized the influence and remarkable ability and personality of Garrison. Admitting the difficulty of giving precedence to the moderate, or the radical, or anybody else because all of them contributed something to the triumph of the crusade, neverthdess, he asserted that Garrison ”out- ranked them one and all as . . . an antislavery symbol, in his own time and after."60 Filler only occasionally or 59 Bertram Wyatt-Brown, ”Abolitionism: Its Meaning for Contemporary American Reform,” The Midwest Quarterly, VIII (Autumn, 1966), 52: and ”William Lloyd Garrison and Anti- slavery Unity: A Reappraisal," Civil War Histopy. XIII (marCh, 1967). 5-2“. 60 Louis Filler, The Crusade Against SlavepyI 1830- 1860 (New York, 1960), p. 5 . For his judgment of the relative importance of abolitionists, see pp. 279-280. His praises and defenses of Garrison are scattered throughout 279 indirectly defended Garrison's influence and his extremism.61 The systematic and explicit espousal of Garrisonism remained to be done by later historians. The first historian to espouse Garrisonism was Louis Ruchames. He not only put Garrison at the center of the abolition movement but also upheld Garrison's radicalism. To him, even John Brown's violent actions were not unjusti- 62 fiable. Since the Garrisonians were the radicals in the abolition movement, the defense of abolitionist radicalism offered by Zinn and Duberman63 was essentially a justifica- tion of Garrisonism. Even Kraditor herself was quite aware of the fact that her picture of Garrison who she designated as a radical ”is far more favorable than is common even now when the abolitionists are being rehabilitated." To her, the abstract attack on slavery as a moral wrong struck the slaveholders' most vulnerable spot: their conscience. the book. His sympathy to Garrison was also expressed in his "Garrison Again, and A sin: A Review Article,” Civil War Histopy, XI (March, 19 5), 69-75. 61 Fbr example, Filler said that the southern intrans- igency produced Garrisonism, that Garrison's disunionism was finally accepted by numerous antislavery men, and that in supporting John Brown, ”moderate reformers had come a long way since they had feared the 'incendiary' views of Garrison.” See The Crusade Against Slavepy, p.59, 259, and 269. 62 Louis Ruchames. ed, The Abololitionists: A Collection of Their Writings (New York, 1963): "William Lloyd Garrison and the Ne ro Franchise," Journal of Negro Histopy, L (Jan., 1965), 37- 9: and Ruchames, ed., A John Browp_Readgr (New York, 1959): PP- 11-32. 63 See above. 280 Thus, this Garrisonian tactic proved to be more effective than the political means which, Kraditor believed. seriously weakened the moral forces of the tactics of agitation be- cause of the compromises dictated by political expedience.6n Much of Kraditor's opinion was shared by James B. Stewart 5 who believed that the best way to promote antislavery political strength was the method of moral suasion. It allowed the radicals to remain unfettered by any formal political tie and thus free from the necessity of compromise, while stirring political discontent against slavery among 65 All these historians approved politicians and voters. the ends and means of Garrison in one way and another. But the most passionate praise came from Truman Wilson. In a mystical and eulogistic language, he described Garrison, ”the incarnation of the greatest moral crusade this country has ever known,” as a true practical revolutionary who aimed to"destroy a going economic system, a political in- stitution and way of life, thought and belief so deeply rooted in the national character that it is still (unanswer- ably) predominant.“ Ever since trained historians began to write about the abolition movement at the turn of this century, Garrison 64 Kraditor, Means and Ends in émEgican Abolitionism, p. ix. and 260. 65 James B. Stewart, "The Aim and Impact of Garrisonian ,Abolitionism, 1840-1860,” Civil War History, XV (Sept., 1969). 197-209- 66Truman Wilson, ”The Liberator,” Ramparts. IV (Nov.. (4‘ 281 had been the main target of denunciation. Every sort of stricture had been heaped on his head. It is indeed a rare occasion when one or two authors said something favor- able about him. Apparently he was nobody's favorite. Considering this overwhelming hostility among prebious historians toward Garrison, the image of Garrison emerging from the recent writings on the abolition movement amounted really to a near revolution in abolition historiography. To be sure, not all recent historians completely agreed on the nature of his agitation. To a few, he was a liberal reformer: to many others he was a revolutionary working to remake American society. Whatever the individual opinion on this matter may be, the significant thing is the con- spicuous absence of criticism and denunciation from the newer studies of Garrison. Instead, permeating most of the studies, there is an admiring enthusiasm about what he said and did a century ago. His central importance in the crusade was reaffirmed, his method of agitation defended, and his aim applauded. Instead of being an impractical fanatic or neurotic standing on the fringe of the crusade, the emerging new portrait of Garrison is more often than not painted as a practical, far-sighted agitator who had a 1965), p. 24 and 21. See also Wilson, ed., Document of U heaval: Selections from William Llo d Garrison's Thg Liberator, 1831-1865 (New York, 1966), “Introduction,“ pp. X'XXiio 282 better understanding than most of his contemporaries of the ante-bellum society, politics, and slavery, and thus could adopt a more effective means to achieve the aims of the cause he espoused. Garrison became the object of adoration. The new image of Garrison is but only the most 1 significant sign of the general reappraisal of the whole abolition movement undertaken during the recent decade. The rise of New-Left radicalism, and the mounting concern with the Negro civil rights movement explained much of the reassessing trend in abolition historiography. The influ- ence was obvious and direct. Some historians who wrote about the abolition movement during recent years were deeply involved in the radical protest movement of which the Negro civil rights campaign has been an integral part. Others felt active sympathy to it. The close ideological and emotional ties they felt to the ante-bellum reformers naturally predisposed their sympathy toward the abolitionists. And the experiences they gained from working within the modern radical movement and direct observations enabled them to approach abolitionism with a greater understanding than could be possible otherwise. All these factors pro- duced a mentality and a sentiment in the newer historians drastically different from that of previous historians. When with such a radical mentality and such a sympathetic sentiment they came to study the abolitionists. they found, as Kraditor, that what their predecessors told them about 283 the abolitionists was wrong.67 As a result, they plunged into a reexamination of the abolition movement. The efforts of reevaluation reached into a broad range of topics, some of them repeatedly explored, others hitherto rarely touched. But whatever topics they may have in- vestigated, so far as the image of the abolitionists is concerned, the result of their studies is the same. The abolitionists were no longer viewed as impractical. irrational, irresponsible fanatics or persons obsessed with internal tensions. Instead, they now appeared to be normal men and women concerned deeply with a genuine social evil, much like present-day reformers. Thus. Duberman found James Russell Lowell happy, witty, warm, and adhering to certain ethical ideals which turned him an abolitionist: Ruchames emphasized the “unusual political perceptiveness and statesmanship” of Garrison: and Kraditor discovered in Garrison's writings consistency, tactical acumen, fore- sight, percipience, humility, and even humor.68 Such 6? Kraditor wrote: ”I started this project with a rather liegative opinion of Garrison. This is understandable, since alJ.I had read about him was the secondary literature. . . . {Then I turned to Garrison's own writings. . . and the more I read, the more I became convinced that I was meeting the man :for'the first time.“ See her Means and Ends i9 American Abolitionism, p. ix. 68 Duberman,”The Abolitionists and Psychology,” Journal caf’Negro Histopy, XLVII (1962), 188: Ruchames, ”William Lloyd (1azmison and the Negro Franchise,“ Ibid., L (Jan., 1965), 4&5: Kraditor, Means and Ends in American Abolitionism, p. x. Kraditor's assertion about Garrison's humor showed hdw great 284 judgements were not confined to individual abolitionists, however. Duberman believed that the abolitionists were "in some ways the most tough-minded of Americans:' and Wyatt- 69 But the most Brown called them "tough old birds.” representative view of recent historians about the aboli- tionists was given by Ruchames. The abolitionists, he wrote: ”were not paranoiacs or narrow-minded fanatics, but men and women who were devoted to the highest ideals of equality and democracy, influenced by the best in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and all that was good and noble in the thoughts and actions of the Founding Fathers."70 They were not different from other normal people except that they were more sincere in their belief and were will- ing to speak out and act against an institution and a prejudice which were in direct contradiction to their be- loved ideals. In an article on the New-Left historiography, Irwin Unger deplored the poor showing of the radical historians in the field of the abolition movement. He said, "the New —— _— ‘——‘_— w i was the change in the interpretation of the abolition move- ment when compared with the opinion of such a relatively sympathetic historian like Russell B. Nye who wrote: "There was little lightness or humor in Garrison. He was a deadly serious man.” See his William Llo d Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers (Boston, 1955), p. 193. 69 Duberman, "Northern Response to Slavery,” in Duberman, ed., The Antislave Van uard, p. 402: Wyatt-Brown, "Abolitionism: Its Meaning for Contemporary American Reform,” flflyaygggwegt Quarterly, VIII (Autumn, 1966). 54. 7O Ruchames, A gghn Brown Reader, "Introduction,” p.16. 285 Left seldom does more than reiterate the evil of slavery . . . as sufficient explanation for the abolitionist impulse.”7l This is not a correct judgment. Admittedly, a few of the writings on the subject were no more than rebuttals: a few others were argumentative rather than scholarly. And the present-mindedness exhibited by them all to some degree certainly implied the possibility of prejudiced judgments. But by and large recent studies were just as scholarly and serious as any other historical writings. In addition, they not only presented more subtle explanations for the rise of abolitionism, but also embodied sustantial results of investigating into a broad range of new topics. In fact, the contributions of recent historians to the understanding of the abolition movement is greater than any previous age. And above all, their studies provided the long overdue correction to the harsh judgments of the abolitionists rendered by most historians of preceding generations. Because of the intimate connection between the re- appraisal of the abolitionists and the present-day radical reform and thought, it is legitimate to ask: when the pre- vailing mode changes, will this sympathetic trend in abolition historiography also pass away? Of course, there 71 Irwin Unger, "The 'New Left' and American History: Some Recent Trends in United States Historiography," American H’storical Review, LXII (July, 1967), 1255. 286 is no way to know. But at present one thing seems quite certain. Up until now this trend is still dominating the historical interpretation of the abolition movement, and whatever may happen to it, future historians must take these defenders of the abolitionists into consideration before they pass judgments on the abolition crusade. CHAPTER VIII The Abolition Movement in General Histories Ever since trained historians came to write about the abolition movement around the beginning of the twentieth century, interpretation of it has undergone several changes. Roughly speaking, it began with the nationalist hisorians' approving view of moderate abolition- ism, went through the Progressive historians' minimization of the importance of the crusade in the sectional conflict, Gilbert H. Barnes' ambivalent attitude, the revisionists' total denunciation of the abolitionists as irresponsible propagandists, and the psychologist-historians' description of them as paranoiacs, to the unreservedly sympathetic re- affirmation of the abolition crusaders during the last ten years. After tracing these changes in the more specialized studies, it seems now appropriate to ask whether or how far these different interpretations and attitudes have filtered down into popular and textbook histories. An examination of the treatment of the abolition movement in general his- tories will also serve as an indicator of the relative in- fluence of the specialized studies. 287 288 The following discussion is based on an analysisof about forty randomly selected general histories published from 1905 to 1971. The evidence seems to indicate that the textbook treatment of the abolition movement has undergone three changes. The writers whose histories were published during the first three decades of this century, and during the period from the late 1950's to the present were in general more sympathetic to the abolitionists than those who wrote general histories during the years between the first and the third period. But all of them were more or less critical of Garrison. The rehabilitating tendency among recent admiring historians has not yet penetrated the survey histories of the United States. In comparison, the first group of general histories, or those published before the early 1930's, were the most favorable to the abolitionists. In general, the six books examined followed the nationalist interpretation of the abolitionists as true reformers who were moved by conscience or hatred of slavery to "rid the country of the disgrace and cure of human bondage."l Most authors mildly criticized 1 David S. Muzzey, An American Histo (Boston, 1911), 1). 316. The question of the Background of ¥He abolition inovement was largely ignored by these authors. In this and leis other book, The American Adventure (New York, 1927), Whizzey did not touch this problem at all. Nor did Charles 11. Beard and William Bagley in their coauthored The History <3f the American Peo 1e (New York, 1934). But Edward (1hanning in Tge Unified States of AmerichCambridge, Mass., ]5905), p. 235. and James Alton James and Albert Hart Sanford 111 their American Histo (New York, 1909), p. 314, mentioned ccniscience or 8001a conscience as the motivating force. And 289 the South's violent reaction to the abolition agitation, believing that Southerners' efforts to put down abolition petitions and to prevent antislavery material from being sent to their section helped the growth of antislavery feelings in the North.2 They also noticed the importance of the slavery controversy in the sectional Conflict. But no one explicitly blamed the abolitionists for promo- ting sectional hostility. Indeed, none of them tried to pin the responsibility on them for the growing southern pro-slavery stance. On all these points, the writers pre- sented views similar to those of the nationalist historians. Even in attitude, they did not differ very much from the nationalist historians. Although not all of them considered Garrison as the originator and leader of the abolition movement,3 all the authors except Channing who seemed to be neutral, more or less disliked Garrison's John Spencer Bassett in A Short Histo of the United States (New York, 1913), p. 429, said that the hatred of slavery and the remembrance of his imprisonment in Baltimore moved Garrison to crusade against slavery. 2 Channing, The United States of America, p. 236: James and Sanford, merican is opy, p. 3 : Muzzey, pp American Histo . PP. 320-312: Muzzey, The American Adventure; pp. 389-390: and Bassett, A Short Hggtory of the United (— States 3 pp. “30-431 0 3 Bassett, History of the United States, p. 429, and Sanford, American History. p. 316, mentioned the western abolitionists who did not acknowledge Garrison's leadership. IWuzzey, An American History. p. 320, gave Benjamin Lundy the credit of organizing the antislavery sentiment into a strong ‘united movement. The remaining writers emphasized Garrison's role. 290 radicalism. The least critical were Charles A. Beard and William Bagley who merely said that Garrison was so extreme that he even ”openly criticized the Constitution of the United States and declared that he wanted rather to see the Union broken up than to remain a citizen of a slave nation.” 0n the other extreme stood David S. Muzzey. In contrast to his sympathy with the political antislavery people, he criticized Garrison's denunciation of the Constitution, a advocacy of disunionism, opposition to political action, and simplification of the complex problem of slavery. Garrison's radicalism made him the leader only of a small extremist sect, and did "more to harm the antislavery cause than all its enemies.”5 They did not question his sincerity or the righteousness of his cause, but rather, the extreme method he used. Then all these authors gave a view of the abolition- ists which was in general similar to that of James. F. Rhodes or Albert Bushnell Hart. They approved the abolition tagitation and its aim, and were favorable to the moderate abolitionists. However, they criticized Garrison's extrem- ism in denouncing the Constitution and the Union, and :repudiating the political means of achieving the end of emancipation. 4 Beard and Bagley, The Histpry of_the American Peoplg, pp- 396-397. 5 Muzzey, An American History: pp. 319-320. The quotation is Charles SumnerTs words which Muzzey quoted with approval. 291 This generally favorable view of the abolitionists began to change with the opening of the 1930's. During the next thirty years, the abolitionists were treated more harshly than before in most general histories. The image of Garrison and his radical followers in most of these texts went from bad to worse. But even the moderate aboli- tionists lost much of their appeal. They were treated less harshly than the Garrisonians: but they were not favorites to most of the authors either. More often than not, most of the writers simply lumped all the abolitionists together and rendered them an unfavorable verdict. This change in the treatment of the abolitionists had much to do with the influence of the revisionist studies. It is true that in the distribution of praise and blame among the abolitionists themselves, Gilbert H. Barnes' opinion seemed more pervasive and lasting because ever since 1940 to the present, almost all the general his- tory writers examined followed Barnes' division of the abolitionists into the Weld-Tappan and Garrisonian groups.6 But so far as the description of slavery and the judgment .g 6 Before 1940, Barnes was completely neglected by the authors of these examined histories. His influence became Clear for the first time in George M. Stephenson, American .Histopy to 1865 (New York, 1940), pp. 272-273. 292 of the abolitionists are concerned, the revisionist his- torians were more influential than Barnes in the general history treatment of the abolition movement from about the mid-1930's to the late 1950's. Since the revisionists were the most harsh critics of the abolitionists, it is not surprising that most of the authors of general histories during this period were also the most unsympathetic censors of the abolition crusaders among all the authors whose , books were analyzed here. However, not all the examined general histories published during this period were equally critical. At least four of them were far less harsh than the others. Although three out of the four histories explicitly de- nounced Garrison's extremism, and the other one completely neglected him, at least two were sympathetic to the aboli- tion movement as a whole, while the other two favored the moderate abolitionists. However they disliked Garrison's extremism, no one apologized for slavery, or accused the radicals' attacks on slavery and slaveholders for the 7 South's increasing intransigency on slavery. In essence, The four histories are Allen Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, America: The Sto of a Free Peo le (Boston, 1942), pp. 21 2 9: Dw ght Lowell Dumond, A History of the United States (New York, 1942), pp. 316-333: Homer Carey Hackett and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Land of the Free: A Short Histo of the American Peo 1e (New York, 1944), pp. 253- 257: and Lou s M. Hacker, The Sha in of American Tradition (New York, 1947), pp. 559-351. Dumond's was a summary of 293 the authors of these histories seemed nearer to the writers of the preceding period than to their contemporaries. But the remaining eighteen histories were frankly hostile to the abolitionists. Most of the authors took for granted the sincerity of the abolitionists' humanitarian 'r‘ motives. Only Ralph Volney Harlow and his reviser, Nelson Blake. suggested a psychological explanation by pointing out that "probably the extreme abolitionists were driven on by emotions stimulated by causes largely within them- selves.”8 But almost all of them disliked the abolitionists' fanaticism or extremism in their severe attacks on slavery and slaveholders and uncompromising demand for immediate and unconditional emancipation. In contrast to their hostility to the abolition crusaders, these authors were in general apologetic for slavery and sympathetic to the South. —.—————' _— — ———— the Interpretation in his special studies. Hacker based his description exclusively on Barnes' with the complete omission of Garrison. The other two books were influenced by Barnes to some degree. Dumond and Hacker were favorable to the abolition movement, while all the others upheld the moderates at the expense of Garrison. 8 Ralph Volney Harlow and Nelson Blake, The United States: From Wilderness to World Power (New Yo—rk',T'4—)—9 9 , p. 283. Originally this book wasswritten by Harlow alone and first published in 1925 under the title, The Growth of thg United Statgg (New York). In 1949, it was revised by? Harlow and Blake. Because the first edition is not avail- able, no comparison of the two editions is possible. 294 The first severe critic of the abolitionists was James Truslow Adams. Probably influenced by the debunking mode of the post-World War I period, Adams bitterly attacked New England Puritans' fanaticism and dogmatism for the extremism of the abolitionists. According to him, New England had contributed some of the best and some of the worst influences to the national development. ”Unfortunately one of the latter was fanaticism and intolerance.” The abolitionists who were mostly New Englanders approached slavery with the same Puritan characteristics. They never troubled themselves to understand the viewpoint of the other section, and seldom questioned their own. They re- fused to consider the complexity of slavery and the diffi- culties involved in emancipation but chose to moralize and simplify the whole issue. Their shouting ”for immediate emancipation of all slaves,” their agitation ”for immediate dissolution of the Union,” and their vituperative attacks on the morality of slaveholding ”stirred the country, North as well as South, to a pitch of passion such as has never been witnessed among us before or since,“ and ”sowed the seeds of intense bitterness between the sections." Both the North and South resented the meddling of these fanatics, and rightly so. Comparing with the bitter feel- ings aroused by the twentieth-century prohibitionists, .Adams declared: ”if we can imagine that, instead of having merely deprived a large part of our population - a part that 295 considers itself quite as moral and high-minded as the reformers - of the enjoyment of a social habit, the reformers had threatened in addition on moral grounds to deprive them of so large a part of their property as to ruin them financially, we can get a better idea of the 9 His criticism of feeling stirred up by abolitionists.” the abolitionists was not only bitter but also complete. He said hardly a single favorable word about the abolition agitators. Few of the other authors were as severe and complete as Adams in their denunciation of the abolitionists. But the abolition story told by them was just as slanted as that by Adams. Generally speaking, they considered the un- reasonable attacks of the abolitionists on both slave- holders and slavery which, to them, was not too bad, in simple moral terms as making a rational solution of the problem more difficult, if not impossible altogether. By hurting the South's pride, and by threatening the South's way of life, the abolition agitation also hardened the Southerner's determination to defend slavery as a positive good. To begin with, most of these writers followed the studies of Ulrich B. Phillips, and adapted an apologistic James Truslow Adams, The ic of America (Boston, 1931), pp. 199-255. The quotations are taken from p. 253, 252, 203, and 200. 296 attitude toward slavery. W.E. Woodward's judgment of slavery sounded like the typical ante-bellum defender of slavery. He admitted the degrading effects of slavery. Yet he insisted: but a point to remember is that the Negroes, when they came, were already degraded - so much so, indeed, that African chiefs sold their own people to slave traders by the shipload. They came from a savagery in which they possessed no rights at all, and were considered nothing more than so many parcels of human meat. If this is already too much, his other opinions seemed even more ridiculous. Lifting the Negro from savagery, his bondage “taught him discipline, cleanliness and a concep- tion of moral standards.“ In civilizing him, the South paid what a terrible price: "The white people of the South paid in poverty and blood and tears for the Negro's civil- ization,” he said. Indeed, slavery "did incalculable harm to the white people of the South, and benefitted nobody but the Negro, in that it served as a vast training school for African savages."10 To a present-day reader, such statements sound fanatic and incredible: nevertheless the opinions of Woodward in regard to slavery were shared to different degrees by most writers of this period. For example, Harlow and Blake believed that the slaveholders ”treated their 10 W.E. Woodward, A New American Histopy (New York, 1936). All the quotations are taken from pp. 412-413. 297 slaves well, as humane, kindly men should."11 To John D. Hicks, the slave "got much positive enjoyment out of life." He was carefree, humorous, singing and dancing. He was treated well and loyal to his master. "By and large,” the authors wrote,"the condition of his life represented a distinct advance over the lot that would have befallen him had he remained in Africa."12 Harold U. Faulkner agreed with Phillips that ”the theory of rigid coercion and com- plete exploitation was asstrange to the bulk of the planters as the doctrine and practice of moderation was to those who viewed the regime from afar and with the mind's eye.”13 Aaron I. Abell and his co-authors had the opinion that slaves were seldom ill-treated. They ”led easy, even pampered lives.... They were trusted by their masters and repaid this trust with loyalty and devotion.“ Indeed, the southern contention that slaves were better off than northern wage workers was not without justification.1u _— __ ll Harlow and Blake, The United States: From Wilder- ness to World Power, p. 281. 12 John D. Hicks, A Short Histo of erican Democracy (New York, 1943), p. 291. 13 Harold U. Faulkner, American Political and Social Histopy (New York, 1937), p. 309. 14 Aaron I. Abell, Bernard J. Fleming, A Paul Levack, Thomas T. McAvoy, and Lawrence J. Mannsion, A History_of the United States of America (New York, 1952), p. 236. 298 Robert E. Riegel and David F. Long said that the usual owner was careful of his slaves, and suggested that the lower state of the Negroes' cultural development justified slavery as a means of handling race relations. They argued that ”slavery did establish a settled way of life between the white master and the Negro slave,” and that however cruel, immoral and inefficient it was, still slavery was a method of “civilizing and Christianizing the Negroes."15 Thomas A. Bailey derided Southerners' defense of slavery: yet he asserted that ”the uprooted Africans, despite the harshness of their lot, often gave evidence of contentment and even happiness."16 Even Richard Hofstadter. William Miller, and Daniel Aaron who were harshly critical of slavery admitted that there was a brighter side of the peculiar institution. ”Many white southerns,” they claimed, "treated their slaves affectionately and. . . many slaves responded to this treatment with loyalty and devotion."17 These authors were certainly not unalloyed defenders of slavery: but they were not its staunch enemy either. Given this apologetic or ambivalent attitude toward slavery, it could not be expected that they would like the 15 Robert E. Riegel and David F. Long, The American Stopy (New York, 1955), p. 180, and 182. 16 Thomas A. Bailey, The American Pageant: A History of_1he Rgpublic (Boston, 1956), p. 364. 17 Richard Hofstadter. William Miller, and Daniel Aaron, The American Rgpublig (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1959). I. 515. 299 abolition agitation very much. Indeed, there were some authors who even doubted the advisibility of the entire crusade. William Miller's description was too sketchy to be of much meaning for this discussion: but in one place he suggested that abolition was but one of the manufactured issues with which the political managers hoped to engage the interest of uncommitted voters.18 He seemed to throw doubt on the motives of the abolitionists. Others did not raise such a question. Instead, they questioned whether the abolitionists were not beating a dying horse. Accept- ing the revisionist argument of the ”natural limits” of slavery, Faulkner, and Abell and his co-workers believed that slavery would eventually disappear before 1900.19 Taking the natural death of slavery for granted, Stephenson thought it was unfortunate that the abolitionists did not let the nature take its own course, and Harlow and Blake wondered "whether the abolitionists were not attacking the problem in the wrong way."20 18 William Miller, A New History_of the United Stateg (New York, 1958), p. 183. 19 Faulkner, American Political and Social Histo p. 308: and Abell and others, A Histogy of the United Statgs of America, p. 236. 20 Stephenson, American Histopy to 1865, p. 467: and Harlow and Blake, The Un ted States: From Wilderness to World Power, p. 283. ‘_ ii 300 But most of the authors were not so sanguine about the inevitability of the natural death of slavery. Con- sequently, it was not the fact that some persons agitated against slavery which disturbed them. What they disliked was the alleged excess of the abolitionists' agitation, or fanaticism, or extremism. Garrison naturally became the main target of bitter criticism, but other abolitionists were not spared either. Every sort of charge was heaped on their heads. Thus, to Woodward, Garrison was a visionary, living in “a tight box of his own limitations."21 Leland D. Baldwin described Garrison as a bundle of contradictions between a pacifist and a militant fighter, a moralist and an enemy of orthodox Christianity, a theorist and one who demanded immediate result, a patriot and one who damned the Constitution and the Union. Garrison loved persecution, and his “rancorous diatribes did more to hinder than to advance the cause of abolition."22 The charges of other writers were more inclusive and complex. Jeanette P. Nichols and Ray F. Nichols be- lieved that Garrison's ”violent propaganda“ and ”vitriolic argument” caused the Southerners to fear slave revolts. 21 Woodward, A New American Histogy, p. 414. 22 Leland D. Baldwin, The Stream of American Histopy (New York, 1953), pp. 658-659. 301 However, other abolitionists were not harmless either. The fanaticism of the abolitionist ”zealots” was ”socially dangerous and in various places even in the North conservative members of society attempted to put them down by force."23 And Faulkner not only agreed to such blames but also added another one. ”The exaggerations of abolition agitators” he wrote, ”made the solution of the slavery question a difficult one."2l4 According to Hicks, the abolitionists ”knew little” about slavery. Their agitation was disliked in both sections. ”The indifference of the extremists among them to the Constitution and their openly expressed willingness to see "the Union broken up were “thoroughly resented by a generation which held both the Constitution and the Union in the deepest reverence.” ”With good reason” Southerners held responsible for the losses of their slaves the abolitionists who ”deliberately suggested to the slaves . . . the possibility of running away:' and the extremists' ”occasional unguarded utterances” certainly justified the southern charge that the abolitionists were promoting 25 Negro insurrections. 23 Jeanette P. Nichols and Ray F. Nichols, The Growth of Aperican Democracy (New York, 1939), pp. 493-494. 24 Faulkner, American Political and Social Hisfiory, p. 309 and 3190 25 Hicks, A Short Histo of_American DemocracyJ pp. 294. 297, and 298.""""'L 302 Harlow and Blake made similar charges. They con- sidered Garrison to be “a master of invective,” who for thirty years flooded the Liberator with vituperation and "passionate, seditious appeals for disunion.” In view of the character of Garrison's attacks, they found that the South ”could hardly be blamed" for trying to keep his journal from their homes because of fearing slave revolts. If Garrison was not an open advocate of slave violence, certainly Theodore Parker was one, according to the authors. Parker not only preached violence but also prided himself ”upon his success in breaking the laws of his country."26 The charge of lawlessness was also advanced by Oscar Theodore Barck and his co-authors. The underground railroad activities of the abolitionists infuriated slave- holders whose ”property was thus unlawfully alienated.” But, the crimes of the abolition crusaders did not stop here. Garrison was ignorant of the actual conditions of slavery and intemperate in his program. "The more erratic 'do-gooders'“ like Garrison were responsible for the South's shift from accepting slavery as a necessary evil to defending it as a positive good.27 26 Harlow and Blake, The United States: From Wilder- ness to ngld Powepy pp. 277, 2 l, and 2 2. 27 Oscar Theodore Barck, Walter L. Wakefield, and Hugh Talmage Lefter, The United States; A Survey of National Development (New York, 1950), pp. 343-346. 303 Another author playing upon the theme of lawlessness was Henry B. Parkes. To him Garrison was ”impractical idealist with extreme views on many other questions.“ All abolitionists were at first regarded in the North as “dangerous radicals and troublemakers, trying to destroy law and order." And slaveholders were "understandably indignant“ at being called criminals by the abolitionists. He clearly suggested the lawlessness of the abolitionists' helping fugitive slaves by insisting that this was “in defiance of a clause in the Constitution requiring states to cooperate in returning them to their masters.” In addition, many of the abolitionists “were fanatics who saw the problem in dangerously simple terms and were incapable of a realistic appraisal of racial relationship in the South." His final judgment of the abolition agitation was that ”in so far as the abolitionists helped to make any peaceful settlement 6f the slavery question impossible, it can be argued that, in the long run, they did more harm than good."28 Garet Garrett was even more scathing in his denunci- ation of Garrison and other extreme abolitionists. To him, Garrison was a "dreadful knight,” and "an obsessed and reckless man, to whom moderation was unknown.” The Liberator was a ”fearsome torch that blackened the day and 28 Henry B. Parkes. The United States of America: A Histopy (New York, 1953), pp. 323-324. 304 disrupted the night. To quench it ultimately required the blood of more than a million men - but none of Garrisons'.” He defied the Fugitive Slave Law and organized the under- ground railroad. Since slavery was legal, ”this was theft." The South "could hardly be blamed," according to Garrett, if they imagined that incitement for the Nat Turner revolt came from the North. It appeared to him that the South's defense of slavery as a positive good was not without reason, for its pride was deeply hurt by "the vituperations of the North."29 Riegel and Long also justified the South's growing intransigency. They declared that "hotheads like William Lloyd Garrison were perfectly willing to advocate that the slaves should alter their unfortunate way of life by doing violence to their masters." Fearful of slave revolts, "the embattled South” was determined to "defend its maligned way of life" by suppressing antislavery propaganda and by preaching the positive-good theory of slavery. Besides, the authors also accused the abolitionists of promoting sectional hostilities, of neglecting the difficulties in- volved in sudden emancipation, and of providing no adequate substitute "for slavery during the years when the ex-slaves must be trained for citizenship."30 29 Garet Garrett, The Americap Story (Chicago, 1955). pp. 97’98- 3O Riegel and Long, The American Story. pp. 297-299. 305 Although denying the charge of the abolitionists intentionally fostering slave violence, Hofstadter. Miller and Aaron agreed with Riegel and Long that the abolition- ists had no practical program of emancipation. Nor were the abolitionists clear on ”how the slave, once emancipated, was to rise from his ignorance, and inexperience and take his place as a free man. Indeed, when emancipation finally did come, few of them were prepared with a con- structive program." Garrison was of course one of these impractical abolitionists. But he had other liabilities. He was "neurotic and wayward,” and ”fanatically uncomprom- ising about his cherished beliefs.” His Liberator was "an incendiary periodical of extreme abolitionism." His "vituperative attacks against the 'southern oppressors' did much to intensify antiabolition sentiment in the South."31 Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams and Frank Freidel were moderate in tone, but equally critical of the abolitionists. Garrison's extremism "shocked many friends of freedom." He opposed the government and the church, denounced the Constitution, and split the American Anti- slavery movement. Perhaps Garrison was a little insane be- cause the authors announced that by comparison, Theodore Weld was "far more sane and sensible.” Anyway there is no doubt that Harriet Beecher Stowe had only very meagre knowledge ' 31 Hofstadter. Miller, and Aaron, The American Reppblicy I, 463. 306 of the actuality of slavery. The authors' pro-southern sentiment was revealed in their treatment of mob violence in the North and South. Northerners trying to rescue captured runaway slaves were described as "mobs or organized groups” attempting to ”impede enforcement” of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850: and the personal liberty laws as attempts by several northern states to nullify this federal act. "Such displays of violence“ naturally angered and alarmed the South. They said nothing about the anti- abolition mob violence in the South, but allowed an impression of the South as a helpless victim of the aboli- tionists' aggressive violence?2 However, Harry J. Carman was not so one-sided because heblamed extremists on both sides. "To the radicals of both sections - the Garrisons, the Phillipses, the Yanceys, the Quitmans - who lost no opportunity to broadcast the seeds of hatred and distrust,” he wrote, “belongs the respons- ibility for removing the problem of slavery from the realm of reason to that of emotionalism."33 All the above criticisms became rather mild when compared with the accusations of Bailey. The "Garrisonian hotheads” did not understand the complex problem of the South -- 32 Richard N. Current, T. Harry Williams, and Frank Freidel, American History: A Survpy_(New York, 1959), pp. 314, 362, and 383. 33 Harry J. Carman, Social and Political Histo of the United States (2 vols., New York, 1930-1934), II, 484. 307 and evidently had no real desire to do so,” he charged. Their accusations "knew no restraint.“ Some of them "went so far as to urge the slaves to slay their masters in their beds.” The ”boat-rocking tactics of the radical anti-slaveryites" provoked a strong hostility among ordin- ary Northerners who were decent and "reasonable people" with a deep respect for the Constitution, the Union, and private property. Violence begetting violence, angered by "the holier-than-thou abuse of the Garrisonians,” “the meddling of ignorant reformers, and the appeals to the slaves to massacre their masters,” the South retaliated in kind. If Bailey was occasionally more harsh to the Garrisonians, the "lunatic fringe” of the abolition move- ment, other abolitionists fared no better than the Garrisonians in his final judgment of all the abolitionists: Abolitionist violence bore a bitter harvest. For over a generation, it partially eclipsed other worthy reforms, including woman's rights. It ended all hope for the success of gradual emancipation in the northernmost of the Southern slave states, where the movement had been making promising progress. It contributed to a split- ting of the parties and the churches into section- al groupings. It jeopardized fundamental American rights, both North and South, including the right to petition, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom on inquiry, freedom of travel, and freedom of teaching - almost everything ”free”. The radical abolitionists also helped destroy the comity between the sections--the goodwill that was the cement of union. Delicate social problems cannot be solved by screaming and name-calling and the Garrisonians introduced emotion into a situation that called for light--not heat. Shouting led inexorably to shooting. 308 "Bonfires of hatred" thus aroused could only be ”partially extinguished by buckets of blood". So, in the final judg- ment, the belief of statesmen like Lincoln was not un- reasonable that "the Garrisonians were doing more harm than good,“ Bailey concluded}!+ Judgments like these may be unreasonable, but Bailey was not alone among his contemporary general history authors in voicing them. Abell and his co-workers expressed more succinctly the same views. The Garrisonians were ”socially dangerous men" who ”certainly contributed more than any other group to render it impossible for politicians, statesmen and the American people as a whole to settle in a reasonable, democratic fashion the [E1averfi7 issue which lay at the roots" of the Civil War.35 However different in tone, most of the authors of the examined general histories published between the early 1930's and the late 1950's were highly critical of the abolitionists. Garrison and the radicals were the primary target of denunciation. But in the overall judgment, the line dividing the radicals and moderates was often blurred. All of the abolitionists were criticized. They were des- cribed as impractical, uncompromising, visionary, single- minded, irresponsible, fanatical, socially dangerous agitators 34 Bailey, The American Pageant, pp. 368-369, and 370-3730 35 Abell and others, A Higjory of the United States of America, p. 241. 1.1.“; 'I ll 309 who were ignorant of the actual conditions of slavery and insensitive to the immense difficulties involved in emancipation, had no workable plan for emancipation or for training the freedmen for citizenship, respected no law, and encouraged slaves to kill their masters in beds. Their violent words and actions provoked among lawabiding Northerners bitter resentment and alarmed Southerners to protect their much abused way of life. A few of them even questioned the sincerity of the abolitionists' devotion to the cause of freedom, or the wisdom of the entire aboli- tion movement. Under the influence of the revisionist historians, a great majority of them came to regard the abolitionists as troublemakers who except for making the reasonable and peaceful solution of the slavery issue impossible and heightening sectional hatred accomplished almost nothing. After about thirty years of dominance, this view of total domination gave way to a more favorable interpreta- tion. With the gradual penetration of Kenneth M. Stampp's study of slavery and the writings of Dwight L. Dumond and Russell B. Nye about the abolition movement, a more sym- pathetiC'teatment of the abolitionists emerged from most general histories during the period from the late 1950's to the present. It is true that Garrison was still disliked by most of the authors of the eight books examined. But no longer were the sincerity and aims of the abolitionists 310 questioned. And the non-Garrisonians were in general warmly praised. The apologetic tone in describing slavery was gone. Few of these writers blamed the abolitionists for the Souths' intransigency indefending slavery. So far as the division of the abolition concert is concerned, Barnes was still dominating. But in tone and attitude, Dumond and Nye proved to be more influential. How far the change went can be measured by a revisionist historian's treatment of the abolition move- ment. In a textbook history co-authored with Walter Johnson, Avery Craven still traced the rise of the abolition crusade to the economic and social dislocations taking place in the ante-bellum North, and interpreted the coming of the Civil War in terms of the moralization of issues by radical minorities on both sides. Yet, in the discussion of the abolitionists, the general tone was calm and favor- able. Slavery was described as ”an evil which was more bluntly violated the democratic ideals of liberty and equality and the Christian doctrine of justice than any other in the United States.“ And the abolition agitation against it was "a great and effective moral crusade.” John Quincy Adams became “gallant” fighter ”to save the funda- mental right of petition.” The surprising thing is that abusive words were not even leveled at Garrison.36 36 Avery Craven and Walter Johnson, Thg United States: Ex eriment in Democrac (New York, Second edition, 1962), pp. 225, and 22 . For discussion of the rise of abolitionism, see pp. 220-223: for the coming of the Civil War, see p. 269. 311 However, not all the general histories examined were favorable to the abolitionists. At leadt one author criticized the crusaders as harshly as any writer of the preceding period. This was John A. Garraty. Incidentally his was the only general history among all those examined in which David Donald's interpretation was noticed. Although he thought Donald's theme "difficult to prove,” it caused him to “take a fresh look at the abolitionists.” And the result of his fresh look was devastating to the abolitionists. According to him, a few abolitionists were "zealots” who “would not listen to reason". They were so intoxicated with the concepts of equality and progress that "the logic of circumstances had little influence upon them." Benjamin Lundy was one of them: but Garrison was “even more provocative." ”Utterly indifferent to what effect the sudden freeing of the slave would have on the South," Garrison would ”neither compromise, nor negotiate, nor wait” in his denunciation and demand. Theodore Weld was more reasonable and less extreme, ”but he was also more emotional in his approach." Indeed, all the abolition- ists "adopted an oversimplified and distorted view of the problem of slavery." They painted all southern whites black, all blacks white." Their ”specious reasoning” was “destructive" because their "exaggerations angered moderate Southerners and made them more receptive to the talk of 312 their own hotheads." However, Garraty did not blame the abolitionists alone. He also criticized the southern radicals, holding them responsible for driving the moderate antislavery men to extreme abolitionism. Whatever he might say about the extremists in the South, his antipathy to the abolitionists was so obvious that it made his history belong to the former age rather than to the decade during which he wrote.37 The remaining six general histories were generally favorable to the abolitionists as a whole. This is clearly shown in their description of the abolition movement. Michael Kraus called it ”the great cause,” and Herman L. Crow and William L. Turnbull ”the most noble" of all the ante-bellum reform movements.38 To Oscar Handlin, it was "the brightest star in the galaxy of reforms,” aiming at "the liberation of a group totally dependent, totally de- prived of freedom, and therefore more than any other in need of improvement."39 Kenneth M. Stampp described the crusaders 37 John A. Garraty, The American Nation: A Histo of the United States (New York, 1966). All the quotations are takEn from pp. 272-275. 38 Michael Kraus, The United States to 186 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1959), p. : and Herman L. Crow and William L. Turnbull, American History: A Problems Approach (New York, 1971): Pa 295- 39 Oscar Handlin, The History of the United Stgtes (New York, 1967), I, 513. His other two histories, The Americans: A New History of the People of the United States 313 as "champions of civil liberties not only for Negroes but for white men."LLO But there were other signs of a change to sympathy, To begin with, no one of these writers apologized for slavery. The general view of these writers about slavery could be seen from that of Gilman M. Ostrander who des- scribed it as "barbarous, inhumane, degrading,"u1 of Richard B. Morris, William Greenleaf, and Robert H. Ferrell who believed the slavery was a combination of a conscript 42 army and a concentration camp, and of Handlin who wrote about it: "slavery was the greatest indignity of all, for it denied to millions the most elementary human qualities and, by its degrading effect upon both master and slave, stood in the way of the whole nation's progress."h3 Beside their denunciation of slavery, no one of them accepted the (Boston, 1963), pp. 234-237, and America: A Higtory (New York, 1968), pp. 426-428 were also exafilhéd. There is no difference among the three books in the treatment of the abolition movement. 40 John M. Blum, Bruce Catton, Edmund S. Morgan, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., Kenneth M. Stampp, and C. Vann Woodward, The National Ex erience: A History of the Upiped States (New York, 1963), p. 254. The chapterfiincluding the abolition movement was written by Stampp. Hereafter cited as Stampp and others, The National Experience. 41 Gilman M. Ostrander, A Profile Histopy of the United States (New York, 1964), p. 190. 42 Richard B. Morris, William Greenleaf, and Robert H. Ferrell, America: A History of the People (Chicago,197l), p.288. 43 Handlin, The Americans: A New History of the People of the United Statgg, p. 234. 314 "natural limits" argument of slavery, With Stampp, these authors held the opinion that instead of decline, slavery was "flourishing and spreading," and that without inter- ference from the North, it would be never destroyed.hu In contrast to the rather sympathetic attitude of the writers of the previous period toward the early anti- slavery movement which was supposed to have been parti- cularly strong in the South,”5 few authors of the recent ten years or so took the early crusade against slavery very seriously, and several of them criticized the coloniza- tion movement. Ostrander pointed out that the ”most advanced Southern solution" to the slavery problem was no more than some masters' support of ”the hopelessly impractical and equally inhumane solution of wholesale ex- pulsion to Africa,“ while Morris and his co-authors con- sidered colonization as a ”reactionary” scheme, predicated on the belief of the Negroes' inferiority in race. Another sign of the change from condemnation to sympathy was that no one of these writers accused the abolitionists of hardening the South's pro-slavery stand and thus making a reasonable solution of the slavery issue impossible. Instead, some of them insisted that slaveholders 44 _ Stampp and others, The National Experience, p. 252. 45 For example, Bailey, The American ngeant,_p. 367, contrasted early "reasonable” antislavery men to later "hotheads." And Abell and others, A History of the United States of America, p. 238, called the Eolonization movement "this noble venture.” 46 Ostrander, A Profile History of the_United States, 315 shifted to a militant defense of slavery before or abreast the rise of the abolition movement. For example, Kraus said that by the 1820's, the South ”had become committed to the institution as a benefidial way of life.”u7 Ostrander pointed out that the trend toward a stricter con- trol of slaves and a positive defense of slavery in the South long began before 1832 which saw the last open debate over the possibility of some kind of emancipation in the Virginia legislature.“8 And Handlin and Stampp were cer- tain that it was the failure of the South to emancipate its slaves which caused the reformers to believe that ”stronger measures“ were required to end slavery.“9 Such shifts of opinions naturally resulted in amore sympathetic view of the abolition movement. And most of the participants received warm praises except Garrison.5o Most of these writers were still critical of Garrison's radical- ism or extremism. However, even their criticisms of A .__ p. 190: and Morris and others, America: A History of thg People, p. 292. 47 Kraus, The United States to 1865, p. 448. 48 Ostrander, A Profile History of the United States, pp. 190-192. 49 Handlin, The Histopy of the United States, p. 513. Also, Stampp and others, The National Experience, p. 252. 50 The praises of most abolitionists can be found in almost all of the books examined. 316 Garrison were less harsh than before. While conceding that Garrison broke the conspiracy of silence, Kraus con- sidered him too uncompromising and fiery to be liked by most Northerners.51 Handlin argued that Garrison's in- sistence on the absoluteness of liberty provided a standard to which events eventually drove other moderate reformers. But he called him a zealot and disliked his extremism in denouncing the Constitution and the Church, and his sus- ceptibility to "eccentric” reforms.52 Ostrander said that Garrison was an agitator without a practical program.53 The most severe critics of Garrison among these writers were Morris, Greenleaf, and Ferrell. To them, he was an extremist whose “intemperate utterances often embarrassed his colleagues,“ whose fanaticism ”alienated many moderate abolitionists,” and whose inspiration was taken ”more from a hatred of slaveholders than alove for the blacks.“5u With one exception, all the examined general his- tories of the last decade showed an antislavery and pro- abolitionist attitude. All the authors considered the 51 Kraus, The United States to 1865, pp. 445-446. 52 Handlin, The Historyof the United Statepy p. 507, and 5130 53 Ostrander, A Profile History of the united States, p. 1920 54 Morris, Greenleaf, and Ferrell, America: A Histopy of the People, p. 294. 317 abolition movement a just cause and a legitimate product of the growing intransigency of the slaveholders' defense of slavery. The abolitionists were no longer described as troublemakers whose agitation hindered rather than helped the solution of the slavery problem. Instead, they were now regarded as noble fighters for the liberties of black as well as white men. Even though they failed to persuade the slaveholders to free their slaves, as emphasized by Stampp,55 nevertheless, by combining the slave's cause with the preservation of whitemen's civil liberties, they convinced many Northerners that “abolition was not a doc- trine of wild-eyed radicals,"56 and that slavery was morally wrong and threatening their own liberties, and therefore could not be tolerated as a permanent institution.57 Such favorable descriptions and judgments were clearly in difference from those of most of the general histories produced from the early 1930's to the late 1950's. But in view of their continued criticism of Garrison, however mild, their sympathy was still limited. Garrison's fanaticism or extremism proved still to be an annoyance to most of these authors. By and large, they followed in attitude and 55 Stampp and others, The National Experience, p. 254. 56 Handlin, The History of the United States, p. 514. 57 Stampp and Others, The National Ex erience, p. 253. Also see Ostrander, A Profile History of the United States, Pa 193- 318 interpretation Dumond and Nye rather than the recent re- habilitating historians of the abolition movement. This change from unsympathetic to sympathetic treat- ment of the abolitionists was also revealed by different editions of histories written by the same authors. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growthfipf the gpppican Republlpfia could be used as an illustration. First published in 1930, this history went through six editions in the next thirty-nine years. In the first edition, the treatment of the abolitionists was basically favorable. The crusade was described as a humanitarian movement led by "humane and liberty-loving persons,” seeking the abolition of slavery. Garrison was mildly criticized as a man of "contradiction," and an extremist, blind to the rights of slavemasters, insensitive to the color problem and exaggerating the cruelty of slavery.59 In these res- pects, Morison and Commager presented a view of the 58 (New York). The first edition of the book was published in 1930, the second in 1937, the third in 1942, the fourth in 1950, the fifth in 1962, the sixth and last in 1969. I could not obtain the second and third editions from the Michigan State University Library. In any case, a comparison of the editions in wording, the first edition was not too different from the fourth, the fifth from the sixth in content. The significant difference was between the first and sixth edition. The comparison in the text is basedon the difference between these two editions. 59 Morrison and Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, first edition, pp. 403-410. Quotations are taken from p. 407, and 405. 319 abolitionists similar to that of the nationalistic historians. But in their final judgment, they seemed to anticipate the revisionist historians in blaming the abolitionists for arousing sectional hatred. They concluded in the first edition: How, then, shall we estimate the abolitionists? Their sincerity and courage is no longer denied by friend or enemy: of their wisdom no enemy was ever convinced, and many friends are now doubtful. . . . 2 Certain it is that they closed every avenue to emancipation save civil war: their means almost defeated their end. Abolition came in spite of the abolitionists rather than because of them: and in the worst way. But could it have come in any other way? Garrison broke a great conspiracy of silence. His indignant pity seared the Northern conscience with the image of a slave cowering under his master's lash - but at what 60 cost in hatred, bloodshed, and uncharitableness: The criticism is obvious. Garrison accused northern con- science against slavery, but at what a terrible price: And so far as actual emancipation is concerned, the high cost seemed meaningless for ”abolition came in spite of the abolitionists rather than because of them.” It is this opinion that put the authors nearer to the position of those who wrote general histories during the second thirty years of this century than to that of the writers of the first three decades. Thirty-nine years later, a more favorable evaluation of the abolition agitation was set forth in the sixth edition of the book. The basic description of the _— 60 Ibid.. pp. 409-410. 320 abolitionists as true humanitarian reformers did not change. And criticism of Garrison remained intact. But the textual arrangements and the omissions and additions of words al- ready resulted in a more favorable view in the sixth than in the first edition.61 The more significant change, how- ever, occurred in the final evaluation. In the sixth edition, the author raised the same question, "Hew, then, shall we estimate the abolitionists?” But they answered in a different way: It must be admitted that they fanned the passions which led to civil war: but it is fatuous to argue, as Southern apologists have done, that if they had kept silent, emancipation would have come peaceably. Abolition was an irresistible power in a world then awakening to new concepts of humanity. It could no more be kept down in Boston and Indianapolis than in London and Paris. . . . The trouble with the abolitionists, as we can see now, was this - they spent all their compassion on the slave and left none for the Southern white man who was equally involved in the system and could see no way to get rid of it. The cost of their agitation in hatred and bloodshed was immense: but in view of the Southern resistance to any amelioration of slavery, and Southern insistence on acquiring more slave territory and more buttresses to the system, it is doubtful whether emancipation could have come about %n any other way than the worst way, civil war.6 They still deplored the immense cost of the abolitionists' agitation. But the suggestion of the futility of the cost 61 Morison and Commager, The Growth of the Amgpican Republic, sixth edition, pp. 499-507. 62 Ibid., p. 5070 321 was gone. And they now came around to defend the abolition agitation by emphasizing that it was part and parcel of the irresistible power of awakened humanity sweeping all over the world, and that because of the slaveholders' intransigency there was really no other way to end slavery save the Civil War. In this Opinion, the authors were in accord with most of the general history writers of the last decade or so. In 1963, Patrick J. Groff examined eighteen high school texts published between 1950 and 1961, and came up with the opinion that these high school histories told "a decidedly slanted history of the abolitionists and their role in the emancipation of the American slave."63 This conclusion held true not only for general histories of the 1950's but also for those published during a longer period. At least the popular or textbook histories appeared from the early 1930's to the late 1950's told largely a dis- torted story about the abolition movement. Authors of most of these histories were more or less pro-southern and anti-abolitionist. From such an attitude, it is prob- ably natural that they suspected the effects of the aboli- tion agitation. To them, the fanatical, irresponsible, and violent attacks on slavery and slaveholders killed the 63 Patrick J. Groff, “The Abolitionist Movement in High School Texts," The Journal of Negro Education, XXXII (Winter, 1963), 43. .1 322 supposedly strong antislavery sentiment in the South, hardened Southerners' determination to defend their abused way of life, and thus made a reasonable solution of the issue of a dying slavery more difficult, if not impossible. The net result of the crusade was that of hindering rather than helping the aboliion of slavery. However, Groff's conclusion can not be applied to general histories written before the early 1930's and after the late 1950's. The abolitionists emerged from most of the histories of these two periods in a far more favor- able shape. Most authors shared an antislavery and pro- abolitionist attitude in their treatment of the abolition movement. They denounced slavery: and no one believed its ”natural death” was in sight by 1860. Nor did they take the southern antislavery sentiment very seriously. Indeed, some of them held the opinion that the growing southern pro-slavery intransigency convinced northern reformers of the necessity of a stronger measure to end slavery. Anyway, few of them were prepared to blame the abolitionists for the South's militant defense of slavery. Instead, they gave the abolitionists the credit of breaking the conspiracy of silence surrounding slavery, and arousing northern public opinion against slavery or its further expansion through the identification of the antislavery cause with the defense of civil rights against the encroachment of the slave power. 323 Thus, as a whole, the treatment of the abolition movement in survey histories seemed to have gone through three changes: from the sympathetic description of the first three decades of this century through the hostile treatment of the next thirty years to the favorable evalu- ation of the period after the late 1950's. But the Changes in the treatment of one particular abolitionist, Garrison, have not been very clear. It is true that most authors of the first and third periods were less critical of Garrison than those of the second. But the changes were in degree rather than in substance. Few liked him, certainly no one explicitly defended or justified his radicalism or extremism. Garrison remains to be rescued from condemnation. Probably this cannot be expected before the penetra- tion into general histories of the attitude or spirit shown by the recent radical historians. Up until now, in any case, nowhere could be found in all the general histories examined the influence of the rehabilitating tendency now dominating the more specialized studies of the abolition movement. As for the opinions of other major historians of the abolition movement, the degree of their penetration varied greatly. Roughly speaking, the general history writers of the first period showed an attitude and presented an interpretation similar to those of the nationalist historians. During the second period, the revisionist view 324 became dominant from the mid-1930's on. Dumond and Nye seemed more influential than others during the last ten years. Donald was mentioned by only one writer who, for that matter, did not follow exactly his psychological in- terpretation. But so far as the internal division of the abolition concert and the distribution of praise and blame among the abolitionists themselves are concerned, Barnes proved to be the most influential. Ever since 1940, most of the survey history writers have accepted his dichotomy and his praise of the Weld-Tappan group at the expense of Garrison. In conclusion, it may be said that the treatment of the abolition movement in general histories has undergone three changes. The views of the first two periods roughly coincided with the respective prevailing inter- pretation - the nationalist and the revisionist - of each age. This was not so in the third period. In spite of the fact that an unreservedly sympathetic reappraisal has been undertaken by more radical historians of the abolition move- ment in recent years, a rehabilitating treatment of the abolitionists, particularly of Garrison, has not yet filtered down into general histories. This fact seems to confirm the general belief that the interpretations of specialized studies on any subjects have to wait for a while before they are accepted, if indeed they are accepted at all, by writers of popular or textbook histories. CONCLUSION Despite the desirability of the ideal of objectivity in writing history, complete neutrality of historians is hard to achieve because of the very nature of historical study. Dealing with unrepeatable and unobservable events, the historian is forced to depend on his own judgment in selecting from incomplete and often conflicting material those which he deems significant, and in arranging them in such a way as he considers to be meaningful. In this pro- cess some preconceptions inevitably come into play. Such preconceptions may be personal convictions or the prevail- ing beliefs of particular ages. Historians may consciously try to guard their influences. But they are more often than not built so deeply into the subconsciousness that people usually are not aware of their existence. This is probably the reason why histories on the same subject often vary from age to age, and why no completely objective and "final history" has been written. The development of abolition historiography seems to confirm this view of historical study. The interpretation of this controversial crusade against slavery has been in constant change ever since the trained historians came to 325 326 deal with it around the turn of the twentieth century. The availability of new material, the accumulation of scholarship, and the refinement of research tools have un- doubtedly contributed to these changes. Without the dis- covery of Theodore Weld's private letters, Gilbert H. Barnes probably could not have written his book on the abolition movement in the way he did. And David Donald and Stanley Elkins were certainly benefitted by the develop- ment of psychology. But the fact that different historians who used the same sources of material and the same research tools often arrived at different conclusions shows that there were other things involved. Perhaps personal backgrounds and convictions of individual historians were even more import- ant in determining the way in which they approached the abolitionists. Thus Albert B. Hart and Jesse Macy with strong family ties to the western abolition movement, and Barnes with a resentment against eastern historians' treatment of the West produced studies of the abolition movement which were frankly partisan to the western group of abolitionists, while the southern background of the revisionist historians was not insignificant in their hos- tile treatment of the abolitionists. The concern of Dwight L. Dumond and Russell B. Nye with civil rights growing out of their liberalism was probably more important than any other factors in moving them to describe the 327 crusaders as fighters for the slaves' freedom and defenders of the freeman's liberties. And the Progressive historians' minimization of the significance of the moral issue of slavery in the sectional conflict grew largely out of their belief in the determining importance of economic forces in history. However, personal backgrounds and beliefs of his- torians can not explain certain facts. In contrast to Hart, Macy, and Barnes, Frederick Jackson Turner, Charles A. Beard, and Vernon L. Parrington, all western historians accepted Garrison as the leader of the abolition movement, and Nye, anotherwestern historian, conceded the symbolic importance of Garrison. And the liberalism of Beard and Turner did not result in the same view of the crusaders as that of Dumond and Nye. Albert J. Beveridge, a Northerner coming from an area which was proud of its antislavery activities, gave an interpretation of the abolition movement similar to that of the revisionist historians. The per- sonal factors can not account either for the changes of certain historians' views about the abolitionists, But above all there is the fact that during a given period, historians of the abolition movement often approached the subject in a similar attitude and judgment, and that their common view became the prevailing one in that age. The last fact shows that the general climate of opinion or perspective of an age was probably more important 328 than other factors in influencing its historians to approach the abolitionists in a certain way. Anyway, there has been a close coincidence between the changes in the general outlook and changes in the interpretation of the abolition movement throughout the twentieth century. Thus, the nationalist historians who grew up during a period when public emphasis was on national unity and sectional reconciliation presented an interpretation of the abolition movement which approved its aim but criticized the radicals for their radicalism threatening the Union. The disillusionment with the First World War and the debunk- ing mood of the 1920's and 1930's accounted at least partially for Barnes' basically ambivalent attitude, and largely for the revisionists' denunciation of the moral- ization and emotionization of ordinary issues by the aboli- tion propagandists. When the general perspective moved to conservatism with a mistrust of reforms during the 1950's, there appeared the psychologist-historian who by seeking the motives of the abolitionists in their psycho- logist disturbances or by suggesting their aim to be the reduction of their own internal tensions, effectively minimized the significance of the abolitionists as true reformers. And finally, with the rise ofradicalism and mounting sympathy for the Negro's struggle for civil rights during the 1960's, the trend in abolition historiography shifted to a completely rehabilitating reappraisal of the abolition agitation which explicitly justified and defended radical abolitionism. 329 Whatever may have been the factors that changed the views of historians about the abolition movement, it is certain that its historical interpretation during the twentieth century have gone from the partial approval of the nationalist historians during the first three decades through the condemnation of the revisionist and psycholo- gist historians of the period from the 1930's to the 1950's to the total justification of the rehabilitating historians cf the last ten or so years. Broadly speaking, these changes in the specialized studies of the abolition move- ment have been reflected in popular and textbook histories except the rehabilitating trend of recent years which still remains yet to penetrate into general histories. In view of the past interpretative changes and their close relationships to the preconceptions of the historians and of their ages, it is, indeed, very doubtful whether a "final history” can ever be written about this highly controversial subject of the abolition movement. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Since works on the abolition movement were already discussed in the text of this thesis, there is no need to comment on them once again. Monographes, biographies, and articles devoted to the abolition crusade and analyzed in the text are listed in alphabetical order of the names of authors at the end of this note. The following comments are confined to those works which have no direct relations to the abolition movement itself but helped this writer in understanding the various aspects of its changing inter- pretation. It is not presumed to be complete. In fact, it is highly selective in that only those works which were actually consulted in preparing this thesis are included. A Note on Works Consulted The ready guide to the historical literature on the abolition movement is Oscar Handlin, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Samuel Eliot Morison, Frederick Merk, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Paul Herman Buck, Harvard Guide to American Higtory (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), pp. 362-363. But the listing is far from adequate, being of no more than sixty-five titles. A fuller list can be found in "Suggestion for Additional 330 331 Reading" in Richard 0. Curry, ed., The Abolitipnistg; Rgformers or Fanatics? (New York, 1965), pp. 120-122. But the most complete bibliographies of the literature on the abolition movement up to the early 1960's are in Louis Filler, The Crusadggggainst Slgyeryyl830-186O (New York, 1960), "Bibliography", pp. 281-303, and Russell B. Nye, jptjgrgg_Freedom: Civil_Liberties and the Slavery Controversy, 1830:18ég_(East Lansing, Mich., second ed., 1963), "Biblio- graphy of Sources," pp. 319-330. No adequate compilation of writings after the early 1960's exists: but the foot- notes in Merton L. Dillon, "The Abolitionists: A Decade of Historiography, 1959-1969," Journal of Southern History, XXXV (Nov., 1969), 500-522, provide an excellent listing of most of the studies of the abolition movement produced in the recent decade. There seems no studies existing which traced the whole development of abolition historiography during the twentieth century. So far only two articles dealing with parts of it could be fbund. David Alan Williams in "William Llooyd Garrison, the Historians, and the Abolition- ist Movement,"_E§sex Instipute Historical Collections, XCVIII (1962), 84-99, analyzed the historical treatment of Garrison in various studies. But his discussion was not extended to include the changing treatment of the whole abolition movement: nor did he1ry to explain why the historical view of Garrison changed through the times. Dillon's 332 article cited above emphasized the close relationship be- tween the rehabilitating trend in abolition historiography in recent years and the growing sympathy toward the Negro civil rights movement. Although the study was confined to a very short period in the development of abolition his- toriography, nevertheless, it is of great help for the understanding of the current view of historians about the abolitionists. The only study of the changing treatment of the abolition movement in textbooks is Patrick J. Groff, "The Abolitionist Movement in High School Texts,” 2p; Journal of Nggngduggtion, XXXII (Winter, 1963), 43-51. It covered high school texts published during a very short period, that from 1950 to 1961: but it indicated how badly were the abolitionists treated in textbookrhistories. As a major part of the ante-bellum reform movement, historiographical writings about the changing interpretation of the movement as a whole often shed lights on the changing treatment of the abolitionists. In this respect, C.S. Griffin, The Ferment of Reform11830-1860 (New York, 1967), and David Brion Davis, ed., Ante-Bellum Reform (New York, 1967), ”Introduction,” pp. 1-10, are of parti- cular help. They analyzed the changing interpretation of the reform movement in terms of background, motivation, and effects. But they, like Williams, also did not give reasons for these changes. Because of the intimate relations of the abolition movement with the coming of the Civil War, writings about 333 Civil War historiography is especially useful to the study of the changing interpretations of the abolition movement. The best study of the development of Civil War historiography is Thomas J. Pressly. Americans Interpret Their Civil War (New York, 1954), which traced the changes in the inter- pretation of the Civil War from war times to the early 1950's and related these changes to those in the perspec- tive of ages. Although not so broad in scope, other writings are also helpful. Charles W. Ramsdell, ”The Changing Interpretation of the Civil War,“ Journal of Southern History, III (1933), 3-27, focused his attention on the signs of the rise of a new view of the Civil War which later was called ”revisionist.“ Bernard DeVoto, "The Easy Chair", Harper's Magazine, Vol. 192 (Jan.-March, 1946), pp. 123-126, and 234-237, and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ”The Causes of the Civil War: A Note on Historical Sentimentalism,” Partisan Review, XVI (Oct. 1949), 969-981, criticized the revisionist historians for their evasion of moral judgment from a different outlook of the age after the Second World War, while John S. Rosenberg, "Toward a New Civil War Revisionism,” The American Scholar, XXXVIII (Spring, 1969), 250-272, suggested an outline for future investigation after a brief description of previous interpretations. Historiographical studies of the writings on any historical subject are of course benefitted by works on general American historiography. In this field, there have 334 been many excellent studies. But only the following were consulted in writing this thesis. The most systematic treatment of changes in the writing of American history seems to be John Higham, History: The Development of ngporical Studies in the United Statgg (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1965) pp. 1-232, which traced the changes not only in the interpretation of the American past but also in the theory of writing history from the formative years to the present. William T. Hutchinson, ed., The Marcus W. Jernigan Essays in American Historiography (Chicago, 1937) and Harvey Wish, The American Historian: A Social- Intellectual History 9f the Writingrof the American Paar (New York, 1960), are good on individual leading historians. Robert Allen Skotheim. American Intellectpgl_Histories and Histprians (Princeton, N.J., 1966) traced the development of American intellectual history through an analysis of the personal idealogies of various historians and their different manners of treating historical ideas. Besides these studies of the entire American his- toriography, there are those which dealt with the different schools of interpretation. The consulted writings on the Progressive historians included Charles Grouse, "The Emergence of Progressive History,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XXVII (Jan.-March, 1966), 109-124, which briefly discussed the background of the rise and main characteris- tics of Progressive historiography: and Lee Benson, Turner 335 gpg_§pard: American Historical Writing Reconsidered (New York, 1960) which was in essence a defense of the two Progressive historians against their critics. In an critical analysis, Richard Hofstadter in The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parringtgn (New York, 1968) discussed these three historians' experiences, ideological positions, and the development of their historical think- ings and interpretations of American history. The first historians to write about the consensus historians was John Higham who in a very influential article, “The Cult of 'American Consensus': Homogenizing Our History," Commrptary, XXVII (Feb., 1959), 95-100, delineated the main characteristics of the historical writings of the 1950's. The essence of this article can also be found in his another essay, ”Beyond Consensus: The Historian as Moral Critic,” Amgripan Historical Review, LXVII (April, 1962), 609-625. Dwight W. Hoover, in "Some Comments on Recent United States Historiography,” American Quarterly; XVII (Summer, 1965), 299-318, analyzed the writings of most of the leading historians of the 1950's and early 1960's to confirm Higham's opinion that historians of this period tended to minimize conflict and emphasize consensus in the American past. What Higham did to con- sensus historiography was done by Irwin Unger to the New- Left historians. In his article, ”The 'New Left' and American History: Some Recent Trends in United States Historiography,” American Historical Review, LXXII (July, 336 1967), 1237-1263, and his, ed., prond Liberglism: The Ney_ Left Views_Aperican History (Waltham, Mass., 1971), "Introduction," pp. xi-xvi, Unger discussed the factors which contributed to the emergence of the radical historians in recent years and their common view of American history. In addition to those provided by the above cited studies, information on the backgrounds and beliefs of the various historians discussed in this thesis, and on the general outlook or perspectives of their ages were further obtained from other relevant works. Such ordinary bio- graphical references as Who's Who in America, and Dirgproryof American SchoTars:_A BiographicaT Drpectory (New York, 1969), Volume I, provides the basic informations on their backgrounds. Informations on these historians'historical thinking and ideological preferences were largely derided from their own formal writings, though secondary studies were also consulted. James Ford Rhodes, Historical Essays (New York, 1909), and M.C. DeWolfe Howe, Jamgg‘Tord Rhodes:_Americap ‘Historian (New York, 1929) including an autobiographical sketch by Rhodes himself and extractions for understanding Rhodes' thinking. Albert B. Hart, ”Imagination in History." American HTstorical_Review, XV (Jan., 1910), 227-251, showed his view about the nature of historical study. Jesse Macy, Jesse Macy: An Autobiograppy (Baltimore, 1933), was parti- cularly informative on his early life. The Progressive historians' view of writing history is revealed in James 337 Harvey Robinson, New HT§tory: Essaysrgllustrating thg Moggrn Higrorical Qutlook (New York, 1912), Charles A. Beard, "Written History as an Act of Faith,” émerTcgn Higtorical Review, XXXIX (1934), 219-229, and Carl Becker's three articles: "Some Aspects of the Influence of Social Problems Upon the Study and Writing of History,” American Journal of Sociology, XVIII (March, 1913), 641-675, "Everyman His Own Historian,” in Becker, Everyman His Own Historian: Essgys on History and Politics (New York, 1935), pp. 233-266, and "What Are Historical Facts?" in Hans Meyehoff, ed., The Philosgphy QT History in Our Time (New York, 1939), pp. 120-137. Turner's theory of Frontier and section was set forth in his own essays the most important of which can be found in Ray Allen Billington, ed., Trpnrger and Section: Selected Egsays of Frederipk Jackson Turner (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1961). Their writings on the ante-bellum society and the Civil War listed below reveal very much about the thoughts of James G. Randall, Avery Craven, David Donald, and Stanley M. Elkins. Dwight L. Dumond, Roosevelt to Roosevelt: The United Sgates ipthe Twentieth Century (New York, 1937), and "The Mississippi: Valley of Decision,” Mississippi Vallgyrflistorical Reyrgyy XXVII (June, 1949), 3-26, are of great help to know the author. The former was a survey of the historical development of the first forty years of this century, while the latter was an assertion of the leading role the Mississippi Valley played in the 338 progress of American democracy. Russell B. Nye in Mipyestern Erogregpive Politics: A Historical Study oprg Qplgins and Development, 1870-1958 (East Lansing, Mich., 1959) sympathetically interpreted the Midwestern Progres- sivism as an agrarian movement against capitalism. In TplggAlmost Chosen People: Essay§_in thg Historyng AmerTcan Tgpgg (East Lansing, Mich., 1966), he traced the gradual modification through the times of such basic ideas as progress, equality, individualism, and others from the beginning of the republic to the present. On the New-Left historians, two books were particular- ly useful. One is Howard Zinn, SNCC: The Neg Abolitiopgppg (Boston, 1964). This is an analysis of the ideology and activity of a particular radical group based on the author's own experience gained from personal participation and further study. The close identification of the present- day radicals and the abolitionists is clearly shown in this book. Another is Martin Duberman, The Uncompleted Eggp (New York, 1971). This book is important not only because the essays and book reviews including in it dealt mainly with present-day radicalism but also because the author consciously analyzed his own ideology and its change in short introductory notes he placed before the articles when they were republished in this book. In addition to the descriptions in many of the above cited historiographical works, other secondary studies were 339 consulted to gain knowledge about the general outlooks of different ages. Paul A. Buck, Tpe_Road to Reunion, 1865:1900 (Boston, 1937), documented the popular sentiment for sectional reconciliation during the thirty-five years after the Civil War. Morton White, SociaTTThougpt in ‘Aperipa: The_Revolt Against Formglism (Boston, 1947), gave an excellent analysis of the rise of pragmatism and instrumentalism in philosophy; jurisprudence, economics, political science, and historical study during the late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century. Roderick Nash in The_Neryous Generation : AmericaprThought, 1912:1930 (Chicago, 1970), described the 1920's as an age in which the resulting anxiety from frustrated ideals led not to irresponsible cynicism and rebellion as maintained by the traditional view but to a search for a redefinition of values. Criticism of the Progressive optimism in progress was powerfully voiced by Reinhold Niebuhr, The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness (New York, 1944), while Ray F. Nichols, "Post War Reorientation of Historical Thinking," American Historlgal Review, LIX (Oct., 1948), 78-89, and Samuel Eliot Morison, ”Faith of a Historian," American Historical Review, LVI (Jan., 1951), 261-275, attacked the methodology and interpretation of the Progressive historians. Such writings signalled the rise of a new conservatism in both the general perspective and historical thinking during the 1950's. And the decline of 340 Progressive reforms and the emergence of a relatively con- servative outlook in the post-World War II years were the central theme of Eric Goldman, The Crucialugecade: Amgrigg, 1845-1955 (New York, 1956). Racial prejudice and discrimination against the Negro were treated in Thomas F. Gossett, Race: The History of an Idea in America (Dallas, Texas, 1963), and C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow (New York, Second Revised Edition, 1966). Gossett depicted the development of the idea of racism and its practice from the early republic to the present, while Woodward devoted his study exclusively to the rise, growth, and decline of racial dis- crimination against the Negro from the Gilded Age to the present. Richard Hofstadter in Social Darwinism in_American Thought, 1&60-1915 (Philadelphia, 1944) showed how social darwinism strengthened racial bias. Works Discussed in the Text Abell, Aaron I., Fleming, Bernard J., McAvoy, Thomas T., and Mannsion, Lawrence J. A History_of the United States of America, New York, 193?. Abzug, Robert H. "The Influence of Garrisonian Abolition- ists' Fear of Slave Violence on the Antislavery Argument, 1829-1840, ” Journal of Negro History, LV (January, 1970), 15-26. Adams, James Truslow. New England in the Rgpublic, 1226- 1850. Boston, l9§5. . The Epic of America, Boston, 1931. Bailey, Thomas A. The American Pageant: A History of the Republic. Boston, 1956. 341 Baldwin, Leland D. The Stream of American History. New York, 1953. Barck, Oscar Theodore, Wakefield, Walter L. and Lefter, Hugh Talmage. The United States: A Survey of Neeional DevelopmentL New York, 1950. Barnes, Gilbert H. The Antislaveryelmpulse,e1830-1844. New York, 1933. . ”Introduction” to Letters of Theoeere Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimke Weld and Sarah—Grimke, 1822- 1844, eds., Gilbert H. Barnes and Dwight L. Dumond, New York, 1934. Bassett. John Spencer. A Short Histgry‘gf the_United_ States. New York, 1913. Beard, Charles A. and Bagley, William. The Historyof the American People, New York, 1934. ,and Mary R. The Rise of American Civilization. 2 vols. New York, 1927. . A Basic_History of the United States. Philadelphia, 1944. Berwanger, Eugene H. The Frontier_Against Slavery: The Western Anti-Negro Prejudice and the Slavery Extension Controverey, Chicago, 1967. Beveridge, Albert J. Abraham Lincoln, 1809:1858. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass., 1928. Birney, William. James e. Birney and His Times. New York, 1890. ‘— _— Blum, John M., Catton, Bruce. Morgan, Edmund S., Schlesinger, Arthur M.. Stampp, Kenneth M., and Woodward, C. Vann. The National Experience: A Histgrvgof the United_§tates. New York, 1963. Brauer, Kingley J. Cotton Versus Conscience: Massachusetts Whig po1itics and Southern expansion, 1843-1848, ‘w— Lex ngton, Ky., 1967. Bretz, Julian P. ”The Economic Background of the Liberty Party,” American Historical Review, XXXIV (January, 1929), 250-264. Brodie, Fawn M. ”Who Defends the Abolitionists?” in the Antislavery Vanguard: Newgesays on the Abolitignists, ed. Martin Duberman, Princeton, N.J.. 1965. 342 Brooks. Elaine. ”Massachusetts Antislavery Society,” Journal of Negro History, XXX (July, 1945), 311-330. Burgess. John W. The Middle Period,_;§17-1§57. New York, 1902. Carlton, Frank T. ”Humanitarianism, Past and Present, " International Journal of Ethics, XVII (October, Carman, Harry J. Social and Economic History of the United States. 2 vols. New York, 1930-1934. Channing, Edward. The United States of America, 1765-1865, Cambridge, Mass., 1905. . A History of the United States. 6 vols. New York, 1905-1925. Chapman, John J. William Lloyd GarrisonI Boston, 1913. Craven, Avery. "Coming of the War Between the States: An Inter retation,” Journal of4§outhern History, 11 (1936 . 1-20. "The Repressible Conflict," in Craven, An Historian and the Civil War, Chicago, 1964. . The Coming_of the Civil War. New York, 1942. . ”The 1840's and the Democratic Process,” Journal of Southern History, XVI (1950), 137-147. _, . Civil War in the Making, 1815-1860. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1959. , and Johnson, Walter. The United_States: Experiment in Democraey, Second ed.. New York, 1962. Crow, Herman L. and Turnbull, William L. American History; A Problem_Approach. New York, 1971. Current, Richard, Williams, T. Harry, and Freidel, Frank. émerigan History: A Survey, New York, 1959. Davis, David Brion. "The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIX (September, 1962), 209- 230 o . "Abolitionists and the Freedmen: An Essay RgXiew,” Journal of Southern History, XXI (May, 1965), l -1700 343 Demos, John. "The Antislavery Movement and the Problem of Violent 'Means'”, New England Quarteriy, XXXVII (December, 1964), 501-526. Dillon, Merton L. ”The Failure of American Abolitionists," Journal of Southern History, XXVI (1959), 157-177. . “The Abolitionists as a Dissenting Minority," 1n Exploration in the History of;American Radicalism, ed. Alfred P. Young, DeKalb, Illinois, 19 . Donald. David. Lincoln Reconsidered: Essey§_on the Civil War Era. Second ed. enlarged, New York, 1965. . Charles Sumner and the Comingegf the Civil War. New York, 1961. Duberman, Martin. "Black Power and the American Radical Tradition," in Duberman, The Uncompleted Past. New York, 1971. . "The Northern Response to Slavery,” in The Antislavery Vanguard: New Esseys on the Abolitionists, ed. Martin Duberman. Princeton, N.J., 1965. . "The Abolitionists and Psychology,“ Jgurnal of Negro History. XLVII (1962), 183-191. Dumond, Dwight L. Antislavery Origins of the Civil War in the United States. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1939. . Antislavery: The Crusade for_Equality in Amerigg. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1961. . "Introduction" to Letters of Jamesrgillespie Birney, 1831-1857, ed. Dwight L. Dumond. New York, 193 . _A . A_History ogrthe United States. New York, 1942. Durden, Robert F. "Ambiguities in the Antislavery Crusade of the Republican Party," in The Antislavery Van uard: New Essa s on the Abolitionists, ed. Martin Duberman. Princeton, N.J., 1963. Elkins, Stanley. Slave : A Problem in American Institutional and IptelIectual Life. Chicago, 1959. Faulkner, Harold Underwood. American Political and Social History. New York, 1937. 34L. Filler, Louis. ‘The Crusade Against SIEXQEY: 1830-1869. New York, 1960. "Garrison Again, and Again: A Review Article." Civil War History, XI (March. 1965). 69-75. Finnie, Gordon E. "The Antislavery Movement in the Upper South Before 1840," Journal of Southern History, XXXV (August. 1969), 319-342. Fish, Carl Russell. The_Rise of the_Cemmon Man. New York, 1927. Fladeland, Betty. ”Who Were the Abolitionists?” Journal of Negro_History, XLIX (1964), 99-115. Fonner, Eric. ”Politics and Prejudice: The Free-Soil Party and the Negro. 1849-1852.” Journal of Negro History, L (October, 1965). 239-256. Fredricksgn, George M. The_;pner Civil War. New York, 19 5. Care. Larry. ”The Fugitive Slave Law: A Double Paradox," Civil War History. X (September, 1964), 229-241. . "Slavery and Slave Power: A Crucial Distinction," Civil_War Hietory. XV (March, 1969), 5-18. Garraty, John A. The American hatione_A History of the ynited States. New York, 1966. Garrett, Garet. The hmerican Story. Chicago. 1955. Geiser, Karl F. "The Western Reserve in the Abolition Movement, 1840-1860,“ Proceedin s of Mississi i Valley_Historica1_Associahions, V (1911-1912), 7 -98. Griffin. Clifford S. "Religious Benevolence as a Social Control. 1815-1860,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, xLIV (December, 1957). 423-444. Gusfield. Joseph R. Symbolic Crusade: States Politics and the_American Temperance Movement. Urbana, Illindis, 19 3. —' —F— Hacker, Louis M. The Shaping of American Tradition. New York, 1947. Handlin, Oscar. The_Americahs: A New History of_the People 9: the United States. Boston. 1963. . The Histohy of the United States. New York, 1967. 345 Harlow, Ralph V. and Blake. Nelson. The United States: From_Wilderness to World Power. New York, 1949. Hart, Albert B. Salmon Portlend Chase. New York, 1899. . Slavery and Abolition, 1831-1841. New York, 1906. ‘4 *4' —F Harwood. Thomas F. "British Evangelical Abolitionism and American Church in the 1830's." Journal of Southern Histgry, XXVIII (1962). 287-306. Hicks, John D. h Short History of American Democracy. New York. 1943. . Hockett. Homer Carey and Schlesinger, Arthur M. Land of the Free: A Short History of the American People. New York, 1944. Hodder, F.H. “Propaganda as a Source of American History," Mississi i Valle Historical Review; IX (June, 1922), 3-13. Hofstadter. Richard, Miller, William and Aaron, Daniel. The American Republic. 2 vols. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.. 19590 James. James Alton and Sanford, Albert Hart. Americen History. New York, 1909. Johnson, Oliver. William Lloyd gerrison and His Times. Boston, 1879. Kates. Don B. ”Abolition, Deportation, Integration: Attitude Toward Slavery in the Early Republic," Journal of Negro History, LIII (January, 1968), 33- 7- Kraditor, Aileen S. Means and Ends in American Abolitionism; Garrison and His Critics on Strata and Tactics, 1834-;850. New York, 1967. . "A Note on Elkins and the Abolitionists." Civil War History. XIII (December, 1967), 330-339. Kraus. Michael. The United States to 1865. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1959. Kutler, Stanley I. ”Pennsylvania Courts. The Abolition Act, and Negro Rights.” Pennsylvania History, XXX (January, 1963). 14-27. Lerner, Gerda. "The Grimke Sisters and the Struggle Against Race Prejudice,“ Journal of Negro History, XLVIII (October. 1963). 277-291. 346 Lewit, Robert T. ”Indian Mission and Antislavery Sentiment: A Conflict of Evangelical and Humanitarian Ideals," Missiseippi Valley Hietorical Review, L (June. 19537. 39-55- Litwack, Leon F. North of Slavery: The Negro in the Free States, 1790-1860. Chicago. 1961. . ”The Abolitionist Dilemma: The Antislavery Movement and the Northern Ne r0.” New England Querterly, XXIV (March, 1961 , 50-73. . ”The Emancipation of the Negro Abolitionist," in The Antislavery Vangpard: New Essays on_the Abolition1sts, ed. Martin Duberman. Princeton, N.J.. 1965. Lloyd. Arthur Young. The Slavery Controversy, 1831-1860. Chapel Hill, N.C.. 1939. Loveland. Anne C. ”Evangelicalism and 'Immediate Emancipa- tion' in American Antislavery Thought,” Journal of Southern History. XXXII (May, 1966), 172-188. Ludlum, R.P. ”The Antislavery 'Gag Rule': History and Ar ment.” Journal of Negro History, XXVI April. 19 1) 9 203-233. -—-— _— Lynd. Staughton. ”The Abolitionist Critique of the United States Constitution,” in The Antislavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists ed. Martin DUbeman. Princeton, N.Jo. 196;. McColley, Robert. Slavery and Jeffersonian Virginia. Urbana, Illinois, 19 . McPherson, James M. The Struggle for Equality: Abolition- ists and the hegro in theCiyil War_end Reconstruction. Princeton, N.J.. 1964. . "The Fight Against the Gag Rule: Joshua Leawitt and Antislavery Insurgency in the Whit Party, 1839- 1842." Journal of Negro Hispory, XLVIII (July. 1963), 177-195. . "A Brief for Equality: The Abolitionist Reply to the Race Myth, 1860-1865,” in The Antislavery Vanguard: New Esseys on the AbBlitionists, ed. Martin Duberman. Princeton, N.J., 1965. Macy, Jesse. The Antislavery Crusade: A_Chronic1e of the getheringStorm, New Haven, 1919. 3“? Marcus, Robert D. "Wendell Phillips and American Institu- tions,“ Mississippi Kelley Historical Review, LXI (June, 1969), 41-58 . Martin, Thomas P. "The Upper Mississippi Valley in Anglo- American Anti-Slavery and Free Trade Relations, 1837-1842,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review XVI (September, 1928). 26171220. Mathews, Donald G. "The Abolitionists on Slavery: The Critique Behind the Social Movement," Journal of 4’ Southern History, XXXIII (May, 1967), 163-182. May, Samuel J. Some Recollections of Our Anti-Slavery Conflict. Boston, 1869. Merrill, Walter M. Against Tide anQVWihe: A Biogrephy of Wm. Lloyd Garrison. Cambridge, Mass., 1963. Miller, William. A New History of the United States. New York, 1958. Morison. Samuel Eliot and Commager. Henry Steele. The Growth of the American Reppblic. New York, first edition, 1930, sixth edition, 1969. Morris, HRichard B., Greenleaf, William and Ferrell, Robert America: A History of the People. Chicago, 1971. Muzzey. David S. An American Historye, Boston, 1911. . The hmerican Adventure. New York, 1927. Myers, John L. "Americans Antislavery Society Agents and the Free Negro. 1833-1838,” Journal of Negro History. LII (July, 1967), 200-219. Nevins. Allan and Commager. Henry Steele. American: The Story of a Free_Peop1e. Boston, 1942. Nichols. Jeannette P. and Ray F. The Growth of American Democracy: Social: Economic: Political. New York, 1939- Nye, Russell B. "Civil Liberties and the Antislavery Cohtroversy," Science and Society, IX (1945), 125- 14 . "The Slave Power Conspiracy: 1830-1860," Science and Society, X (1946), 262-274. 348 . Fettered Freedom: Civil Liberties and the Slavery_Controversy, 1830-1860. East Lansing, mChigan , 1943. . William quyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers. Boston, 1955. Ostrander, Gilman M. A Profile History of the United States. New York, 1964. Parkes. Henry B. The United States of America: A History. New York, 1983. Parrington, Vernon L. The Romantic Revolution in America, 1800-1860. New York, 1927. Pease, William H. and Jane H. "Antislavery Ambivalence: Immediatism. Expediency, Race," American Quarterly, XVII (1965), 682-695. Perry, Lewis. "Versions of Anarchism in the Antislavery Mgvement.“ American Quarterly, XX (Winter, 1968), 7 8-782. Pillsbury. Parker. Acts of the Anti-Slavery Apostles. Concord, N. H.. 1883. Porter, Dorothy B. ”David M. Ruggle: An Apostle of Human Ri hts,” Seurnal of Negro History, XXVIII (January, 19 3): 23-50- Ramsdell, Charles W. ”The Natural Limits of Slavery Expansion," Mississippi Vallenyistorical Review, XVI (September, 1929), 151-171. Randall, James G. Sivil her and_Reconstructieh. New York, 1937- __e . "The Blundering Generation," Mississi i Valle Historical Review, XXVII (June, 1940), 3-28. . Lincoln the President. 2 vols. New York, 1945. . Lincolh the Liberal Statesman. New York, 1947. ,6and Donald, David. The Divided Union. Boston, 19 1. Ratner, Lorman. Powder Keg: Northern Qppesition to the Antislavery Movement, i831-1840. New York, 1968. Rhodes, James Ford. History of the United States From the Compromise of1850. 7 vols. New York,1893-1986. 349 Riegel, Robert E. and Long, David F. The American Story. New York, 1955. Rose, Willie Lee. Rehearsa1_for Reeonsjructien: The Port Royal Experiment} New York, 1964. "Iconoclasm Had Its Day: Abolitionists and Freed- men in South Carolina,” in The Antislavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists, ed. Martin Duberman, PrincetEn, N.J., 1965. Ruchames. Louis. ”Race, Marriage and Abolition in Massachusetts.” Journal of Negro History, X (July, 1955).250-273- "William Lloyd Garrison and the Negro Suffrage,” Journal of hegro History. L (January, 1965), 37-49. "Preface“ to the Abolitionists:_A Collection of their Writings. ed. Louis Ruchames, New York, 1983. . "Introduction" to h_John_Brown Reader, ed. Louis Ruchames. New York, 1959. Schlesinger, Arthur M. The American As Reformer. Cambridge. Mass., 1950. Schnell, Kempes. "Antislavery Influence on the Status of Slaves in the Free State.” Journal of Negro History. L (October, 1965), 257-273. Schouler, James. History of ththnited States of America Under the Constitutieh. 7 vols.‘New York,’1889-I9l3. Scrugham. Mary. The Peaceable Americans of 1860-1861: A Study of_§hblic opinions. New York,1921. Shanks. Caroline L. "The Biblical Antislavery Argument of the Decade 1830-1860," Joughai of Negro Hispery, XVI (April. 1931), 132-157. Simms, Henry H. “A Critical Analysis of Abolition Literature, 1830-1840,” Journal of Southern History, VI (1940), 368-382. . A Decade of Sectional_Controyersy, 1851-1861. Chapel Hill. N.C.. 1942. . Emopipn at High Tide: Abolition As A Controver- sial Factor,_1830-1845e Richmond. Virginia, 1960. 350 Skotheim. Robert Allen. "A Note on Historical Method: David Donald' s Toward a Reconsideration of Abolitionists,“ Journal of Southern History, XXV (1959). 3-56 365- Smith, Theodore C. The Liberty and Free-Soil Parties in the Northwest. New York,1897. Sorin, Gerald. The New York Abolitionists: A Case Study of Political Radicalism. Westport, Conn.. 1971} Southall. Eugene P. ”Arthur Tappan and the Anti-Slavery Movement," Journal of Negro History, XV (April. Stampp: Kenneth M. "The Fate of the Southern Antislavery Movement,” Journal of Negro History. XXVIII (January, 1943), 9- 22. Stephenson, George M. American History to 1865. New York, 1940. Stewart, James B. ”The Aim and Impact of Garrisonian Abolitionism, 1840-1860,” Civil War History, XV (September, 1969), 197-209. Swift, Lindsay. William Lloyd Garrison. Philadelphia, 1911. Tappan, Lewis. The Life of Arthur Tappan. New York, 1870. Temperley, Howard R. "The British and American Abolition- ists Compared.“ in The Antislavery Vangpard: New Essa s on the Abolitionists, ed. Martin Duberman. Princeton, N.J., 1965. Thestlethwaite. Frank. The Anglo-hmerican Conneehion in the Early Nineteenth Centugy. Philadelphia, 1959. Thomas. John L. The Liberator: A Bio ra h of William Lloyd Garrison. Boston, 1963. Turner, Fredrick Jackson. The Rise of the New mWest, 1819_ 18 9. Gloucester, Mass., 1906. . The United States, 1830-1850: The Nation and Its Sectiohs. Gloucester, Mass., 1935. Tyler. Alice Felt. Freedom' 8 Ferment: Phases of American Social History: From the Colon1al Period to the OuZEreak_ of the Civil War. Minneapolis, Minnesota, 19 351 Wesley, Charles H. "The Participation of Negroes in Anti- slavery Political Parties,” Journal of Negro History, XXIX (July, 19u5), 311-330. Whitridge, Arnold. No Compromise! The Stor of the Fanatics Who Paved the Wayto the C1v1l War. New York p 1960 0 Wilson, Truman. "The Liberator,” Ramparts, IV (November, 1965). 21-29. . ”Introduction” to Document of Upheaval: Selections From William L10 3 GarrisonjsfiThe Liberator, 1331-1555, ed. Wilson Truman. New York, 1955. Wilson, Woodrow. Disunion and Reunion. New York, 1893. . A History of the American People. 5 vols. New York. 1901-1902. Wolf, Hazel C. 0n Freedom's Altar: The MartyrrCompleg in the_Abolition Movement. Madison, Wisconsin, 1952. Woodward, W.E. A New American History. New York, 1936. Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. "The Abolitionists' Postal Campaign of 1835,” Journal of Negro History, L (October, 1965). 227-238. . "Abolitionism: Its Meaning for Contemporary American Reform," The Miggggt Quarterly, VIII (Autumn, 1966), hl-55. 111041an STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES IIIllWlllm\IIIIIIIWIWIIWllllilWllWlHIHIIHW 31293105733145