The Abolitionists

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

Matthew:

I equate the abolitionists with the same kind of activism we are treated with today: some very thoughtful, concerned voices crying in the wilderness ranging to the wild-eyed fanatics whose motive cannot be readily discerned.

I strongly suspect that the majority were sincere and moderate. Comprising this majority were the religion-based with a significant minority of that majority who strongly believed in the "all men are created equal" clause in the D of I. (And endless combinations of the two.)

Complicating the mix are the likes of William Lloyd Garrison who began his abolitionist crusade hoping to persuade slave owners to his way of thinking. And, as the years rolled by, nurtured vitriol until he became quite radical and extreme in his views.

Then you can add people like Lincoln who strongly believed that slavery was a great wrong, but couldn't come up with a good way to get rid of it. Many in the south felt that same way.

None of this answers your original question (but, with hope, fleshes out that question), who were the abolitionists and what was their actual influence (perceived and otherwise)?

I have difficulty in believing that a class (region, area, state) could become so exorcised over sticks and stones. But that is a monday-morning view of something I've never quite understood -- the eager willingness to risk great bodily harm or death to visit the same on someone who has merely called you a bad name.

It does appear, 'though, that some if not many in the south took such talk as either threatening, insulting, or both. Without being faced with a real threat, they, in effect, challenged the abolitionist north and its republican party to a duel. We're all aware of the result.

Ole

Senator Seward said, "Free labor … has driven you back in California and Kansas; it will invade you soon in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Missouri, and Texas." (Senate, 1858, the year before the Harper’s Ferry insurrection. (emphasis added)

William Lloyd Garrison, at a ceremony to commemorate John Brown, compared Brown to Christ and publicly wished “success to every slave insurrection at the South." (Mayer, All On Fire, pg. 502.)

"Eternal hostility to the South and to her most cherished and vital institutions is, like Hannibal’s oath over the “Carthago delenda est” of the old Roman; and it has been taught to children in Northern schools – has been thundered from Northern pulpits, and sworn to on Northern altars and John Brown was sent to unite that oath in Southern blood on Southern soil. That blood, lying there all unavenged, is an awful warning of what the South may expect if the Black Republicans gain the reins of government. A party whose leaders have boldly proclaimed the commencement of an irrepressible conflict which shall only end when the destruction of the slaveholding States shall have been completed. That bloody stain upon Virginia’s soil is but a terrible surety of their determination to carry out their oft-repeated threats of servile insurrections." (Speech of Gen. Wm. Martin, Democratic State Convention, June 2nd, 1860)

"Governor Letcher, on Tuesday last, communicated to the Legislature a message in relation to the conduct of the Governor of Iowa, in the matter of the requisition of the Governor of Virginia on the Executive of Iowa, for the person of Barclay Coppoc, a fugitive from justice charged with treason against the State of Virginia. The conduct of the Governor of Iowa (says the Richmond Dispatch) is remarkable for its duplicity, and shows to us of the South, what we have to expect from Northern officials, elevated to power by the sectional party of the day. The message of Governor Letcher possesses a national interest, and we will attempt hereafter to lay it before our readers.” Staunton Va. Vindicator, February 17th, 1860.


Many abolitionists were not violent, but could Southerners be blamed for not being willing to trust that Abraham Lincoln and his administration were not amongst the violent wing of the party?

[JohnTaylor]

doubled post

[ole]

Governor Letcher, on Tuesday last, communicated to the Legislature a message in relation to the conduct of the Governor of Iowa, in the matter of the requisition of the Governor of Virginia on the Executive of Iowa, for the person of Barclay Coppoc, a fugitive from justice charged with treason against the State of Virginia. The conduct of thnistration were not amongst the violent wing of the party.

What did he say? "Go Fish!"?

Those who defied the fugitive slave laws and passed laws protecting fugitive slaves are of a different stripe than abolitionists. They were resisting what they considered a moral wrong -- legal or illegal. Not that much unlike today's demonstrations and sit-ins and refusal to ride in the back of the bus. They were not necessarily abolitionists; they were apparently reflecting the wishes of their constituents.

Ole

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

What did he say? "Go Fish!"?

Those who defied the fugitive slave laws and passed laws protecting fugitive slaves are of a different stripe than abolitionists. They were resisting what they considered a moral wrong -- legal or illegal. Not that much unlike today's demonstrations and sit-ins and refusal to ride in the back of the bus. They were not necessarily abolitionists; they were apparently reflecting the wishes of their constituents.

Ole, you may not be aware of the Barclay Coppoc case. He was not an underground railroad operator. He was among John Brown's crew that invaded Harper's Ferry. Barclay Coppoc got away, but his brother Edwin was apprehended. Barclay went home to Springdale Iowa, and was living there openly, when the Governor of Virginia sent a representative to Governor Kirkwood of Iowa to request Coppoc’s arrest and extradition. Kirkwood told the Virginia representative that he could not honor the request for extradition because the request for extradition (which was signed by Governor Letcher) was not sworn out before a magistrate. Also, the Commonwealth’s Attorney, Mr. Hunter had sworn an affidavit before a notary public of Coppoc’s involvement in the insurrection, but Kirkwood objected that the affidavit presented "is not authenticated by his Notarial Seal." Then, with Governor Kirkwood's knowledge and approval, Republican members of the Iowa Legislature sent a messenger to Coppoc, telling him that Virginia was seeking his extradition and trial. By the time that the Virginia Representative got back to Des Moines with the corrected papers, Coppoc had fled the State, and indeed the country.

Governor Dennison employed similar spurious logic to protect Harper's Ferry murderers (Owen Brown and Francis Merriam this time) known to be living openly in Ashtabulah, Ohio. In the Ohio cases, Gov. Dennison claimed (falsely, as it turned out) that there was no Ohio law that would allow him to extradite a fugitive from justice. Likewise, Dennison said that there was no proof that Merriam and Owen Brown had ever been in Virginia, and thus could not have fled Virginia to escape justice. The Federal Marshall of Cleveland informed Letcher that Governor Dennison had refused to honor the request, and that as the good people of Ashtabulah were walking about armed all the time, and had sworn that they would fight the arrest of Owen brown and Francis Merriam, the US Marshall said he would need the assistance of the Ohio militia to make the arrest. Gov. Dennison had made it a promise in his campaign that, if elected, he would stop the extradition of slaves from Ohio, even if he had to call out the militia to do it. The US Marshall concluded that it was unlikely that Gov. Dennison would call out the Ohio militia to help the US Marshall carry out an arrest that Dennison had already refused to order.

These incidents were reported in the newspapers of every Southern State.

[ole]

So two of them said "Go Fish."
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

So two of them said "Go Fish."
Ole

Ole, that is a remarkably cavalier attitude.
When the Serbs told the Austro-Hungarian Empire to go fish, they started World War I. When the Taliban told the US to go fish, the US invaded their country and toppled their government.

This is more than simply a couple of murderers getting away. This was a case of Republican office-holders using their offices to protect those wanted in another State for murder, treason and inciting servile insurrection. What would happen when a member of the same party was in the White House was a serious question for Southerners.
The essence of what acts like these meant about the functioning of the US Government is captured in three speeches/letters which follow:

“Last year John Brown made a raid on Virginia. He went with torch and rifle, with the purpose of subverting her government, exciting insurrection among her slaves, and murdering her peaceable inhabitants; he succeeded only in committing murder and arson and treason. One of his accomplices (a son) escaped to Ohio, was demanded, and the Governor of Ohio refused to give him up; another fled to Iowa; he, too, was demanded, and refused. It is true both of these miscreants (the Governors of these States) attempted to cover their plain violation of the Constitution and their oaths with flimsy pretexts about formalities, but they failed to hide from us the great fact that it was sympathy with the cause of John Brown which gave sanctuary to his confederates. If these men had have fled to Great Britain or France, we would have received them back and inflicted upon them the just punishment for their infamous crimes under our treaties. But they were wiser; they fled among our brethren; we had no treaty with them; we had only a Constitution and their oaths of fidelity to it. It failed us, and their murderers are free, ready again to apply the incendiary's torch to your dwelling and the assassin's knife and the poisoned bowl to you and your family. Do you not love these brethren? Oh! what a glorious Union!” Robert Toombs, address to the Georgia Legislature, November 13th, 1860.


“Suppose that party gets into power; suppose another John Brown raid takes place in a frontier state; suppose “Sharpe’s rifles” and pikes and bowie knives, and all the other instruments of warfare are brought to bear upon an inoffensive, peaceful and unfortunate people, and that Lincoln or Seward is in the presidential chair, where will then be a force of United States marines to check that band? Suppose that is the case – that the frontiers of the country will be lighted up by flames of midnight arson; as it is in Texas; that towns are burned; that the peace of our families is disturbed; that poison is found secreted throughout the whole country in immense quantities; that men are found to prowling about in our land distributing that poison in order that it may be placed in our springs and our wells; with arms and ammunition placed in the hands of this semi-barbarous people, what will be our fate? Where will be the United States Marshals to interfere? Where will be the dread of this General Government that exists under this present administration? Where will be the fear of the United States army to intimidate or prevent such movements? Why, gentlemen, if Texas is now in flames, and the peace of Virginia is invaded now under this administration, and under the present aspect of affairs, tell me what it will be when a “higher law” government reigns in the city of Washington? Where then will be our peace, where will be our safety, when these people are instigated to insurrection; when men are prowling about this whole country, knowing that they are protected by an administration which says that by the Constitution freedom is guaranteed to every individual on the face of the earth? Can you expect any people of spirit or courage, true to themselves, true to their firesides, true to their own families – can you expect such a people, I say, to give up all regard for the Constitution, permit it to be trampled under foot, to acknowledge this “higher law,” government to give it their assent – can you expect, I say, any brave and heroic people thus to be untrue to their families and their fire sides, and to the great principles of eternal freedom and self-preservation?” William Lowndes Yancey’s speech at Washington, September, 1860.


“On to the 27th of February, in his [Lincoln’s] vagrant but paid electioneering tour for the Republican nomination for the presidency, he said, in his speech at the Cooper institute, “there is a sentiment and a feeling against slavery in this country, which casts at least a million and a half of votes. How much it would you give a name by forcing the sentiment which created it, out of the peaceful channel of the ballot box, into some other channel? Are not the “higher law” and the “irrepressible conflict” here avowed and approved? What does he mean by “forcing the sentiment into some other channel?” he means, that the South must yield the government to the Republicans, to be used by them to abolish slavery, or she must expect more John Brown raids; more hostile invasions, the more torches to her to dwellings and more poison in her fountains. He means that the south must be abolitionized, or she must be lighted with the blaze of the incendiary, and harried with the steel of the assassin.” Lawrence Keitt, letter to the Hon. Wm. M. Murray, September 22, 1860.

Now, as I said, earlier, I do not believe that Abraham Lincoln condoned violent anti-slavery actions like Harper's Ferry. But, in the climate of the day, one could see his "into other channel's" comment to be a veiled threat. Certainly Keitt saw it that way.

[ole]

JT:
I have just begun to cavalier.

I don't put much weight on the slaveocracy's whiny attempt to shift all the blame for its dissatisfaction onto some incididents of admittedly questionable legality. The incidents you cite are, over-simply, resistance to the equally questionable upsurge in activity to force Taney's infamous decision down unwilling throats.

I'm surmising that 90 percent of the southern population couldn't care less that slaves escaped north and that many northern people and governments didn't care in most cases, and actively helped in a few. The "northern" attitude is a close approximation of that of European countries who will not extradite a fugitive who faces the ultimate penalty.

An the other hand, I feel that you elevate the importance of such to credit the south for its extraordinary suffering imposed by the escape of a few slaves and a criminal or two.

Just a thought.
Ole

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by ole

JT:
I don't put much weight on the slaveocracy's whiny attempt to shift all the blame for its dissatisfaction onto some incididents (sic) of admittedly questionable legality. The incidents you cite are, over-simply, resistance to the equally questionable upsurge in activity to force Taney's infamous decision down unwilling throats.

The rendition of fugitives from justice, because the criminal acts of those fugitives were motivated by anti-slavery sentiment is hardly an issue “of admittedly questionable legality.” The issue of comity between States is a crucial one in the functioning, and thus, legitimacy of the Republic.
And words like “slaveocracy's whiny attempt” betray a petty appeal to emotion that should be beneath you.

Originally Posted by ole

I'm surmising that 90 percent of the southern population couldn't care less that slaves escaped north and that many northern people and governments didn't care in most cases, and actively helped in a few. The "northern" attitude is a close approximation of that of European countries who will not extradite a fugitive who faces the ultimate penalty.

You seem to persist in misunderstanding what this issue is. I am specifically not talking about fugitives from labor, nor those who help them escape. I am addressing fugitives from justice, who conspire to murder and then are deliberately protected by Republican officeholders in Northern States, and what that activity meant for how the nation would be run under a Republican Administration.
And yes, extradition between nation-states is sometimes denied, because the potential penalty the accused might face. For example, Germany refused to hand over to the US al Qaida operatives because those al Qaida operatives faced the death penalty (Germany tried them herself). The mode and measure of redress in this difficulty between two sovereign nation-states is the treaty power, and, should one party feel aggrieved enough, war (as in the case of World War I and Afghanistan). In the case of fugitives from justice within the federal union, the right of the aggrieved party whose request for extradition is spurned to go to war for redress is available. As Robert Toombs pointed out, these men “were wiser; they fled among our brethren; we had no treaty with them; we had only a Constitution and their oaths of fidelity to it. It failed us, and their murderers are free, ready again to apply the incendiary's torch to your dwelling and the assassin's knife and the poisoned bowl to you and your family.” That was very much one of the reasons that Toombs cited to support secession. At least if Georgia seceded, and a similar official protection of murderers occurred, at least the threat of going to war for redress would exist. Whether it would be resorted to or not is another question, but, while in the Union, the only remedy was the good faith of sister States. The faith Georgia placed in this comity was shown to be misplaced by the actions of Governors Kirkwood and Dennison.

Originally Posted by ole

An the other hand, I feel that you elevate the importance of such to credit the south for its extraordinary suffering imposed by the escape of a few slaves and a criminal or two.

Well, the official protection of anti-slavery murderers was important enough to be included in the secession declarations of the States of Georgia, South Carolina and Texas. It may not seem important to you, but you are not the one being threatened with murder, they were, and those threats promised to get worse under Republican administration if Northern Republicans like Kirkwood and Dennison were in charge. Nobody knew in 1860 whether Abraham Lincoln was aming the Kirkwood-Dennison school.
Respectfully,
John Taylor

[matthew mckeon]

I've recently finished Reynolds' "John Brown, Abolitionist" (subtitle: "You say terrorist like its a bad thing.")

The point he makes about the Southern reaction to the Brown raid was it was seen as a Godsend by men like Ruffin or Yancey, who had been promoting secession for years without getting much "traction" as a modern politician might say. So is some of the indignation put on for effect? Like many events in history, it had the importance that people assign to it.

Also its clear that while individual Republicans might support Brown, the Republican party as an organization, and the candidates it fielded, its platform and other actions show that it was the usual collection of lawyers and politicians, not promoters of terrorist actions. To say that "the Republicans supported Brown's raid" is not precise language: at least in 1859.

Its also pretty clear that Brown's raid marked a departure for the abolitionist movement, something different, that provoked a different reaction.

When I write "pretty clear" I mean "pretty clear to me."

[JohnTaylor]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

To say that "the Republicans supported Brown's raid" is not precise language: at least in 1859.

Its also pretty clear that Brown's raid marked a departure for the abolitionist movement, something different, that provoked a different reaction.

When I write "pretty clear" I mean "pretty clear to me."

Matthew, I have seen, but not read Reynolds' work.
I'm not sure that the radical secessionists thought that Harper's Ferry was a godsend, but Yancey and Rhett et al. certainly exploited the situation. You are correct that secessionism had not gained traction before Harper's Ferry. South Carolina had stood virtually alone in 1832. Multilateral secessionism in 1850 was a fizzle. In my opinion, Harper's Ferry and the Northern reactions to it caused more Southerners to abandon their inherent unionism, which was considerable, than any other. It was an enormous watershed event.