Research Abolitionist Question

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Member of the Month
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
Which is not an unreasonable belief. Someone who has spent their entire life denied education while experiencing a variety of traumas (physical and psychological abuse, rape, suddenly and forcibly being parted from your spouse and/or children) from a young age through adulthood is unlikely to ever be a fully functional adult.
Quite so. I found several letters written home to New England by soldiers who drew a clear line between northern blacks and southern blacks. The difference IMO is the difference in experience. Those in the north had responsibilities as well as the dignity of earning a living (underpaid though it might have been) while those in the south lived through an enforced perpetual childhood.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Something I found surprising when reading about the Anti-Slavery Movement was that, despite being against slavery, many Abolitionists had racists views of African Americans and did not believe in equality. A notable exception was John Brown. Does anybody know of any other Abolitionists besides John Brown who in favor of abolishing slavery and supported racial equality?
One thing that we do today is to place our ideals and concepts into nineteenth century people. Question; How does one establish equality? May I suggest a book for consideration ."The Second Founding, how the Civil War and Reconstruction remade the Constitution" author Eric Foner. This book deals with the three amendments. passed after the war ,This may help in answering your inquiry. Does equality come through the law? The war saved the country but only with these three Amendments was end of slavery the rights of the former slave secured and reinforced by the Equal Rights Amendments. As for the abolitionist being racist or not believing in equality ,how could they believe in freeing the slave without legally providing them the means of securing their rights ?
 

Joshism

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Location
Jupiter, FL
As for the abolitionist being racist or not believing in equality ,how could they believe in freeing the slave without legally providing them the means of securing their rights ?

Today it's easy to fall into the trap of assuming anti- slavery and racial equality went hand-in-hand. Yet a great many 1850s-1860s Republicans opposed slavery because it was inhumane without viewing blacks as equals.

Slavery left behind a lot of hurdles. Even with it legally ended, there was a century of some states trying tol dance around the three amendments, while the rest of the country was too unaware or indifferent. And even with those amendments enforced there remain social hurdles that can't really be legislated away.

Not to mention the Federal government, then and now, passes good legislation without sufficiently providing the tools to make it happen smoothly. People need help transitioning into a new world. They didn't even get forty acres and a mule.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Member of the Month
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
As for the abolitionist being racist or not believing in equality ,how could they believe in freeing the slave without legally providing them the means of securing their rights ?
Alas, I'm sure you know the old adage about some being "more equal than others"? Or "separate but equal"? In Maine, the example I frequently give because I know this area better than others, the existence of a free black community dates back to the very beginning times. However, "racism" (that is, a fear of someone unlike oneself to a very unhealthy degree) existed with the dividing line being religion. Each group had no desire to end the rights of any other--just "not in my backyard". 😳
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Equality has and does not exist. Only in the sight of God are we equal in judgement , The history of man proves this to be so. Race ,position in society ,or ability ,we are totally not equal. To that does not mean that we can not better ones position. History show that', Frederick Douglas was a slave but became a leader of his people , Lincoln was a poor clerk but became the Emancipator of slaves. Neither had the equality of better men ,but they achieved because of their own desire to accomplish their own goals in life.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Quite so. I found several letters written home to New England by soldiers who drew a clear line between northern blacks and southern blacks. The difference IMO is the difference in experience. Those in the north had responsibilities as well as the dignity of earning a living (underpaid though it might have been) while those in the south lived through an enforced perpetual childhood.
A enforced perpetual childhood ? Please to explain. May I suggest a interesting book by J.D. Dickey" Rising in Flames, Sherman's march and the fight for a new nation" . The book is not a military history of the march but one of the changes of the soldiers as they march though the heartland of slavery . From the start of the march to the end is one story of changes in attitude from innocence of slavery to one of full understanding of why this war had to end this system of slavery for this nation to become one. For the women there is interesting women whom the men call Mother who was nurse and comforter to the soldiers. This is not about the soldiers but also of their officers who lead these men through this land.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Member of the Month
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
A enforced perpetual childhood ? Please to explain. May I suggest a interesting book by J.D. Dickey" Rising in Flames, Sherman's march and the fight for a new nation" . The book is not a military history of the march but one of the changes of the soldiers as they march though the heartland of slavery . From the start of the march to the end is one story of changes in attitude from innocence of slavery to one of full understanding of why this war had to end this system of slavery for this nation to become one. For the women there is interesting women whom the men call Mother who was nurse and comforter to the soldiers. This is not about the soldiers but also of their officers who lead these men through this land.
By that I simply meant that, unallowed to behave as responsible adults and not allowed to be educated, they languished, often condescended to and often disregarded--as one is apt to do with children. I certainly am not defending slavery (quite the opposite) and I don't understand your point.
 

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
A enforced perpetual childhood ? Please to explain. May I suggest a interesting book by J.D. Dickey" Rising in Flames, Sherman's march and the fight for a new nation" . The book is not a military history of the march but one of the changes of the soldiers as they march though the heartland of slavery . From the start of the march to the end is one story of changes in attitude from innocence of slavery to one of full understanding of why this war had to end this system of slavery for this nation to become one. For the women there is interesting women whom the men call Mother who was nurse and comforter to the soldiers. This is not about the soldiers but also of their officers who lead these men through this land.
Sounds like idealist Dickey never heard of Union General Jefferson C. Davis and his deliberate removal of the pontoon bridge at the ford, thereby stranding and abandoning of the enormous number of Freedmen and women following in the wake of his division of Sherman's army during the March.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Sounds like idealist Dickey never heard of Union General Jefferson C. Davis and his deliberate removal of the pontoon bridge at the ford, thereby stranding and abandoning of the enormous number of Freedmen and women following in the wake of his division of Sherman's army during the March.
Union general Jefferson C. Davis? Sherman removed the bridge because there were so many former slaves which were following his force that this was the only way to prevent them from continuing to do so and from others to join in the march. This was a military decision which was necessary for his movement to proceed at a rapid pace. As to what effect it had upon him I have not read . But if your mission was to defeat the army in front of you and not render them a opportunity to make any gains on your movement ,you must to what would militarily be required to do so. Bring the war to an end and then settle the politics and social policies , Again may I suggest the book which I mentioned in my previous statement
 

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
Union general Jefferson C. Davis? Sherman removed the bridge because there were so many former slaves which were following his force that this was the only way to prevent them from continuing to do so and from others to join in the march. This was a military decision which was necessary for his movement to proceed at a rapid pace. As to what effect it had upon him I have not read . But if your mission was to defeat the army in front of you and not render them a opportunity to make any gains on your movement ,you must to what would militarily be required to do so. Bring the war to an end and then settle the politics and social policies , Again may I suggest the book which I mentioned in my previous statement
Unfortunately for the Freedmen there was no army in front - only scattered elements of Hampton's cavalry, most of whom were actually hanging about the rear to scoop up these unfortunates. It wasn't until arriving at Savannah and particularly Fort McAllister that there was anything like an organized resistance, and that pretty slim. I agree Sherman should probably take the "credit" for this action as commander of the army, but as I recall it was Davis's decision to remove the bridge and abandon the dead weight.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Sounds like idealist Dickey never heard of Union General Jefferson C. Davis and his deliberate removal of the pontoon bridge at the ford, thereby stranding and abandoning of the enormous number of Freedmen and women following in the wake of his division of Sherman's army during the March.
Mr. Dickey does not render General Davis any good report of his actions. I do believe that you would enjoy this book for it shows the march in a realist view. Sherman had freeman build roads and bridges ,spying, cooks and waggoneers .There is a complete story of the event when Stanton came to Savannah to investigate the event. Stanton's action regarding his decision is one that Sherman supported and had advocated.it even prior to this. Wonder if Lincoln knew of this arrangement? As to General Davis. Stanton would not be so kind after the war to Sherman.
 
Last edited:

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Unfortunately for the Freedmen there was no army in front - only scattered elements of Hampton's cavalry, most of whom were actually hanging about the rear to scoop up these unfortunates. It wasn't until arriving at Savannah and particularly Fort McAllister that there was anything like an organized resistance, and that pretty slim. I agree Sherman should probably take the "credit" for this action as commander of the army, but as I recall it was Davis's decision to remove the bridge and abandon the dead weight.
One last issue. If Sherman had just destroyed the property and rail system of that region may be that would have not been so bad but for what he and Stanton did as to for those freeman he truly did earn the hostility from the South's slave system .It dealt with the land distribution. These land were to be distributed among the freeman forty acres but no mention of a mule ,therefore they would not need to follow Sherman's army. This land would entitled with the backing and support of the U.S. government. Would you think that this would cause a little hostility among these land owners more so than a burnt house. One more thing no whites would be permitted on this land except military troops. This was light in what he desired to do to these land "forfeited to us by treason". He was rather harsh on those whom brought this war on. Could this be considered a form of reoperation towards the freeman ? Wonder what happened to this under Reconstruction ? If you read the book I would like to know what you gain from it. Mr. Dickey shows this part of the war from all issues of the war and after .
 

Lubliner

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
"Please to explain" asks @John S. Carter to the comment by @Fairfield who stated the slaves "of the south lived through an enforced perpetual childhood".
Was there a question over this enforcement? I for one agree that to live under the dominant rule of a master, the other being a servant of that master, would be similar to parental jurisdiction over children of those parents. I claim this is similar also to the pre-revolutionary war situation where the colonists rebelled against the Monarchy of England. There in that situation pre-1776, the major decisions directly affecting their lives were made overseas, and ruled by Authority not to their own liking. In the crisis that developed interim between 1776 and 1861, this continual oppression was enforced against the African descendants of bondage from the 1600's. The schism between two belief systems developed within our country to the point of civil war. One believed in dominating a neighboring race that had been nurtured to it's potential, and would not set it free. The other believed that it comes a time one must be free from the bondage of servitude. A child of special needs would possibly be governed throughout life if necessary. But when a person comes of age and is fit to join the world of freedom, they should be allowed to proceed under the laws of society that they live within. Ours id the constitution, not the declaration of independence. Ours is the bill of rights and the additional amendments to our constitution, not to mother England. It is no different than the idea that when fruit becomes ripe it is ready to be harvested, and woe to the grapes of wrath when one tries to stem and tide the course of creation.
Lubliner.
 

Fairfield

Sergeant Major
Member of the Month
Joined
Dec 5, 2019
I think that any of the "radical abolitionists" fell in to the category of desiring full and immediate emancipation. While this included rather bombastic individuals such as John Brown, it also includes the gentle and amiable Nathanial Peabody Rogers.

Abolitionists didn't walk in lock step. There were many types with varying philosophies
 
Top