UNIVERZITA KARLOVA – FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA
ÚSTAV ANGLOFONNÍCH LITERATUR A KULTUR
Tensions Within the Abolitionist Movement
Rozpory v abolicionistickém hnutí
DIPLOMOVÁ PRÁCE
Vedoucí diplomové práce (Supervisor):
prof. PhDr. Martin Procházka, CSc.
Praha, leden 2017
(Prague, January 2017)
Zpracovala (Author):
Irena Dvořáková
Studijní obor (Subject):
Anglofonní literatury a kultury
(Anglophone Literatures and Cultures)
Prohlášení
Prohlašuji, že jsem tuto diplomovou práci vypracovala samostatně, že jsem řádně
citovala všechny použité prameny a literaturu a že práce nebyla využita v rámci jiného
vysokoškolského studia či k získání jiného nebo stejného titulu.
V Praze 1. ledna 2017
Declaration
I declare that the following MA thesis is my own work for which I used only the
sources and literature mentioned, and that this thesis has not been used in the course of
other university studies or in order to acquire the same or another type of diploma.
Prague, January 1st, 2017
Irena Dvořáková
Poděkování
Upřímně děkuji panu prof. PhDr. Martinu Procházkovi, CSc. za jeho cenné rady,
trpělivost a vstřícnost při vedení této práce.
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely thank to prof. PhDr. Martin Procházka, CSc. for his valuable
advice and for his patient and helpful supervision of this thesis.
Souhlas
Souhlasím se zapůjčením diplomové práce ke studijním účelům.
Permission
I have no objections to the MA thesis being borrowed and used for study purposes.
Abstrakt
Tato diplomová práce se zabývá abolicionistickým hnutím ve Spojených státech
amerických a přistupuje k němu jako k vnitřně nejednotnému hnutí. Věnuje se
konfliktům mezi jeho nejvlivnějšími představiteli, včetně Williama Lloyda Garrisona a
Fredericka Douglasse. Práce analyzuje rozdílné motivy jednotlivých vůdčích osobností
pro zapojení do abolicionistického hnutí a ukazuje na nich jejich rozpory. Pozornost je
věnována problematice rasového útlaku, ke kterému je přistupováno jako k jedné z
hlavních sil určujících vývoj nejen abolicionistického hnutí, ale také událostí
následujících po schválení 13. dodatku Ústavy Spojených států amerických v roce
1865. Jde především o rozvoj černošského nacionalismu a černošského rasismu. Ačkoli
abolicionisté usilovali o zrušení otroctví, mimo jiné kvůli tomu, že bylo založeno na
rasismu, mnoho z nich odmítalo uznat rasovou rovnoprávnost bílých Američanů s
Afroameričany.
Myšlenkami abolicionistů Williama Lloyda Garrisona, Fredericka Douglasse a
Davida Walkera se zabývají první tři kapitoly, jež se soustředí především na jejich
rozdílné a protichůdné názory. Čtvrtá kapitola pojednává o emancipaci žen, která byla
úzce spjata s emancipací otroků. Propojení abolicionismu s otázkou ženských práv mělo
jak své příznivce, tak odpůrce, což přispělo k mnoha rozporům v tomto hnutí. Pátá
kapitola věnuje pozornost kolonizaci Afriky, přičemž jsou zdůrazněny rasistické
tendence jejích zastánců, kteří byli často kritizováni za to, že je k dotyčnému návrhu
vedla neochota žít bok po boku s osvobozenými otroky, a ne snaha řešit jejich
utlačování. Poslední kapitola se zabývá možnou spojitostí mezi útlakem Afroameričanů
během otroctví a let následujících po jeho zrušení a vznikem černošského nacionalismu.
V závěru se diplomová práce dotýká dopadu (jakým byl například černošský rasismus)
analyzovaných jevů na moderní americkou společnost.
Klíčová slova
Abolicionismus,
rasismus,
rasová
rovnoprávnost,
rasový
útlak,
emancipace,
feministický abolicionismus, emancipace žen, rovnoprávnost pohlaví, kolonizace
Afriky, černošský nacionalismus, bělošský rasismus, černošský rasismus
Abstract
The thesis deals with the abolitionist movement in the United States of America
and approaches it as an internally disunited movement. It focuses on the conflicts
between its most influential representatives, including William Lloyd Garrison and
Frederick Douglass. Different motives of the anti-slavery leaders‘ involvement in the
matter are analyzed and used to explain the arguments among these. Attention is given
to the problem of racial oppression as one of the main forces having determined not
only the development of the abolitionist movement but also the events following the
1865 Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, mostly the rise of the
Black nationalism movement and of black racism. Even though many abolitionists saw
slavery as based on racism and, therefore, endeavored to reach its abolition, in practice,
many of them refused to acknowledge racial equality between white and African
American people. This paradox is one of the central problems of American abolitionism
examined in the thesis.
The first three chapters discuss abolitionist ideas of William Lloyd Garrison,
Frederick Douglass, and David Walker with focus on their distinct and opposing views.
The fourth chapter deals with the emancipation of women as it was closely linked to the
emancipation of slaves; the approach towards the abolitionist matter as interconnected
with the women‘s rights question had its supporters as well as opponents, which caused
many disagreements in the movement. In the fifth chapter, the African colonization idea
is discussed and attention is paid to the racist tendencies of the colonizationists. It was
often claimed that the motive for their advocacy of the idea proposed by the American
Colonization Society was their refusal to live alongside freed slaves. Hand in hand with
this goes the accusation of the former ones that they were reluctant to strive for a
solution of the oppression of former slaves. The last chapter explores a possible
connection between the oppression of African Americans during slavery and the years
following its abolition and the rise of Black nationalism. The consequences, such as
black racism, which the phenomena analyzed in this text had upon modern American
society are dealt with in the last part of the thesis.
Key Words
Abolitionism, Racism, Racial Equality, Racial Oppression, Emancipation, Feminist
Abolitionism, Women‘s Emancipation, Gender Equality, African Colonization, Black
Nationalism, White Racism, Black Racism
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 12
1. William Lloyd Garrison: A Prominent and Controversial Abolitionist Setting the
Pace to the Anti-Slavery Movement ............................................................................... 15
1.1 The Evolving Nature of Garrison‘s Abolitionism ................................................. 15
1.2 Religion as an Influential Element Forming Garrison‘s Beliefs ........................... 16
1.3 Slavery as a National Sin ...................................................................................... 17
1.4 The Emergence of Garrison‘s Radicalism: Refusal of an Oppressive Government
..................................................................................................................................... 18
1.5 America‘s Hypocritical Attitude Towards Slavery ............................................... 20
1.6 Garrison‘s Involvement in the Women‘s Rights Question ................................... 22
1.7 Garrison and Conflicts with Other Abolitionists .................................................. 23
1.8 Garrison‘s View of Violence ................................................................................ 26
1.9 Garrrison‘s Significant Position Within the Fight Against Slavery ...................... 27
2. Frederick Douglass: Political Struggle for Racial and Legal Equality of African
Americans ....................................................................................................................... 28
2.1 Douglass‘ Position Within the Abolitionist Movement ........................................ 28
2.2 Fight for Equality as the Main Force Shaping Douglass‘ Political Thought ........ 28
2.3 Douglass‘ Political Development in the Context of his Relationships to
Significant Politicians and Movements of his Time ................................................... 34
2.3.1 Henry Highland Garnet: Introducing New Ways to Douglass ....................... 34
2.3.2 William Lloyd Garrison: From Mentorship to Divergences .......................... 35
2.3.3 John Brown and Violence as His Solution to Slavery .................................... 36
2.3.4 Religion and Its Connection to Douglass‘ Abolitionism................................ 36
2.3.5 Abraham Lincoln and His Ambiguous Attitude Towards Slavery ................ 37
2.3.6 Douglass‘ Involvement in the Women‘s Rights Question ............................. 40
2.3.7 The Post-War Era ........................................................................................... 41
2.4 Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave and Its
Significance Within the Abolitionist Movement ........................................................ 43
2.4.1 The Narrative as a Propaganda Tool and Its Political Relevance .................. 43
2.4.2 Autobiography or Fiction? The Significance of Slave Narratives for the
Emergence of African American Novel .................................................................. 46
2.5 Douglass‘ Journalistic Activity ............................................................................. 48
2.6 Douglass‘ Significance Within the Fight Against Slavery and Against Inequality
..................................................................................................................................... 50
3. David Walker: Walker‘s Radical Approach Towards the Fight Against Slavery as
Formulated in His Appeal ............................................................................................... 52
3.1 A Free African American Abolitionist .................................................................. 52
3.2 Miserable Conditions of African Americans ........................................................ 52
3.3 Slavery Approached as Based on Racism ............................................................. 53
3.4 Walker‘s Efforts to Motivate the Oppressed to Fight: Overcoming Their
Ignorance ..................................................................................................................... 54
3.5 Violence as a Means of Fighting Oppression ....................................................... 56
3.6 Opposing Ideas on Violence Among the Abolitionists ......................................... 58
4. Feminist Abolitionism: Sexism and Racism as a Single Interconnected Matter ........ 60
4.1 Women‘s Involvement in the Abolitionist Matter ................................................ 60
4.2 Feminist Abolitionists Come Together to Fight for Emancipation ....................... 60
4.3 Double Oppression of Enslaved Women .............................................................. 61
4.4 Lucretia Mott: Men as the Oppressors and Obstacles to Women‘s Emancipation
..................................................................................................................................... 62
4.5 Sojourner Truth‘s ―Ain‘t I a Woman:‖ Promotion of Equality Between Sexes ... 64
4.6 The Grimké Sisters: Angelina Grimké‘s Argument of the Irrationality of
Subordination Among Individuals .............................................................................. 64
4.7 Other Influential Feminist Abolitionists: Harriet Tubman and Lydia Maria Child
..................................................................................................................................... 66
4.8 Distinct Views Among Feminist Abolitionists ..................................................... 67
4.9 The Relation Between Racism and Sexism and its Role in the Abolitionists‘
Conflicts ...................................................................................................................... 68
5. African Colonization: Contrasting Voices on the Idea of Removal of African
Americans Beyond American Borders ........................................................................... 70
5.1 The Back-to-Africa Movement and the Emergence of the American Colonization
Society ......................................................................................................................... 70
5.2 African Colonization as Promotion of White Americans‘ Interests ..................... 76
5.3 African Colonization as a Hindrance to African Americans‘ Emancipation ........ 79
5.4 William Lloyd Garrison‘s Criticism of African Colonization and of the American
Colonization Society ................................................................................................... 83
5.5 No Unitary Stand on the Future of Liberated African Americans ........................ 88
6. Black Nationalism: African Americans‘ Fight for Self-Determination and
Emancipation in an Oppressive and Racist Society........................................................ 90
6.1 After 1865: Did the Official Abolition of Slavery Bring a Change to the U.S.
Society? ....................................................................................................................... 90
6.2 The Black Nationalism Concept and Its Advocates .............................................. 92
6.3 The Influence of White Racism and Oppression of African Americans upon the
Emergence of Black Nationalism ............................................................................... 97
6.4 Later Era of Black Nationalism and Black Racism .............................................. 99
6.5 Black Nationalism as a Consequence of Racism and Oppression During
Slavery....................................................................................................................... 102
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 104
Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 107
Primary Sources ........................................................................................................ 107
Secondary Sources .................................................................................................... 110
Introduction
Slavery was a legal institution in the United States of America from its
establishment in 1776 to the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution in 1865. From early on, members of the abolitionist movement
attempted to reach the prohibition of slavery and pointed out the violation of human
rights, oppression, and the absence of slaves‘ freedom, typical for the institution. Most
of the movement‘s influential representatives, including William Lloyd Garrison and
Frederick Douglass, gathered within the American Anti-Slavery Society, which
functioned from 1833 to 1870.
Despite its members‘ common aim, the abolitionist movement witnessed
disunity. This thesis focuses on its reasons and causes and is based on the assumption
that there existed an ambiguity within the anti-slavery movement. While all
abolitionists endeavored to put an end to slavery in the United States and considered it
an institution founded on racism, many of them refused to accept legislation
disregarding one‘s race.
The first three chapters of the thesis analyze relationships and cooperation
among some of the most significant members of the anti-slavery movement in order to
develop and demonstrate the above presumption of the thesis. Firstly, William Lloyd
Garrison‘s abolitionism is researched; secondly, Frederick Douglass‘ activism is
elaborated, and, thirdly, David Walker‘s ideas are discussed. These three
representatives of the abolitionist movement were chosen for the purposes of this thesis
because they, having had distinct personal motives for their involvement in the antislavery cause linked to their race and background, are used to show the differences
between white and African American abolitionists as well as between abolitionists of
African American race born free and enslaved.
Many of the tensions within the movement stemmed from these differences;
those discussed in this thesis include a conflict between Garrison and Douglass
accompanying the establishment of the latter one‘s newspaper The North Star and a
disagreement on the use of violence between Garrison and Walker. Similarly,
Douglass‘ harsh tone in most of his writings and speeches and Walker‘s support of
violence against the oppressors reveal the African American abolitionists‘ readiness to
undertake more resolute steps to reach their freedom than their white fellow
abolitionists. Garrison, even though having strongly disapproved of racism and
12
oppression of African American slaves but, as a white man, not having been personally
affected by it, he gives a more moderate voice on the matter than his African American
contemporaries Douglass and Walker.
The fourth chapter deals with feminist abolitionism and with the role which
women played in the fight for the end of slavery as well as in the arguments within the
anti-slavery movement. Female abolitionists frequently linked the abolitionist matter to
gender issues and to the fight for women‘s emancipation and, therefore, they regarded
racism as related to sexism. While some male abolitionists supported this approach,
others opposed it, which led to disagreements within the anti-slavery movement.
In the fifth chapter, the idea of African colonization is analyzed. Attention is
given mainly to the American Colonization Society, which proposed emigration of free
African Americans to colonies in Africa. The colonization idea is discussed from the
perspective of the ACS‘s motive having been its white members‘ unwillingness to live
alongside African Americans, which goes back to the major ambiguity of the
abolitionist movement explored in this thesis.
The sixth chapter provides a connection between the conflicts within the
abolitionist movement and the development of Black nationalism and racism. It
elaborates a hypothesis of the two social phenomena being a result of the African
Americans‘ frustration caused by their oppression during slavery as well as among their
white anti-slavery contemporaries. As a result, the former ones made efforts to establish
an independent nation and to gain freedom, which they had been denied during the
slavery and post-slavery era.
There is an extensive list of literature written on slavery as the time period
belongs among the most discussed ones in American history. Unlike previous studies,
this research aims at treating the topics of slavery and racial inequality in view of the
complexity of tensions within the abolitionist movement and at approaching this
complexity as a seedbed for the growth of Black nationalism and racism.
For instance, Stanley Harrold‘s American Abolitionists, cited in this thesis, deals
with the crucial events within the abolitionist movement, including the break-up of the
American Anti-Slavery Society, but approaches these as mere aspects of the movement,
without attaching particular importance to them. This thesis, on the contrary, focuses on
events which were linked to the tensions within the movement, and, rather than
providing a complex and general picture of American abolitionism, focuses on the idea
of the anti-slavery movement as internally unstable and disunited. In American Slavery,
13
1619-1877, Peter Kolchin offers a comprehensive elaboration of the slavery era and the
time period following its abolition. Although he admits that Americans did not know
how to proceed after the end of the institution because they lacked experience with the
situation and that the new era brought oppression, he does not articulate a direct
connection between that time period and Black nationalism, as this thesis does.
In order to get a complex picture of the criticism on the subject matter both
earlier and more recent books are consulted. The latter ones include Benjamin Quarles‘
Black Abolitionists; to follow modern tendencies in the approach towards the topic, the
already mentioned texts by Kolchin and Harrold, or Disarming Manhood: Roots of
Ethical Resistance by David A. Richards are used. Encyclopedias, e.g. Encyclopedia of
African American History, edited by Paul Finkelman, are employed to explain specific
aspects of the slavery and post-slavery era. Primary sources from the time period
discussed, mostly speeches, original writings, and newspaper articles, are analyzed with
the aim of providing authenticity to and supporting and demonstrating the developed
ideas.
14
1. William Lloyd Garrison: A Prominent and Controversial Abolitionist Setting
the Pace to the Anti-Slavery Movement
1.1 The Evolving Nature of Garrison’s Abolitionism
To begin with, William Lloyd Garrison‘s (1805-1879) abolitionism will be
discussed, as he belongs among the most prominent figures linked to the antislavery
movement. As a founder and a significant member of the American Anti-Slavery
Society, editor of The Liberator, a well-known abolitionist newspaper, which he
published from 1831 to 1865, and a very loud speaker on the slavery topic, Garrison
had a great number of both supporters and opponents during his life. The significance
of his influence is debatable as it has been often disputed and acknowledged at the same
time, depending on the critics‘ personal opinions. What is unchallenged, however, is
that he belongs among abolitionists who are discussed the most and are mentioned in
most of the accounts on this historical period.
There are some characteristics of Garrison‘s abolitionism which are typical for
most of his speeches and writings, such as his radical and uncompromising attitude or
his promotion of immediate abolitionism. On the other hand, Garrison‘s texts reveal his
changing and not so clearly defined views of certain matters, including his opinions of
the use of violence in order to reach the abolition of slavery. This chapter is concerned
with some of Garrison‘s most relevant texts and follows his abolitionist thoughts in
order to provide a complex perspective on his approach towards the institution of
slavery and towards what he considered necessary steps on the way to its abolition.
A general trend of Garrison‘s abolitionism was a movement from a rather
moderate approach towards a radical attitude for which he was, later in his career,
criticized by many. This tendency can be observed in his activities linked to abolitionist
periodicals. During Benjamin Lundy‘s speaking tour in the North in 1828, the two
abolitionists met and not long after that, Garrison began co-editing the Genius of
Universal Emancipation together with Lundy (Merrill, and Ruchames 327). The
collaboration did not last very long due to Garrison‘s progressive approach to the
abolitionist case.
Kurt Müller argues that Garrison soon outgrew Lundy in radical opinions and
rhetoric and emphasizes the former one‘s growing interest in immediate abolitionism
(Müller 121). Even though the cooperation between the two activists was not a lifelong
matter, Garrison fully realized the importance of it and was well aware of the influence
15
which Lundy had upon him. In 1874, Garrison wrote: ―To him [Lundy] I owe my
connection with the cause of emancipation, as he was the first to call my attention to it;
and by his pressing invitation to me to join him in printing and editing the G. of U. E. at
Baltimore in 1828, he shaped my destiny for the remainder of my life‖ (Garrison, ―To
Zebina Eastman‖ 326).
To place Garrison in the context of this thesis and to determine his motives for
participating in the abolitionist movement, it is crucial to be aware of his family
background. Born as a white American, he himself did not have to worry about being
enslaved like his African American fellow citizens did. As a white abolitionist, Garrison
had no personal experience with slavery. His achievements within the movement and
his zealous involvement, however, distinguish him from many other white abolitionists.
Even though the element of one‘s own experience with the horrors of slavery is not
present in Garrison‘s abolitionist persuasion, his activities revealed his strong devotion
to the abolitionist cause.
1.2 Religion as an Influential Element Forming Garrison’s Beliefs
In the introduction to Great Lives Observed: William Lloyd Garrison, George
M. Fredrickson argues: ―The essence of his inherited faith was a refusal to compromise
with sin, as well as a belief that the millennium would come through the spread of a
pure and literal Christianity. Such a gospel was at the heart of Garrison‘s abolitionist
doctrines‖ (Fredrickson 5). This suggests that Garrison‘s major influence were his
religious beliefs and that these have determined his way of thinking and what he
considered right. Garrison himself often referred to his religion and regarded it as the
core of his arguments.
John Jay Chapman emphasizes the religious aspect of Garrison‘s work: ―The
source of Garrison‘s power was the Bible. […] It is the key to metaphysical truth, it is a
compendium of large human wisdom, it is a code of ethics, it is the history of a race
[…]‖ (Chapman 139). Chapman goes on and points out the influence of the scripture
upon Garrison‘s ideals when he asserts that reading it made Garrison hold prejudice
against worship or human government authorities (Chapman 140). Russel B. Nye, too,
points out Garrison‘s recognition of the Bible as an extremely influential source and
argues: ―[…] his abolitionism itself sprang directly from his belief that slavery violated
God‘s law‖ (Nye 158). Garrison‘s religious understanding of slavery is summed up in A
16
History of US: ―Garrison‘s opposition to slavery was based on his religious conviction
that slavery was a vile sin‖ (Mintz, and Hakim 114).
1.3 Slavery as a National Sin
In his 1829 ―Fourth of July Address‖ Garrison introduces one of his often
recurring arguments:
[…] as the free States - by which I mean nonslaveholding States - are constitutionally involved in the
guilt of slavery, by adhering to a national compact that
sanctions it; and in the danger, by liability to be called
upon for aid in case of insurrection; they have the right to
remonstrate against its continuance, and it is their duty to
assist in its overthrow (Garrison, ―Fourth of July
Address‖ 13).
According to Garrison, the guilt of slavery is collective because, existing in a specific
country, it concerns the nation as a whole; each citizen of the nation is involved in the
institution of slavery and is, in a sense, responsible for it. Garrison does not distinguish
between the North and the South when blaming the country; he views it as a national
sin. What follows from his attitude is the only way of how not to be a part of this sin is
to fight it and try to change the situation.
In the same speech, Garrison claims: ―We are all alike guilty. Slavery is strictly
a national sin. New-England money has been expended in buying human flesh; NewEngland ships have been freighted with sable victims; New-England men have assisted
in forging the fetters of those who groan in bondage‖ (Garrison, ―Fourth of July
Address‖ 19). Garrison refers to the economic and political aspect in this passage; as
long as the United States of America are one country and share political and economic
matters, it does not matter who lives in the South and who lives in the North. As he sees
is, they all live in a country which operates as one unit and when someone in this unit
causes injustice to someone else, the rest takes responsibility for it, too.
Later Garrison‘s texts, similarly, show that this approach to slavery in the
United States as a national sin is a frequent motive, which he employed throughout his
whole career. This indicates consistency in some of his abolitionist views. In his 1831
editorial on the Nat Turner insurrection, published in The Liberator, Garrison writes:
―The crime of oppression is national. The south is only the agent in this guilty traffic‖
17
(Garrison, ―Editorial on Nat Turner‘s Insurrection‖ 25). In the same text, Garrison
argues that the free states not only tolerate slavery but, as a matter of fact, enable it and
make it happen: ―We […] give her [the south] a broad license to kidnap, plunder and
oppress; promising our united aid, in case she is in personal danger‖ (Garrison,
―Editorial on Nat Turner‘s Insurrection‖ 30).
By strongly emphasizing these ideas, Garrison aims at making the Northerners
fully realize that they are a part of the country engaged in slavery; that the fact that
slavery is not present in their home states does not mean that it does not exist. Garrison
suggests that this is not true; that slavery is real even though some people do not
experience it. He criticizes the inhabitants of the Northern states for refusing to admit
their guilt and for trying to put the blame on the Southern states entirely. According to
him, they cannot close their eyes to the institution of slavery only because it seems to be
remote from them; on the contrary, they need to fight it and do their best to free their
enslaved fellow citizens. Moreover, Garrison sees it as the only way of how to save the
North: ―I assert the right of the free States to demand a gradual abolition of slavery,
because, by its continuance, they participate in the guilt thereof, and are threatened with
ultimate destruction […]‖ (Garrison, ―Fourth of July Address‖ 16). This passage gives
evidence of Garrison‘s motivation to keep the safety of the free states and of his fear
that there might come a blow in the form of great violence if nothing is done about the
current state of affairs.
1.4 The Emergence of Garrison’s Radicalism: Refusal of an Oppressive
Government
The above discussed ideas expressed in Garrison‘s speeches and writings
indicate his frustration with the political situation in the United States and the structure
within the country and with it related restraints, commitments and liabilities. Garrison
argues: ―[…] she [the south] has repeatedly taunted the free states with being pledged to
protect her: tyrannise long and cruelly as she may, they are bound to give her life, and,
if necessary, to slaughter her slaves (Garrison ―The Liberator and Slavery‖ 29) and,
consequently, asks: ―Must we now begin to inquire, for the first time, what are our
duties and responsibilities as American citizens?‖ (Garrison ―The Liberator and
Slavery‖ 29). In these lines, the sense of national allegiance is present as Garrison talks
from the perspective of an American citizen; on the other hand, based on his later texts,
18
it can be said that for him, the universal liberty and equity are more important and
should it mean structural changes in his country, he is ready to support these.
Whereas in the beginning of his career, although very harshly, he merely
discussed these problems and tried to influence the Union‘s inhabitants by pointing out
what needed to be done, later, he took on a much more radical and louder tone and
came up with suggestions involving great changes in the country. In his 1844 ―Address
to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United States,‖ Garrison‘s voice
sounds like he has run out of patience with the ongoing situation concerning slavery. He
feels the time has come for a fundamental change and asserts:
[…] fidelity to the cause of human freedom, hatred of
oppression, sympathy for those who are held in chains
and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God,
require that the existing national compact should be
instantly dissolved; that secession from the government is
a religious and political duty; that the motto inscribed on
the banner of Freedom should be, NO UNION WITH
SLAVEHOLDERS; that it is impracticable for tyrants
and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate
together for the preservation of human right, or the
promotion of the interests of Liberty; and that
revolutionary ground should be occupied by all those who
abhor the thought of doing evil that good may come, and
who do not mean to compromise the principles of Justice
and Humanity (Garrison, ―Address to the Friends of
Freedom and Emancipation in the United States‖ 52).
This is a relevant quotation in the context of Garrison‘s abolitionist endeavors as it
introduces a significant moment – his unwillingness to be a part of a country which
accepts slavery. In the text, Garrison accuses the government of oppressing its own
citizens. He points out the suppressed freedom of speech, no liberty of the press, or
denied rights of locomotion or to peaceably assemble to protest against oppression.
In the ―Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United
States,‖ Garrison describes the American government as having failed to do what he
considers to be its duty. Referring to the slaves, he claims: ―The government gives them
no protection – the government is their enemy – the government keeps them in chains!‖
19
(Garrison, ―Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the United States‖
53). In the text, Garrison‘s change in tone is conspicuous. Whereas, in his earlier
speeches, he was only reminding to the Northerners that they are part of the country
which enables to hold people enslaved, now, he refuses to watch the political authorities
operate as the citizens‘ enemies; hold them down and take their rights away from them;
he sees radical intervention as an option. Consequently, he suggests the dissolution.
Garrison‘s opposition against and disagreement with the government does not
equal a proposition of anarchy in the country. He emphasizes that he is not trying to
establish anarchy but rather obedience and order because, as he explains, only through
these, liberty can occur. A similar idea is presented in Henry David Throeau‘s ―Civil
Disobedience,‖ in which the author also refuses to conform to a government in whose
principles he does not believe.
Nye argues: ―[t]emperamentally he [Garrison] was a no-government man and
his aversion to cooperation was as ingrained as Thoreau‘s‖ (Nye 159). While the
connection between Garrison and Thoreau is indisputable regarding their feeling about
the government, it should not be based on the assumption that both of them were
against government in general. As mentioned above, Garrison wanted a government
that would not restrict the citizens‘ rights. Similarly, Thoreau‘s wish was not to
completely remove any form of government, but to have political authorities who
would help the citizens and would protect them instead of making them suffer and
oppressing them. Only when a government operating to the advantage of its people is
not an option, Thoreau prefers no government to an oppressive government.
1.5 America’s Hypocritical Attitude Towards Slavery
One of the important aspects of Garrison‘s abolitionism is his insistence on
immediate emancipation. He requires that slavery be abolished immediately, without
any further purposeless operations. Interestingly enough, in his ―Fourth of July
Address,‖ aware of the fact that it will take generations to reach full emancipation and
that many African Americans will not be able to witness it during their life, Garrison
points out that the emancipation of slaves will not happen instantly. Assuming that it
will take a long time to reach universal liberty is another reason, in his eyes, for not
delaying the beginning of the fight. Garrison‘s believes that the sooner people begin
actively struggling for emancipation, the sooner they will obtain it. This explains the
immediacy of Garrison‘s approach.
20
In the same text, Garrison is concerned with what is one of the great paradoxes
of his time; the discrepancy between what the American principles proclaimed and what
the reality was. He claims:
I am ashamed of my country. I am sick of our unmeaning
declamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our
hypocritical cant about the unalienable rights of man. I
could not, for my right hand, stand up before a European
assembly, and exult that I am an American citizen, and
denounce the usurpations of a kingly government as
wicked and unjust; or, should I make the attempt, the
recollection of my country‘s barbarity and despotism
would blister my lips, and cover my cheeks with burning
blushes of shame (Garrison, ―Fourth of July Address‖
15).
Garrison expresses his disgust with the situation in his country. Even though the state
documents, including the United States Declaration of Independence, were supposed to
direct the state to governing based on liberty and freedom, he missed these principles in
practice. Garrison views the government‘s inability to ensure safety and freedom to its
citizens as a failure and, moreover, sees it as practicing the exact opposite.
Consequently, he is led to view the government as hypocritical and to be ashamed of it.
The quote also indicates the grounds for his endeavor to abolish slavery and to
establish equality for everyone. It is his ideal of unconditional universal liberty for
everyone that makes him fight the institution which makes this impossible. In his texts,
Garrison often discusses the irrationality of inequality based on racial differences. He
claims that the African Americans who were born in the United States of America are
American citizens just as the white Americans and, therefore, he does not see any
reason for denying them their civil and human rights.
Garrison‘s harsh criticism of the United States Constitution frequently caused
his fights with other abolitionists. He strongly rejected the document as unacceptable.
Content-wise, it did not pose any form of authority to him. He attacked it for its
hypocrisy and disrespect for basic human rights. In ―The Great Crisis!‖ article,
published in The Liberator in December of 1832, Garrison employs strong expressions
in order to let his readers know about his disapproving attitude towards the
Constitution:
21
We pronounce it the most bloody and heaven-daring
arrangement ever made by men for the continuance and
protection of a system of the most atrocious villany ever
exhibited on earth. […] It was a compact formed at the
sacrifice of the bodies and souls of millions of our race,
for the sake of achieving a political object – an
unblushing and monstrous coalition to do evil that good
might come (Garrison, ―The Great Crisis!‖).
Garrison expresses feelings of indignation and of shame regarding the Constitution
(Richards, Conscience and the Constitution 95). He is very ironical throughout ―The
Great Crisis!‖ in order to emphasize his negative view of the document. His approach
towards the Constitution indicated disunion, which led many abolitionists to disagree
with him. There was a common belief that the aim of the abolitionists should not be the
division of the country but rather an interpretation of the Constitution which would
enable the end of the institution of slavery under legal terms (Richards, Conscience and
the Constitution 95).
1.6 Garrison’s Involvement in the Women’s Rights Question
One of the significant moments linked with Garrison‘s abolitionist career is the
controversy regarding the crisis within the American Anti-Slavery Society. Fredrickson
argues that one of the major reasons for the split of the society was Garrison‘s
insistence on the involvement of radical pacifism and feminism into the fight against
slavery as well as his aversion to excessive political activity which was to be found with
some other abolitionists (Fredrickson 3).
Garrison‘s words from December 1837 confirm his involvement in the cause of
female emancipation when he asserts that his efforts are to reach a more universal wellbeing rather than one focusing exclusively on slaves: ―As our object is universal
emancipation, - to redeem woman as well as man from a servile to an equal condition, we shall go for the RIGHTS of WOMEN to their utmost extent‖ (Garrison, ―From the
Liberator of December 15, 1837‖ 51). For Garrison, the emancipation of slaves is way
too intertwined with the emancipation of women to overlook it and not make the aim of
reaching these a united effort. In his texts, Garrison calls upon women themselves to get
involved in the cause of their emancipation and to gather to establish associations to
fight for their rights.
22
At the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention held in London, Garrison
confirmed his involvement in the question of women‘s emancipation. As a reaction to
the organizers‘ decision to provide seats only to male delegates, Garrison refused his
role as an official delegate and instead of taking a seat he joined the women‘s section
(Kolmerten 63). According to Dorothy Rogers, Elizabeth Stanton was enraged by the
seating plan at the convention and did not wait to see much support from her husband,
who, even though having spoken in favor of the women present, did not pay any more
attention to the matter; he certainly did not give up his seat as Garrison did (Rogers).
Rogers refers to the disagreement between the Stantons: ―His [Henry Stanton‘s]
passion was for abolition. […] For Henry […] the plight of slaves held in bondage,
abused, oppressed, and murdered at their masters‘ whim was a far greater concern than
women‘s liberty to fill out a ballot or to hold office‖ (Rogers). For Garrison, unlike for
Henry Stanton, the question of female emancipation was inseparable from the fight for
abolition of slavery.
Garrison actively supported his female colleagues to publicly take part in the
abolitionist movement. He started a women‘s department in his newspaper The
Liberator in 1832 with the intention of encouraging women to participate in the fight
against slavery (Frank 109). Apart from activities like this, he co-operated closely with
female abolitionists, such as Angelina and Sarah Grimké, whose articles he published in
The Liberator. In 1836, he hired the Grimké sisters to lecture for the American AntiSlavery Society (Frank 109). Lisa Tendrich Frank values the authenticity of their
speeches, which was likely to have been connected to the fact that the sisters were
raised by a slaveholding family in South Carolina (Frank 109).
Garrison was a part of the Committee of the National Women‘s Right
Convention, through which he fought for women‘s suffrage. His struggle for women‘s
emancipation did not cease with the end of the Civil War; John Simkin, author of
Slavery in the United States, argues that the abolitionist spent the last fourteen years
promoting the suffrage for women (Simkin).
1.7 Garrison and Conflicts with Other Abolitionists
Garrison‘s interests such as those described above led other abolitionists to
criticize him. Even Lewis Tappan, who praised him in 1833, ended up strongly
disagreeing with Garrison on his involvement of certain matters in the abolitionist
movement:
23
Garrison […] [has] grown lukewarm on the anti-slavery
subject and [has] loaded the cause with their nogovernment-women‘s rights-non-resistant etc. notions
[…]. Garrison told me 21/2 years ago that these were
subjects he considered paramount to the anti-slavery
cause, to which he meant to devote his attention chiefly. It
is a sad mistake, I think in him to vault from the antislavery cause or to attempt to make it instrumental in
carrying our other matters (Tappan 83).
The arguments between Garrison and Lewis Tappan, caused among other things by the
former one‘s support of direct participation of women in the abolition cause, culminated
when Tappan decided to split from Garrison and to establish the American and Foreign
Anti-Slavery Society (Sundquist 179). In this newly formed society, Tappan expressed
his disagreement with the involvement of women in the cause of abolition by not
admitting women in it. Tappan‘s reasons for the split were explained in his letter to
Theodore Weld mostly as his dissatisfaction over Garrison‘s use of the American AntiSlavery Society for pointing to the women‘s question and to other matters and making
these paramount to the antislavery cause (Tappan 83).
It was not only white abolitionists who criticized the direction in which Garrison
and his followers went, but also African American fighters against slavery, such as
Frederick Douglass. The latter one‘s reaction was accompanied by a much more
involved voice, which can be explained by the fact already suggested in this thesis.
Douglass, as a former slave, was desperate to have slavery abolished not only because
of moral principles he professed but also because his own life and lives of his family
members depended on it. Even though Garrison and Douglass were initially close
friends, later affairs made the latter one strongly disagree with the former one‘s actions.
Douglass‘ words with which he expresses his disappointment with the American
Anti-Slavery Society are introduced in the following lines as they are crucial for the
relationship between the two abolitionists. Douglass states:
Of this Society, I have to say, its logical result is but
negatively, anti-slavery. Its doctrine of ―no union with
slaveholders,‖ carried out, dissolves the Union, and leaves
the slaves and their masters to fight their own battles, in
their own way. This I hold to be an abandonment of the
24
great idea with which the Society started. It started to free
the slave. It ends by leaving the slave to free himself. It
started with the purpose to imbue the heart of the nation
with sentiments favorable to the abolition of slavery, and
ends by seeking to free the North from all responsibility
of slavery […] (Douglass, ―From ‗Frederick Douglass on
Garrison‘‖ 91).
Garrison‘s and Douglass‘ views of the happenings within the American Anti-Slavery
Society offer two diametrically distinct understandings of what was supposed to be
done in the abolitionist cause. What Garrison considers the only way for him not to be a
part of a union enabling and mediating slavery, Douglass regards as a huge betrayal.
From the former slave‘s point of view, Garrison‘s unwillingness to officially have
anything in common with the South is a result of his lack of moral firmness and
inability to withstand his inner dissatisfaction with the political situation. Douglass‘
words mirror his conviction that Garrison gives in to his personal fears and his own
conscience instead of fighting for a higher principle and giving it all he has.
Garrison devoted his whole career to the cause of abolition of slavery and his
point of view differed from that of his critics. He never felt like he had betrayed the
slaves and believed that he was fighting for the right thing. As his words indicate, he
was aware of some of his contemporaries‘ scorn and hate. In the last issue of The
Liberator, in 1865, Garrison expresses without any doubts in his mind his conviction
that he has always done everything that he could to defend the right (Garrison, ―The
Valedictory of the Liberator‖ 71).
Some of the more modern critical texts justify Garrison‘s strategies; Nye
recognizes the abolitionist‘s well meant intentions and claims: ―Those who accused
Garrison of deserting the main battle of abolition failed to recognize that to Garrison no
reform, however close to the lunatic fringe, was unrelated to the larger purpose. He was
always […] interested in nothing less than ‗the redemption of the human race‘‖ (Nye
159-160). According this quote, everything that Garrison ever did, even though it might
have seemed to be far from the abolitionist cause, was goal-directed; the goal being the
well-being of all humanity.
25
1.8 Garrison’s View of Violence
Another source of conflicts within the abolitionists was the use of violence for
the purpose of the slaves‘ freedom. The fear of rebellion and its tragic consequences is a
recurring motive to be found in Garrison‘s texts. From early on, he predicted that if the
slave situation is not solved soon to their benefit, the United States should fear a war.
He claims: ―how […] shall we be able to contend successfully with millions of armed
and desperate men, as we must eventually, if slavery do not cease?‖ (Garrison, ―Fourth
of July Address‖ 21). In ―The Liberator and Slavery‖ editorial, his warning against the
rebellion is also present, as its author points out the likeliness of double rebellion, first,
aimed at the Government by the white people, and second, directed at the white people
by the African Americans (Garrison, ―The Liberator and Slavery‖ 29).
Garrison‘s frequent concerns about the war or rebellion indicate his fear of the
use of violence, as these are, inseparably bound with physical force. He seems not to be
worried only about the slaves‘ freedom but also about the general welfare of the whole
country, which is, with regard to his interest in universal human well-being, not
surprising. His view of the use of violence, however, evolved throughout his lifetime,
depending on happenings around him.
The core of Garrison‘s abolitionism was the principle of nonresistance as, in
general, he did not approve of violence. However, in his text on John Brown‘s raid, 1 he
defends Brown‘s legacy very convincingly. Garrison asserts: ―If you believe in the right
of assisting men to fight for freedom who are of your own color […] then you must
cover, not only with a mantle of charity, but with the admiration of your hearts, the
effort of John Brown at Harper‘s Ferry‖ (Garrison, ―On John Brown‘s Raid‖ 60). In the
very same text, the abolitionist ardently expresses his non-resistant ideas when
emphasizing his ideal of inviolability of human life and his wish to disarm both the
slaves and the slaveholders.
In the context of these ideals of his, the defense of Brown‘s violent act is rather
surprising. However, Garrison did not want the slaves to take the blows without
fighting back; he wanted them to fight the oppression. It can be concluded that Garrison
professed the end justifies the means motto. He rejected physical violence as long as
1
On October 16th, 1859, John Brown with 21 men launched an attack at Harper‘s Ferry in Virginia with
the intention to liberate all slaves. Their plans were thwarted and many on the men were killed or injured.
Brown was captured, found guilty by the jury, and hanged on December 2, 1859 (Olivares, and
Alexander 331).
26
one did not have to fight such violence; he was on the side of those who had to defend
themselves. His approach is summed up in the following quote: ―[…] God knows my
heart must be with the oppressed, and always against the oppressor‖ (Garrison, ―On
John Brown‘s Raid‖ 62). Garrison concludes his defense of Brown with a radical and
controversial tone when he claims that in the name of peace, he would rather see the
slaves be violent against their oppressors than let these oppress them.
The inconsistency of Garrison‘s approach to the employment of violence might
be demonstrated by a statement in one of his speeches, three years later: ―I do not
believe in killing or doing injury even to enemies – God forbid!‖ (Garrison, ―From
‗Garrison Endorses the War‘‖ 64). In the text on Brown, his voice was much harsher
and violence against oppressive enemies was exactly what he accepted.
The violence theme in Garrison‘s speeches and texts made many believe that
there was a connection between him and slaves‘ rebellions. James Ford Rhodes
disproves this speculation and expresses an opinion that the Southerners were wrong
when they considered Garrison‘s work to be a direct inspiration for their slaves to rebel
(Rhodes 133). Rhodes claims: ―[…] they did injustice to Garrison, for Nat Turner had
never seen a copy of the Liberator, and the paper had not a single subscriber south of
the Potomac‖ (Rhodes 133).
1.9 Garrrison’s Significant Position Within the Fight Against Slavery
Hand in hand with Garrison‘s extremely active and prominent position in the
abolitionist movement goes his exposure to criticism. As was discussed in this chapter,
he has come across both negative and positive evaluation of his work and his influence
upon his contemporaries is often a topic for discussion. Despite his changing and
inconsistent views of certain actions within the abolitionist movement, he belonged to
one of the most ardent and zealous fighters for the end of the institution of slavery.
27
2. Frederick Douglass: Political Struggle for Racial and Legal Equality of African
Americans
2.1 Douglass’ Position Within the Abolitionist Movement
Whereas Garrison‘s life was not burdened by personal experience of slavery,
many of the African American abolitionists had lived through its horrors. Consequently,
their abolitionist concept differed significantly from that of their white colleagues.
Garrison‘s main beliefs and moral convictions were discussed in the preceding chapter
in order to explain his reasons for his involvement in and his attitudes towards the antislavery movement. This part will focus on the perspective of African Americans whose
background was diametrically opposite. Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), as one of the
major figures of the movement and a participant of its most significant disputes, will be
dealt with as a representative of African American abolitionism. The fact that he
belonged among anti-slavery advocates who were much more personally touched by
oppression than white abolitionists is reflected in his approach to and his understanding
of the abolitionist matter.
2.2 Fight for Equality as the Main Force Shaping Douglass’ Political Thought
Douglass, born into slavery in Maryland in 1818, undertook his famous escape
into freedom, which launched his whole abolitionist career, in 1838. In his
autobiographical text Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave,
he describes a specific fight with his master, Mr. Covey, which was an eye opening
event for him and one which determined his future life:
Whence came the daring spirit necessary to grapple with
a man who, eight-and-forty hours before, could, with his
slightest word, have made me tremble like a leaf in a
storm, I do not know; at any rate, I was resolved to fight,
and what was better still, I actually was hard at it. The
fighting madness had come upon me, and I found my
strong fingers strongly attached to the throat of the tyrant,
as heedless of consequences, at the moment, as if we
stood as equals before the law. […] Every blow of his
was parried, though I dealt no blows in return. I was
strictly on the defensive, preventing him from injuring
28
me, rather than trying to injure him (Douglass, Life and
Times of Frederick Douglass 22-24).
This occurrence, which had culminated in Douglass‘ successful resistance to Mr.
Covey, resulted in a long-term change in the nature of their relationship. In a way,
Douglass found his way to stand up for himself and his master was well aware of that.
From that time on, Mr. Covey approached him without open aggression. Douglass
mediates to the reader his inner transition after the fight described in the quote above
during which he found strength and resolution to resist his oppressor‘s physical cruelty.
He states: ―I was a changed being after that fight. I was nothing before; I was a man
now. It recalled to life my crushed self-respect, and my self-confidence, and inspired
me with a renewed determination to be a free man‖ (Douglass, Life and Times of
Frederick Douglass 24).
Douglass‘ concerns about racial equality defined his whole conception of
abolitionism, as he believed in the interconnection of these two matters. The topic of
equality echoes in all Douglass‘ texts. In his 1852 speech called ―What to the American
Slave is Your 4th of July?‖ also known as ―The Hypocrisy of American Slavery,‖ he is
concerned with the inequality of which the African American race is a victim and he is
enraged by having to prove to others that African Americans are equal to white people.
Consequently, he asks a rhetorical question: ―Would you have me argue that man is
entitled to liberty?‖ (Douglass, ―What to the American Slave is Your 4th of July?‖).
This text demonstrates Douglass‘ view of slavery as a racially motivated problem;
however, he suggests that it is not only this institution which performs inequality; laws
in the country also disadvantage African Americans.
Douglass is frustrated by people missing the logic of the fact that as African
Americans are men and men should have rights, African Americans are entitled to the
same rights as white people. In his time, it was unacceptable for an African American
person to occupy a high governmental position in the United States of America, which
is related to the inequitable laws. In ―Prejudice Against Color,‖ which appeared in his
newspaper The North Star in May of 1848, Douglass employs irony to express his
disagreement with racially motivated injustice in America. The absurdity in holding a
specific race as inferior is emphasized. By comparing the treatment of people of African
origin in his time and country to that in the past or in foreign countries, he makes a
point about racism in the United States being an outrageous matter. Douglass argues
that in other countries, people of African ancestry are represented in all occupations,
29
such as lawyers and physicians (Douglass, ―Prejudice Against Color‖ 100). Even
though he does not make a direct connection, a conclusion might be drawn that he
indicates that there is one between racial equality in those countries and people of
African origin represented in high positions (such as in the government) and that in the
United States, where African Americans do not have a say in legislation, they are put at
a disadvantage when facing the law.
The situation within the abolitionist movement was far from free of racial
prejudices. It is a paradox that a movement which aimed at the end of slavery, an
institution based on racism, dealt with racism internally. This proves that the idea of
abolition did not automatically bring racial equality, because that was rooted deep in
American society and to do away with it required a lot of time and patient work. The
unequal approach of some abolitionists towards colored people as well as their
unwillingness to grant freed slaves with equal rights culminated in advocacy of the idea
of African colonization, which will be discussed in detail in the fifth chapter. The
colonization gave rise to a major controversy in the abolitionist circles as it divided the
movement into its ardent supporters and resolute opponents. What the latter ones
considered unacceptable was the former ones‘ hypocrisy behind the concept. While
acting as enemies of slavery, the colonizationists ignored the problem of racism in
American society and instead of working on wiping it out, their suggestion lay in
running away from it.
The development of the fight against slavery and its significance around the
United States combined with racism in the country brought the establishment of many
separate associations and groups, including all-African American ones. On the topic of
all-African American abolitionist societies, Benjamin Quarles, in his Black
Abolitionists, argues:
The founding of all-Negro societies did not lead to any
substantial withdrawal of Negroes from integrated
societies. Indeed, many Negroes were opposed to allblack auxiliaries, holding that they tended to perpetuate
the very evils – prejudice and discrimination – they
avowedly sought to combat (Quarles 30).
Indeed, the existence of racially segregated communities within the abolitionist
movement did not pose a good example for the public as it disregarded the principles of
30
equality, which were the core of the movement. African Americans, well aware of this,
endeavored to cooperate with their white colleagues as much as they could.
This tendency of the African American leaders is to be seen with Frederick
Douglass, too. His influential 1848 speech ―An Address to the Colored People of the
United States‖ contains an urgent appeal to his fellow abolitionists of the African
American race to cooperate with white people and not to establish associations based on
racial exclusiveness. He claims:
Act with white Abolition societies wherever you can, and
where you cannot, get up societies among yourselves, but
without exclusiveness. […] Never refuse to act with a
white society or institution because it is white, or a black
one, because it is black. But act with all men without
distinction of color. By so acting, we shall find many
opportunities for removing prejudices and establishing the
rights of all men (Douglass, ―An Address to the Colored
People of the United States‖ 64).
Shirley J. Yee argues that it was the African American leaders involved in abolitionism
who made the issue of racism public when they drew people‘s attention to the
secondary status of African Americans within the movement (Yee 6). Douglass‘ quote
indicates, however, that these leaders did not only point the situation out but were
determined to undertake steps to fight it. Instead of accepting racial prejudices held by
people around him, Douglass endeavors to wipe these out by his own behavior. The
only possibility to do this is, according to him, not to yield to them, but to actively seek
ways to change them. Therefore, he does not approve of racially segregated societies,
not even as a reaction to exclusively white ones. The idea that one gets from his texts
and speeches is that evil cannot be overcome by responding to it with the same evil.
Quarles deals with racism within the movement and claims that there were
abolitionists who did not even approve of African Americans to attend their meetings
(Quarles 48) and further mentions that some of them did not encourage interracial
marriage (Quarles 39). Interestingly enough, Douglass, who was married twice during
his lifetime, experienced interracial marriage himself. After his first African American
wife died, he remarried to a white woman. Although this was most likely a coincidence,
it might be understood as his way of expressing his indifference towards the society‘s
racial prejudices.
31
Both his wives‘ lives were linked to Douglass‘ career, in a sense. Anna Murray,
an African American from Maryland, was born free and met Douglass when he was still
in bondage. Having had a relationship with a free woman and having compared her life
with his own must have encouraged him to fight for his freedom even more. Murray
stood as an example to Douglass of the possibility to experience freedom as an African
American in the South, where the living conditions for people of their race were,
generally, very harsh. Helen Pitts, his second wife, was actively involved in
abolitionism and in the women‘s rights question, both of these movements having been
crucial in Douglass‘ political career.
Douglass‘ genuine concern for racial equality is shown in his wish to elevate the
social status of his race. He considers it essential to cease being entirely dependent on
white people and, instead, to make whites rely on African Americans as well. He
claims: ―Now it is impossible that we should ever be respected as a people, while we
are so universally and completely dependent upon white men for the necessaries of life‖
(Douglass, ―An Address to the Colored People of the United States‖ 65). For him, mere
dependence on others equals degradation. African Americans must be respected by
others in order to reach equality and Douglass suggests that their race be represented in
all vocations as that will make the society need them.
John T. Cumbler points out that as abolitionism in the United States was a mass
movement, it was common and not very surprising that it included members whose
views of African Americans were racist (Cumbler 89). This goes back to the idea of
racism having been a major problem of the whole American society and of the fact that
disagreement with slavery did not automatically mean a belief in racial equality.
Despite the racist attitudes of some fighters for the end of slavery, white and African
American abolitionists made their collaboration work, generally. Quarles gives
examples of financial as well as other support present in the movement to demonstrate
the reciprocal relationship between the two groups (Quarles 31).
With racial inequality having been an ever-present topic in Douglass‘ career, he
was concerned with inequity in the military. He volunteered to recruit African
Americans for a regiment and traveled across the country in order to encourage them to
join the army (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 100). Barnes argues
that, initially, Douglass continued in recruiting despite unequal conditions, such as the
soldiers‘ wages (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 104). In 1863,
however, his attitude changed radically, as he ran out of patience with the inequitable
32
treatment of African Americans. In a letter to Major George Luther Stearns, a wealthy
abolitionist located in Boston, who appointed him as an agent for recruitment (White
582), he expresses his disappointment with the military authorities‘ treatment of African
American soldiers. What Douglass is upset about is that instead of being praised and
respected for their heroic dedication to the cause, they are neglected by the Government
- the institution for which they fight and often die.
No word of retaliation when a black man is slain by a
rebel in cold blood. No word was said when free men
from Massachusetts were caught and sold into slavery in
Texas. No word is said when brave black men who
according to the testimony of both friends and foe, fought
like heroes to plant the star spangled banner on the
blazing parapets of Fort Wagner, and in doing so were
captured, some mutilated and killed, and others sold into
slavery (Douglass, ―Douglass to George Luther Stearns,
Douglass’ Monthly, August 1863‖ 106).
Douglass expresses his disillusionment with the development of the situation in
the army. Originally, he hoped for brightening the future of his race but experienced
only disappointment instead. As he has lost his faith in the authorities in charge, he
gives up his role of an African American troops recruiter. To emphasize the urgency of
his point, he asks: ―How many 54ths must be cut to pieces, its mutilated prisoners killed
and its living sold into Slavery to be tortured to death by inches before Mr. Lincoln
shall say: ‗Hold, enough!‘‖ (Douglass, ―Douglass to George Luther Stearns, Douglass’
Monthly, August 1863‖ 107).
Not only his personal experience with slavery but also, most importantly, his
assertion of the values of equality among all human beings made Douglass condemn
and reject slavery unconditionally. He frequently expressed his negative attitudes
towards it in public speeches. In his 1852 4th of July speech, he develops a critique of
slavery based on his accusation of America as a hypocritical and false country as for
him, a representative and speaker of all the slaves in the United States, there is no
independence and freedom in the country. He calls slavery ―the great sin and shame of
America‖ (Douglass, ―What to the Slave is Your 4th of July?‖). Douglass critically asks
a rhetorical question, while pointing out the horrible conditions which slaves are forced
to suffer:
33
Am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob
them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep
them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to
beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to
load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell
them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out
their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into
obedience and submission to their masters? (Douglass,
―What to the Slave is Your 4th of July?‖).
In other texts of his, too, Douglass chooses a very harsh language to criticize slavery.
He calls it ―moral death‖ (Douglass, ―An Address to the Colored People of the United
States‖ 63) and emphasizes the necessity of a collective fight against the institution. He
considers the slaves‘ ignorance one of the greatest problems preventing them from
fighting their oppression and blames the slaveholders for abusing religious faith in order
to deepen this ignorance.
2.3 Douglass’ Political Development in the Context of his Relationships to
Significant Politicians and Movements of his Time
2.3.1 Henry Highland Garnet: Introducing New Ways to Douglass
Regarding Douglass‘ political views, one of his significant influences was
Henry Highland Garnet. Garnet shared Douglass‘ attitudes towards the fight against
slavery. As a former slave, Garnet can be categorized into the same group of
abolitionists as Douglass. Garnet and Douglass met at the National Convention of
Colored Citizens in Buffalo in 1843 (Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African American
History, 1619-1895, Volume 2 89). In his ―An Address to the Slaves of the United
States of America,‖ given at this convention, Garnet expresses great sense of solidarity
when he introduces the following words: ―While you have been oppressed, we have
also been partakers with you; nor can we be free while you are enslaved‖ (Garnet 199).
The whole speech is delivered in a tone encouraging slaves to revolt against their
oppression.
At the convention, Garnet criticized Garrison for his insistence on suasion as
means of reaching the abolition (Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African American History,
1619-1895, Volume 2 89). Although Douglass still supported his mentor on this matter
at the convention, he started considering the option of slave insurrection after it
34
(Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895, Volume 2 89).
Consequently, during the forties, Douglass underwent a transition in the direction of
Garnet‘s nationalist views (Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African American History,
1619-1895, Volume 2 89). Douglass‘ abolitionism, however, never became as radical as
Garnet‘s and the two often opposed each other‘s opinions.
2.3.2 William Lloyd Garrison: From Mentorship to Divergences
Douglass‘ name is inseparably linked with William Lloyd Garrison. The
relationship between Douglass and Garrison, as two dominant and extremely influential
leaders of the abolitionist movement, both representing a different race and background,
and therefore having different motivations to end slavery, is crucial when discussing the
tensions within the movement. Apart from their distinct views of the employment of
politics and Douglass‘ disappointment with the direction in which Garrison led the
American Anti-Slavery Society (as discussed in the preceding chapter), there were other
disagreements between the two which caused strains in the movement.
From the beginning of their cooperation, Garrison functioned as Douglass‘
teacher; the latter, as an escaped slave, was new to the movement and to the abolitionist
cause in general. Douglass‘ letters to Garrison which he sent from his tour around the
British Isles in 1845 and 1846 are written in a very friendly voice and reflect their
author‘s fondness of the addressee. Critical sources indicate, however, that Garrison‘s
relationship towards Douglass was not completely selfless as the experienced
abolitionist was aware of the advantageous contribution which the former slave could
bring to the antislavery cause. Although originally mentored by Garrison, Douglass
grew apart from him in thought in the early 1850s when he came to believe in politics
as a means of abolishing slavery (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents
86). Douglass did not share the Garrisonians‘ views of the US Constitution as a
proslavery document and gradually came in touch with other reformers instead,
including Gerrit Smith (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 86).
Moreover, Robert S. Levine argues: ―In […] 1847 […] William Lloyd Garrison
decided to capitalize on Douglass‘s celebrity by undertaking with him a Western tour
for the Liberator. […] It was his hope that such a tour would help to bring new
subscribers to the Liberator‖ (Levine, Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, and the
Politics of Representative Identity). Garrison knew that having an escaped slave with
him would bring more attention to his case. This Garrison‘s approach should not pose a
35
base for his criticism, as his motivation was to help people with fate similar to that of
Douglass. The fact that Garrison in a way took advantage of Douglass is, however,
important for understanding the complicated nature of the relationship between the two
abolitionists and their consequent disagreements.
2.3.3 John Brown and Violence as His Solution to Slavery
With his views of violence as a means of reaching the abolition of slavery,
Douglass has joined many fellow anti-slavery leaders. These views are well expressed
in his approach towards John Brown‘s bloody raid at Harpers Ferry. Douglass‘
justification of the action reveals his acceptance of violence in the name of freedom.
Douglass regards Brown‘s charge with murder as absurd and states: ―If he has sinned in
anything, it is in that he spared lives of murderers, when he had power to take
vengeance upon them‖ (Douglass, ―John Brown of Ossawattomie, Kansas‖ 76).
Douglass and Brown had a long-term friendship which began when they met in
Springfield, Massachusetts in late 1847; they repeatedly visited each other and
Douglass was impressed by Brown‘s dedication to the abolitionist cause and described
their relation as confidential (Sterngass 97).
This is probably the reason why, unlike other abolitionists praising Brown‘s
deed, Douglass is believed to have been involved in it to a greater extent than others.
Barnes claims that Brown revealed his plan to Douglass, who tried to persuade him that
it was likely to fail (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 79). Douglass‘
denial of his intention to participate in the raid or of his encouragement of it and his
consequent explanation of these facts by the following words: ―Let every man work for
the abolition of Slavery in his own way‖ (Douglass, ―Douglass to the editor, Rochester
Democrat, October 31, 1859‖ 82) indicate his possible awareness of the planned action.
The acceptance of violence in such a tragic situation as the Harpers Ferry raid reveals
Douglass‘ general view of the use of violence in the fight against slavery.
2.3.4 Religion and Its Connection to Douglass’ Abolitionism
Douglass was exposed to a religious environment from his early childhood,
which formed his deep and complex relationship towards religion in general. Regarding
its connection to abolitionism, John Ernest argues that Douglass understood Christianity
and anti-slavery as indivisible as he saw religion as a system affected and corrupted by
systemic operations of race and slavery (Ernest, ―Crisis and Faith in Douglass‘s Work‖
36
68). Douglass knew that without a complex social reform, there would be no end to
slavery (Ernest, ―Crisis and Faith in Douglass‘s Work‖ 68).
There were aspects of the treatment of religion which he strongly opposed; in
one of his articles published in the The Liberator in 1841, he harshly criticizes
preachers who abuse religion to reach their aim of making slaves believe that they are
supposed to live in bondage and work for their masters by God‘s will:
The slaveholding ministers preach up the divine right of
slaveholders to property in their fellow men. The
Southern preachers say to the poor slave ―Oh! If you wish
to be happy in time, happy in eternity, you must be
obedient to your masters; their interest is yours; God
made one portion of men to do the working, and another
to do the thinking; how good God is! Now you have no
trouble or anxiety; but ah! you can‘t imagine how
perplexing it is to your masters and mistresses to have so
much thinking to do in your behalf! (Douglass,
―Proceedings of the Plymouth Co. S. S. Society‖ 50).
Douglass regards the abuse of religion in such way as unacceptable and is outraged by
the preachers using the slaves‘ faith in order to form the latter ones‘ thoughts according
to the slaveholders‘ wishes.
2.3.5 Abraham Lincoln and His Ambiguous Attitude Towards Slavery
Douglass‘ relationship towards Abraham Lincoln was rather complicated and
evolved through several stages. The former slave was involved in the politics of his
country and had a very loud voice when expressing his opinions on some of the
politicians. Douglass himself supported a different candidate than Lincoln when it came
to presidency – he would much rather have seen John C. Frémont as the President of the
United States. The complexity of his view of Lincoln lies in the ambiguity with which
he approaches the President. In ―The Late Election,‖ a text from December 1860,
Douglass criticizes him for not being a truly abolitionist President and pronounces
opinions such as the following: ―Whoever lives through the next four years will see Mr.
LINCOLN and his Administration attacked more bitterly for their pro slavery truckling,
than for doing any anti-slavery work‖ (Douglass, ―The Late Election‖ 88). With these
words, Douglass assaults the President for behaving in an obsequious manner. As
37
Randall G. Holcombe argues, Lincoln aimed at preserving the Union and he was ready
to tolerate slavery if it helped reach his goal (Holcombe 118). Holcombe refers to
Lincoln‘s 1861 inaugural address, in which he states that he does not want to interfere
with the institution at all, and to his 1862 confirmation of his main objective having
been saving the Union regardless of the future fate of slaves (Holcombe 118).
In his later speeches, such as the ―Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln,‖ too,
Douglass repeats that Lincoln‘s relationship to slavery was rather controversial. While
fighting for its end, his attitude to the slaves was ambiguous and the orator suggests that
their well-being was not his main motivation for the abolition of slavery. Douglass saw
Lincoln‘s interest as directed more on the well-being of white people and preservation
of political peace in the country. In other words, even though Lincoln fought the
institution of slavery, his support for the slaves was not unconditional. That he did not
want to intervene in the slavery situation, meaning he was not struggling to abolish it in
the Southern states, was viewed as an obsequious way of behavior towards the
slaveholders in the South. Later, as the ―Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln‖
reveals, Douglass admits the difficulty of Lincoln‘s situation and of the impossibility to
please everyone; the bitterness of the President‘s approach towards slavery, however,
remained on his mind many years after the abolition of the institution.
On the other hand, other Douglass‘ texts and speeches reveal the former slave‘s
sympathy, or even fondness, for the President. In a speech delivered in Philadelphia in
1862, Douglass, referring to the war, stands up for Lincoln and expresses his conviction
that although the unfavorable political situation in the country appears to be Lincoln‘s
fault, it is impossible to blame him exclusively. Douglass argues: ―[…] the facts show
that this rebellion was planned and prepared long before the name of Abraham Lincoln
was mentioned in connection with the office he now holds, and that thought the
catastrophe might have been postponed, it could not have been prevented, nor long
delayed‖ (Douglass, ―Speech of Frederick Douglass on the War‖ 93).
Moreover, after Lincoln‘s 1865 assassination, Douglass uses strong words to
express the grievous loss, which his death means to America. He employs phrases such
a ―personal as well as national calamity‖ (Douglass, ―Our Martyred President‖ 114) and
―dreadful disaster‖ (Douglass, ―Our Martyred President‖ 114) when referring to the
death of the President and by doing so he not only manifests his innermost feelings
about it but also suggests the way of how the nation should approach it. Leon F.
Litwack argues: ―Douglass believed that the Republican party – the party of
38
emancipation and of Lincoln – represented the only logical choice for blacks‖ (Litwack
77).
Years later, during the unveiling of the Emancipation Memorial in Lincoln Park
in Washington, DC in 1876, Douglass summed up his perception of the personality of
Abraham Lincoln. His speech on this occasion, ―Oration in Memory of Abraham
Lincoln,‖ is given with a considerable time lapse, which gives Douglass space to
introduce a complex and coherent view of the President and consider all his
accomplishments as well as failures during his career. Even though the speaker praises
Lincoln for his significant role in the war, he, at the same time, points to what he
understands to have been his flaws. The overall tone of the speech is very optimistic as
Douglass expresses his belief in better future, based on the present, which he views as
―a prophecy of still greater national enlightenment and progress in the future‖
(Douglass, ―Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln‖). On the other hand, Douglass
pays attention to the painful past and makes a sharp contrast between the dark times
when slavery existed in the country and the present days full of hope and liberty in
order to emphasize the horrors of slavery and to show his gratitude for the gained
freedom.
In the speech, Douglass stresses the difficult position in which the President
happened to find himself:
He was assailed by Abolitionists; he was assailed by
slave-holders; he was assailed by the men who were for
peace at any price; he was assailed by those who were for
a more vigorous prosecution of the war; he was assailed
for not making the war an abolition war; and he was
bitterly assailed for making the war an abolition war
(Douglass, ―Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln‖).
Douglass admits here that the President‘s role was definitely not an enviable one in that
specific political situation but he does not take it as an excuse for Lincoln‘s racial
prejudices. Through his oratory abilities, Douglass manages to provide a glorification of
Lincoln‘s personality, which, however, moderated by acknowledgement of his
mistakes, gives a very decent and convincing impression.
One of these moments occurs when Douglass lists Lincoln‘s wrongdoings while
admitting the faith with which he was trusted by the citizens:
39
Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the
uttermost, but it never failed; when he tarried wrong in
the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the
cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that
we were to leave the land in which we were born; when
he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union;
when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he
refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored
prisoners […] when we saw all this, and more, we were at
times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our
hearts believed while they ached and bled (Douglass,
―Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln‖).
Despite the criticism and disapproval of some of Lincoln‘s actions, what is decisive for
Douglass‘ judgment of the President is his deep and true hatred for and loathing of
slavery. Therefore, he is even able to overcome Lincoln‘s preference of white people‘s
interests over interests of African Americans, and to give him credit for the abolition of
slavery.
2.3.6 Douglass’ Involvement in the Women’s Rights Question
Throughout his whole career, Douglass was actively involved in the women‘s
rights question. As a participant of the 1848 Seneca Falls convention he expressed his
support of women‘s suffrage (Beilke 45) and during his lifelong fight for gender
equality, he cooperated with prominent female abolitionists, including Elizabeth Cady
Stanton. His second wife, Helen Pitts, who worked as his secretary, was involved in the
women‘s question as well; she occupied herself with a radical feminist publication
entitled the Alpha (Beilke 45).
In late 1860s, when the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution2
was being discussed and prepared, Douglass and Stanton happened to develop an
argument regarding their different approaches towards the amendment (Ayers, Gould,
Oshinsky, and Soderlund 466). As the amendment did not mention gender at all, it was
generally assumed that it applied exclusively to men (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and
Soderlund 466). While Stanton attacked it, arguing that if women are not given the
2
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution secures the right to vote to citizens
regardless of their color, race, or former state of servitude; it was ratified in 1870 (Schultz 784).
40
right, African Americans should not have it either, Douglass disagreed with her on this
matter (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund 466).
Douglass, as a long-term advocate for African American suffrage, welcomed the
proposal of the amendment enthusiastically. In an encyclopedia entitled From Suffrage
to the Senate by Suzenne O‘Dea Schenken, the author claims that Douglass‘ response to
the outraged women suffragists referred to the incomparable seriousness of the
conditions of African American men and women in general: ―Douglass and others
insisted that it was the ‗Negro‘s Hour‘ and that women were not murdered for their
gender, whereas blacks were murdered for their race‖ (Schenken 210). Disagreements
on the political level did not negatively affect personal relationship between Douglass
and Stanton in a radical manner as their values remained similar, including their
dedication to the women‘s rights cause. When Douglass married Pitts, a white woman,
in 1884, it was Stanton who defended the marriage against its objectors (Beilke 45).
2.3.7 The Post-War Era
Douglass‘ relations to political authorities, such as Lincoln, demonstrate his
involvement in politics during his abolitionist career. He went on intervening in the
political situation in the United States even after the war. After the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, the harsh reality soon emerged and
brought the realization of the fact along that the official abolition of slavery did not
automatically mean a better situation for African Americans. Although not forced to
live in bondage anymore, the former slaves as well as African Americans who were free
all along remained victims of racially motivated assaults and offences. The problem of
oppression based on racial differences was not solved at all and continued to be an
everyday part of people‘s lives.
African Americans were attacked by organized gangs on a regular basis, for
instance, the Ku Klux Klan, a very violent extremist group. Douglass‘s strong interest
in equality between all human beings is seen in his involvement in the fight against
racism in the country and his support of those who shared his beliefs. Connie A. Miller
claims that Douglass consistently expressed his support for the Republican Ulysses S.
Grant and points to the President‘s contribution to the loss of influence of the KKK by
41
having taken care of the Ku Klux Klan Bill in 18713 (Miller 277). Douglass belonged to
Grant‘s strongest supporters and apart from campaigning for him, he used his
newspaper as an instrument of the campaign in 1872 (Zilversmit 138). Grant‘s views of
the political situation in the era after the abolition of slavery and his endeavors to stop
racially motivated oppression of African Americans were, undoubtedly, among
Douglass‘ reasons for his support for Grant.
The difficulties which African Americans, especially in the South, had to face
led many of them to the decision to leave the Southern states and move up North. The
Exoduster Movement, or the Exodus of 1879, was criticized by many; Douglass had
one of the most noteworthy voices on the matter (Roberson 121). He was convinced
that such a mass movement was a mistake and that it could not solve the educational,
economic and social problems in the South, which were the reason for the African
Americans‘ escape (Roberson 121). Douglass‘ thoughts on this phenomenon are
formulated in his paper ―The Negro Exodus from the Gulf States.‖
In the seventies and the eighties, Douglass‘ own political career became very
successful as he became the first African American who won a nomination for vice
president (although he never acknowledged the nomination) (Holland 71) during
Victoria Woodhull‘s 1972 nomination for presidency. Douglass and Woodhull were
nominated by the National Equal Rights Party, which strongly promoted women‘s
rights. Woodhull, an advocate for women‘s rights and suffrage, a reformer, and a
businesswoman, gained her controversial reputation by advocacy of legalized
prostitution and free love (Schultz, and Assendelft 249). In 1872, Douglass was elected
to be presidential elector for New York (Chesnutt l). In 1888, having received one vote
at the Republican convention in Chicago, made him the first African American
nominated for the President of the United States (Kinshasa 68).
3
The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, ―Force Bill,‖ ―made it a federal offence for any persons to conspire to
deny a citizen of the United States the right to participate in political life, own property, vote, or serve on
a jury. It was illegal […] to ‗conspire together, or go in disguise upon the public highway, or upon the
premises of another for the purpose…of depriving any person or class of persons of the equal privileges
or immunities of the laws‘‖ (Martinez 69).
42
2.4 Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave and Its
Significance Within the Abolitionist Movement
2.4.1 The Narrative as a Propaganda Tool and Its Political Relevance
The advantages that Douglass‘ presence meant to Garrison‘s abolitionism was
indicated above. A similar situation occurred with the rise of slave narratives. Douglass‘
famous Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave was published
in 1845 and became a widely read text at the time. Barnes argues: ―In the decades
before the Civil War, slave narratives were a powerful propaganda tool of the
abolitionist movement, which employed them to convince the northern reading public
of the evils of slavery‖ (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents xvii). To
have a former slave by his side, who could provide an immediate account of the horrors
of the institution, helped Garrison make his point while promoting the end of slavery.
Garrison himself took care of the preface to Douglass‘ Narrative. By doing so,
he gained a platform for mediating his personal experience with Douglass to the readers
and for shaping their understanding of the text according to his intention. He claims:
Mr. DOUGLASS has very properly chosen to write his
own Narrative, in his own style, and according to the best
of his ability, rather than to employ some one else. It is,
therefore, entirely his own production; and, considering
how long and dark was the career he had to run as a slave,
- how few have been his opportunities to improve his
mind since he broke his iron fetters, - it is, in my
judgment, highly creditable to his head and heart. […] I
am confident that it is essentially true in all its statements;
that nothing has been set down in malice, nothing
exaggerated, nothing drawn from the imagination; that it
comes short of the reality, rather than overstates a single
fact in regard to SLAVERY AS IT IS (Garrison,
―Preface‖ x-xi).
Firstly, Garrison assures the public readership of the Narrative having been written
entirely by Douglass, which sounds as an attempt to prevent objections about his
intervening with the process of writing. Secondly, he expresses his unconditional trust
in the authenticity of Douglass‘ words. Such insistence even before the beginning of the
43
Narrative itself gives the impression that Garrison expects what is about to come and
tries to avoid criticism by the disbelievers‘ in Douglass‘ authorship. He does not want
the text to be considered a propaganda tool but his means of trying make it seem like
one all the more.
Regardless of Garrison‘s insistence on the authenticity of Douglass‘ text, the
intention of the publication of the Narrative has always been considered to primarily
have a propaganda side to it. Barnes argues that Douglass read a great number of
autobiographies and narratives by former slaves and that he managed to create a
masterpiece of abolitionist propaganda, which became extremely successful (Barnes,
Frederick Douglass: Reformer and Statesman 43). According to Barnes, too, the
Narrative follows a standard format of autobiographies of slaves (Barnes, Frederick
Douglass: Reformer and Statesman 43). All of these facts, including the questionable
autobiographical nature of the slave narratives as well as their use as propaganda tools,
support the idea of the Narrative having been written with a clear intention – to help
abolitionists reach their goal by increasing their persuasiveness.
The Narrative introduces passages aimed at raising emotions in the readers,
many of these focusing on brutal treatment of the slaves. The description of cruelty
committed by the masters appears frequently in the text and reflects the intention to
mediate to the reader the everyday reality of those in bondage. For instance, the author
states: ―Mr. Severe was rightly named: he was a cruel man. I have seen him whip a
woman, causing the blood to run half an hour at the time; and this, too, in the midst of
her crying children, pleading for their mother‘s release. He seemed to take pleasure in
manifesting his fiendish barbarity‖ (Douglass, Narrative of the Life of Frederick
Douglass 7).
Douglass introduces a brutal occurrence that he experienced while still in
slavery:
[Mr. Covey] rushed at me with the fierceness of a tiger,
tore off my clothes, and lashed me till he had worn out his
switches, cutting me so savagely as to leave the marks
visible for a long time after. This whipping was the first
of a number just like it, and for similar offences. I lived
with Mr. Covey one year. During the first six months, of
that year, scarce a week passed without his whipping me.
44
I was seldom free from a sore back (Douglass, Narrative
of the Life of Frederick Douglass 35-36).
More passages which are intended to affect the reader‘s feeling about slavery precede
and follow this one. Apart from the description of brutality committed on slaves,
Douglass focuses on emotional suffering of the slaves; he points to the slave masters
preventing him and his mother from spending time with each other.
After its publication, the Narrative became widely discussed and many
reactions, both on the side of the author and of the public, followed. Quarles claims:
―The influence of the slave narratives was widened by the abolitionist weeklies, which
reprinted extracts from them or ran them in serial form‖ (Quarles 66). For example, in
his Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, Douglass explains the reasons for
withholding details of his escape, such as protecting the slaves and not giving away
information to the masters on how it is possible to run away from slavery. Many of the
reactions were negative and slave narratives came across strong criticism; Quarles
argues that they were charged with being overdrawn or written without proper
documentation (Quarles 65).
The sentiment with which Douglass‘ Narrative is written as well as its overall
style supportthe idea discussed above - that the book was compiled with the intention to
give a certain, in advance determined impression of slavery and to raise negative
feelings about it even in readers who had never personally come in touch with the
institution and who had not been aware ofits horrors. Although Douglass‘ goal was to
mediate his true slavery experience, in the hands of Garrison, an experienced
abolitionist, the book was even more powerful and, therefore, the relationship with
Douglass was advantageous for him.
Not unexpectedly, Douglass faced attacks based on people‘s disbelief in his
authorship of the Narrative. In a 1846 letter published in the Liberator, Douglass
responds to a slaveholder called A. C. C. Thompson, who questions the validity of the
Narrative (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 39). Douglass feels the
need to disprove Thompson‘s doubts about his abilities to have written the text. He
claims:
You are confident I did not write the book; and the reason
of your confidence is, that when you knew me, I was an
unlearned and rather an ordinary negro. […] You must
not judge me now by what I then was – a change of
45
circumstances has made a surprising change in me.
Frederick Douglass, the freeman, is a very different
person from Frederick Bailey, the slave. I feel myself
almost a new man – freedom has given me new life. […]
Of one thing, I am certain – you would see a great
change in me! (Douglass, ―Douglass to William Lloyd
Garrison, January 27, 1846‖ 43).
In this quote, Douglass endeavors to prove his authorship not only to Thompson but to
all those doubting it. The fact that his self-defense appears in a letter to Garrison
published in the Liberator and that there existed cooperation between the two
abolitionists, as well as the fact that Douglass praises the transition that has happened
within him after having become a free man, indicate the letter being propaganda, too.
Barnes points to another motive of Douglass‘ regarding his Narrative: ―The
autobiography offered validity at a time when Douglass‘s credibility was under
question [that he was ever a slave]. […] In publishing the Narrative, Douglass quieted
his doubters […]‖ (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: Reformer and Statesman 43). The
detailed description of some of the passages dealing with brutalities which slaves
suffered in bondage, indeed, proves that Douglass experienced them himself.
2.4.2 Autobiography or Fiction? The Significance of Slave Narratives for the
Emergence of African American Novel
Garrison‘s ―Introduction‖ to Douglass‘ Narrative opens up the question of the
genre of slave narratives. John C. Havard argues that generally, slave narratives are
considered non-fiction, contrary to novels, which are regarded as fiction; however, his
closer analysis of African American works of fiction, including Douglass‘ 1852 The
Heroic Slave and William Wells Brown‘s 1853 Clotel; or the President’s Daughter,
proves the ambiguity of this perspective (Havard). The beginnings of African American
fiction, Havard suggests, are interconnected with the slave narrative genre as the aim of
novels was often to combat slavery and as some introduce the same plot as the
narratives (Havard).
A demonstration of the latter statement is to be found in The Heroic Slave, in
which the slave experiences failure before achieving freedom (Havard). In his
Narrative, Douglass describes the unsuccessful plan to run away as he and the other
slaves are betrayed by someone. The comparison of this scene to the one described by
46
Havard proves the idea of similarities concerning content between slave narratives and
African American novels. Havard concludes that the novel brought new ways of
depicting the institution of slavery; for example, Brown‘s Clotel; or the President’s
Daughter employs formal innovations enabling deep focus on more than one character,
as is typical for slave narratives conventionally written from the first person point of
view (Havard). Here, too, Douglass‘ Narrative counts as an example of such a text; the
narrator, telling the story from his perspective, provides his own point of view. All the
events mediated to the reader are affected by Douglass‘ personal perception, whereas in
a novel, the author can shift from one point of view to another and provide a more
complex picture of slavery.
In his critical article ―‘I Was Born‘: Slave Narratives, Their Status as
Autobiography and as Literature,‖ James Olney also deals with the real genre of the
slave narrative and claims that while autobiographies, like which the narratives written
by slaves often try to look like, should have a sense of uniqueness, most slave narratives
are characterized by sameness and repetitiveness, instead (Olney 46).
Olney sums up the idea of the inevitability of sameness in these narratives:
[…] the narratives are all trained on one and the same
objective reality, they have a coherent and defined
audience, they have behind them and guiding them an
organized group of ―sponsors,‖ and they are possessed of
very specific motives, intentions, and uses understood by
narrators, sponsors, and audience alike: to reveal the truth
of slavery and so to bring about its abolition. How, then,
could the narratives be anything but very much like one
another? (Olney 52).
Olney makes a significant reference to the fact that slave narratives witnessed strong
intervention by the abolitionists who sponsored them as they knew exactly what the
reason for their publication was, which is proven by their authorship of the
introductions of the books (Olney 56). This idea goes back to Garrison‘s motivation to
create the ―Introduction‖ for Douglass‘ Narrative.
As Olney argues, slave narratives more or less followed a specific master
outline, including details such as the first sentence beginning with ―I was born‖ (Olney
50). However, Olney claims that there are exceptions. The truth is that he suggests that,
typically, slave narratives include description of the successful escape; Douglass‘ text,
47
despite its many features typical for slave narratives, does not reveal much about his
having run away. Exploring the genre of the narratives thoroughly, Olney further points
out that in an autobiographical literary piece, the author goes back to events from his
past and using memory in a creative way, they narrate their life story (Olney 47).
Former slaves, expected to provide an accurate and true account on slavery, cannot use
creativity during the writing process, which also does not fit the categorization of their
texts into autobiography (Olney). Having taken all of these ideas into account, Olney, in
other words, suggests that slave narratives were far from being autobiographical texts.
Havard offers a similar idea, based on the ambiguity of the genre of slave narratives
discussed above. He emphasizes that as white abolitionist aimed at having the
narratives by former slaves constructed according to a conventional structure, these
resembled fiction (Havard).
Sarah Meer‘s ―Slave Narratives as Literature‖ offers another interesting point of
view of the place of slave narratives within literature. Meer points out the complex
problem of labeling slave narratives as literature but stresses their intertextuality, which
itself establishes their position in the textual world (Meer 82). She mentions the impact
which Harriet Beecher Stowe‘s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin had on slave narratives (Meer
78). For instance, Meer argues, textual references are present in the relationship to his
mother in Douglass‘ My Bondage and My Freedom, in which the author draws upon
Stowe (Meer 81). Without clearly establishing their literary values, Meer sees their
connection to the literary world; at least in their references to other literary works.
Douglass‘ interconnection to Stowe belongs among many examples.
2.5 Douglass’ Journalistic Activity
Apart from autobiographical texts and occasional speeches and writings,
Douglass was actively involved in public press. The establishment of his own
abolitionist newspaper was accompanied by a growing tension between him and
Garrison (Levine, Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, and the Politics of
Representative Identity). The North Star, named after the star, which directed slaves on
their escape to freedom (Colaiaco 22), was first published in December of 1847
(Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 56). The initiation of The North Star
was enabled to him by financial assistance from his British friends from the abolitionist
circles (Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 55). Gerrit Smith, one of the
leading abolitionists, politicians and reformers, also provided monetary help to the
48
newspaper (Atkin 473) in order to secure its publishing. Later, Smith played an even
greater part in the destiny of The North Star. It was his Liberty Party Paper with which
Douglass‘ newspaper merged in June 1851 to become a paper entitled Frederick
Douglass’ Paper (Williamson 118).
The North Star was co-edited by Martin R. Delany, a significant abolitionist as
well as writer and physician; author of the novel Blake, or the Huts of America, and an
advocate of Black nationalism. Douglass met Delany in Pittsburgh in August 1847,
where the former slave accompanied Garrison in order to take part in antislavery
meetings (Levine, Martin R. Delany: A Documentary Reader 69). Content-wise and in
editorial tone, The North Star was modeled after The Liberator; there was one
significant difference, however, which was Douglass‘ employment of his memories of
life in bondage (Streitmatter 27).
From the introduction of his newspaper idea on, Douglass did not meet with
much support from his colleagues within the abolitionist circles. John Ernest asserts that
the establishment of The North Star symbolized its main editor‘s dramatic break from
the abolitionist views represented by Garrison and his followers and heated the tensions
between the two men (Ernest, ―Introduction‖ xvi). Ernest points to a series of editorial
battles between Garrison and Douglass, which made their break public in the 1850s
(Ernest, ―Introduction‖ xvi).
Not only was the core of disagreements between them Douglass‘ change of
point of view of the role of political matters within the anti-slavery fight, including his
perception of the Constitution, but the conflicts might have been based on a much more
personal level. Emphasizing the growing discrepancy between Garrison and Douglass,
Levine indicates that the latter one got under the influence of the former one and refers
to the escaped slave‘s change in mind about establishing his own newspaper after
pressure from Garrison‘s side and his later break free of his influence and decision to
start his own abolitionist paper (Levine, Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, and the
Politics of Representative Identity). According to Barnes, the reasons for Garrison‘s
disapproval of Douglass‘ own abolitionist newspaper included concerns about the
escaped slave‘s financial well-being as well as the waning influence over his career
(Barnes, Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents 55).
In an article introducing The North Star, Douglass shows his great determination
to the cause and reveals the abolitionist focus of the newspaper. He expresses his
conviction that he and his colleagues can contribute to the abolitionist matter greatly as
49
they, as African Americans, have more personal experience which they can employ in
the fight against slavery. This Douglass‘ claim supports the idea discussed in this thesis,
that African Americans, especially those with their own experience of slavery, were
more likely to have been deeper touched by the existence of the institution and
desperately requested its abolition as their lives depended on it. Despite his refusal of
lack of ingratitude to white abolitionists, Douglass indicates rivalry and tensions in the
movement between groups representing different races. He claims:
It is scarcely necessary for us to say that our desire to
occupy our present position at the head of [an] AntiSlavery Journal, has resulted from no unworthy distrust or
ungrateful want of appreciation of the zeal, integrity, or
ability of the noble band of white laborers, in this
department of our cause; but, from a sincere and settled
conviction that such a Journal, if conducted with only
moderate skill and ability, would do a most important and
indispensable work, which would be wholly impossible
for our white friends to do for us (Douglass, ―Our Paper
and Its Prospects‖ 56).
Douglass stresses the advantage of an immediate victim of slavery controlling the
newspaper and repeats his genuine dedication to it as well as his determination to
succeed.
2.6 Douglass’ Significance Within the Fight Against Slavery and Against
Inequality
The main aspect of Douglass‘ abolitionism was his strong dedication to the
cause of racial equality, as his speeches and writings discussed in this chapter
demonstrate. Unlike some of his white contemporaries, he considered the two matters
interconnected and his whole political career was affected by his convictions that all
human beings, were it African Americans, white American men, or women, are entitled
to the same rights. Apart from abolitionism, this is proved in his involvement in the
women‘s rights movement and his collaboration with female abolitionists. As a talented
writer, Douglass contributed to the rise of African American fiction; his own texts,
mainly written for the purposes of the abolitionist cause, meant a transition from
autobiography to novel. Douglass‘ determination to reach his aim led him to actively
50
participate in politics and to cooperate with other abolitionists. However, his distinct
views of certain matters as well as the fact that the motives and methods of antislavery
advocates often differed significantly, caused many tensions within the movement.
His critique of President Lincoln based on the latter one‘s reluctant approach
towards the abolition of slavery due to his political interests reveals Douglass‘ absolute
and unconditional belief in the injustice of the institution of slavery. Douglass‘
disapproval of radical ideas of abolitionists such as Garnet or his refusal to participate
in Brown‘s violent raid show his complicated attitudes to a great number of fighters for
the abolition of slavery. Most of the major conflicts within the movement stemmed,
however, from the disputes between Douglass and Garrison; it was not only the way of
how the former grew away from the latter in political thought but also the way of how
the latter tried to control the former which caused many controversies in the movement.
Douglass‘ equal rights activities did not cease with the ratification of the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution; mainly because it did not solve the racial
oppression in the country, which turned out not to have been dependent on the existence
of the institution of slavery and which continued in the twentieth century and is still a
major issue of the American society nowadays.
51
3. David Walker: Walker’s Radical Approach Towards the Fight Against Slavery
as Formulated in His Appeal
3.1 A Free African American Abolitionist
David Walker represents a third group of abolitionists discussed in this thesis: as
a free African American abolitionist, his experience was not as immediate as Douglass‘
but more personal than Garrison‘s. His year of birth is questionable; although some
sources give a specific date, there are critics, such as Stanley Harrold, who claim that he
was born in 1796 or 1797 (Harrold 27). Walker was born to a free mother and to a slave
father; he himself had a free person status after his mother (Gordon 79). Being familiar
with his family background, one can tell that Walker came across the institution of
slavery at a very young age and, consequently, began to form opinions on it during his
early childhood. This ranks him among abolitionists who were relative to someone
whose life depended on whether slavery will continue or whether it will be abolished.
3.2 Miserable Conditions of African Americans
Walker‘s ideas expressed in his Walker’s Appeal, In Four Articles; Together
with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of the World, but in Particular, and very
Expressly, to Those of the United States of America, Written in Boston, State of
Massachusetts, September 28, 1829 (which will be referred to as simply Appeal in this
thesis) belong among the most radical ones within the abolitionist circles. The overall
tone of the pamphlet is very insistent and harsh and corresponds with the radical and
uncompromising ideas formulated in the text. This mirrors the author‘s desperate
endeavor to reach his aim of abolition of slavery.
The lengthy title indicates to whom Walker addresses his pamphlet. Later in the
text, he specifies the condition of the addressees and states:
[…] we Coloured People of these United States, are, the
most wretched, degraded and abject set of beings that
over lived since the world began, down to the present day,
and, that, the white Christians of America, who hold us in
slavery, (or, more properly speaking, pretenders to
Christianity,) treat us more cruel and barbarous than any
Heathen nation did any people whom it had subjected, or
reduced to the same condition, that the Americans […]
52
have us. […] we, the Blacks, or Coloured People, are
treated more cruel by the white Christians of America,
than devils themselves ever treated; a set of men, women
and children on this earth (D. Walker 6).
This opening passage gives an idea to the reader of what is to come. Walker is very
particular in his arguments and in order to state his case, he is determined to use
extreme verbal means to show how terrible the condition of the African Americans, and
especially of the slaves, is. He is convinced that the living conditions of the African
Americans in the United States of his time are the worst of all that a man ever had to
experience.
To put more emphasis on this statement of his and to make it more relevant,
Walker refers to other historical nations and groups of people who were harmed and
who were treated unjustly and compares their situation to that of the African Americans
in the United States. In particular, Israelites in Egypt, Helots in Sparta or the Roman
Slaves are mentioned; all of these were, in Walker‘s eyes, better off than his
contemporaries.
As the Appeal is written primarily for the African Americans, it is them who
Walker tries to convince, or rather whose attention he intends to draw to the fact. The
author‘s wish is that all colored people, regardless of their nationality or language, have
access to the text, read it, and, consequently, hear what he has to say to them. However,
Walker uses the pamphlet not only to encourage the African American people to take
action and fight for a better life, but also to make the whole world familiar with his own
opinions and express his stand on the problem and on the general situation in the
country. Throughout the text, Walker raises rhetorical questions in order to put even
more stress on the wretchedness of the people primarily addressed: ―Can our condition
be any worse?‖ (D. Walker 9), ―Can it be more mean and abject?‖ (D. Walker 9), ―Can
they get us any lower?‖ (D. Walker 9).
3.3 Slavery Approached as Based on Racism
The mention of the colored people in the title itself indicates that Walker
understands the wrongs described in his pamphlet as motivated by hate towards his
race. Despite his frequent emphasis on the terrible conditions of the slaves, in many
passages of the text, he speaks in more general terms and is concerned with the situation
of African Americans, regardless of these being enslaved or free. By placing himself in
53
the role of one of those whom he addresses, as in the rhetorical questions quoted above,
Walker, a free person, includes himself in that group, too, and shows that it is the
problem of racism which is relevant, in other words, that slavery is based on racism and
that these two problems are interconnected and in order to terminate slavery, racism
needs to be eliminated, too.
3.4 Walker’s Efforts to Motivate the Oppressed to Fight: Overcoming Their
Ignorance
In Prophets of Protest, Timothy Patrick McCarthy sums the pamphlet up and
states: ―[…] it was a stirring declaration of independence for black Americans‖
(McCarthy 136). Walker‘s voice is a very provoking one; the reason for this is that he is
aware of the fact that he has to change the point of view of many enslaved men. The
harsh tone employed in the text is a strategy through which he tries to encourage the
African Americans to fight their inhuman living conditions. Walker emphasizes the
ignorance and consequent impossibility to realize the horrors of these conditions among
the slaves. Therefore, he endeavors to mediate the truth to them.
The future showed that Walker was rather successful at this aim of his. In his
American Abolitionists, Stanley Harrold argues: ―Walker […] frightened southern
whites by his ability to circulate his revolutionary document among free blacks and
slaves in the port cities of the South‖ (Harrold 27). Harrold points not only to Walker
having been able to pass his pamphlet on to as many people as possible but also to the
other aspect, advantageous to him, of the distribution of the text: ―By relying on black
and white seamen who sailed from Boston and on black network in the South, Walker
demonstrated that an alliance between northern abolitionists and southern slaves was
possible‖ (Harrold 27).
The Appeal intends to reach two significant aims; first, to make the African
Americans, and slaves, especially, realize the lamentable conditions under which they
are forced to live and to let them know that they do not have to suffer like that; second,
to convince them that the only way out of their misery is through their own fight and to
encourage them to revolt and battle for their freedom. To succeed with the former goal,
Walker is very articulate when it comes to expressing what slavery, in his eyes, means.
He states:
[…] we, (coloured people) and our children are brutes!!
and of course are, and ought to be SLAVES to the
54
American people and their children forever!! To dig their
mines and work their farms; and thus go on enriching
them, from one generation to another with our blood and
our tears!!!! (D. Walker 13).
In this passage, Walker uses irony as he states that African Americans are the exact
opposite of what his true opinion is. He takes on the language of the oppressors in order
to point to the absurdity of the situation.
What is crucial for Walker to reach the latter aim of his text is that the African
Americans cross the border of ignorance which is often to be found with the slaves. For
that reason, he pronounces out loud in a very specific manner what slavery, combined
with ignorance, causes:
[one may see] a son take his mother, who bore almost the
pains of death to give him birth, and by the command of a
tyrant, strip her as naked as she came into the world, and
apply the cow-hide to her, until she falls a victim to death
in the road! [One] may see a husband take his dear wife,
not unfrequently in a pregnant state, and perhaps far
advanced, and beat her for an unmerciful wretch, until his
infant falls a lifeless lump at her feet! (D. Walker 26).
The distribution of these and similar words among slaves was important for making
slaves realize their situation. As it has already been suggested, Walker was successful in
this respect.
Critics, however, point to the fact that it was not only the key figures in the
abolitionist movement, such as Walker, who were responsible for the distribution of
similar ideas and, consequently, might have contributed to a negative image of African
Americans among white southern public, as is suggested in Harrold‘s American
Abolitionists: ―Some free African Americans, by quietly spreading antislavery ideas
among slaves, encouraging slaves to escape, and harboring escapees, helped create a
belief among white southerners that all free blacks were dangerous abolitionists‖
(Harrold 26).
One of Walker‘s most significant concerns expressed in his Appeal, the slaves‘
non-realization of the miserable conditions under which they find themselves, is paid
great attention to in the text. The author blames the white people and, especially,
slaveholders for this and is positive about what their motivation is. In the Appeal, it is
55
indicated that the white people want the African American slaves to stay unaware of
certain things because it is advantageous for the former ones. Walker quotes Elias B.
Caldwell4 and comments on his statement with his own opinion:
[Caldwell] says: ―The more you improve the condition of
these people, the more you cultivate their minds, the more
miserable you make them in their present state. You give
them a higher relish for those privileges which they can
never attain. And turn what we intend for a blessing into a
curse.‖ Let me ask this benevolent man, what he means
by a blessing intended for us? Did he mean sinking us and
our children into ignorance and wretchedness, to support
him and his family? (D. Walker 52).
In other words, Walker introduces this passage to explain that it is expedient for the
slaveholders to keep their slaves in ignorance because the less they know, the lesser the
chance of these trying to fight for their freedom is. Even though the slave owners try to
look like they mean well, Walker is aware of their hypocrisy and opportunism. Aware
of the importance of the slaves‘ realization of the nature of their true conditions, Walker
keeps on proposing his ideas among the African American people of the United States.
3.5 Violence as a Means of Fighting Oppression
Walker‘s way of spreading antislavery ideas was far from quiet. Having been
very radical, he wanted to be heard. In his Appeal, he does not propose individuals to
take small and invisible steps towards freedom, but rather one loud and striking blow –
a revolt. That is the only way, according to him, which can ensure freedom to the
oppressed. Walker uses language of motivation to make the slaves want to revolt: ―Are
we MEN!!—I ask you, O my brethren! are we MEN? Did our Creator make us to be
slaves to dust and ashes like ourselves?‖ (D. Walker 21).
The passages dealing with the revolt are the most uncompromising in the whole
pamphlet. Walker discusses openly the need of violence in order to reach freedom. He
easily finds an excuse for physical violence:
Look upon your mother, wife and children, and answer
God Almighty; and believe this, that it is no more harm
for you to kill a man, who is trying to kill you, than it is
4
Elias B. Cladwell was a clerk of the United States Supreme Court.
56
for you to take a drink of water when thirsty, in fact, the
man who will stand and let another murder him, is worse
than an infidel, and, if he has common sense, ought not to
be pitied (D. Walker 30).
This quote is relevant because it sums up Walker‘s point of view of the need of
violence. In case a person suffers and finds themselves in a hopeless situation, and, in
addition to that, is treated in an inhuman way by someone else, they are, according to
the author, allowed to commit violence in order to save their own life. Moreover, as
Walker suggests it, if such a person does not do anything for their survival and merely
stands the oppression without fighting for their freedom, they are themselves acting in a
wrong way.
Jacob U. Gordon understands Walker‘s position within the abolitionist
movement as a crucial one as he argues: ―The appearance of David Walker marked a
transition in the liberation movement from the quiet protest of the colonial leaders to the
revolutionary posture of the militant abolitionists‖ (Gordon 79). This indicates that
among the abolitionists, there were different approaches to and opinions on how the
course of action should develop so that slavery be abolished. Walker belonged to the
extremely radical ones as is revealed in his Appeal.
Walker is critical of those among his addressees who, according to him, are not
faithful to the fight for freedom and are not determined enough. The act of intense
persuasion is to be found throughout the whole text. At one point, Walker asserts:
It shows at once, what the blacks are, we are ignorant,
abject, servile and mean--and the whites know it--they
know that we are too servile to assert our rights as men-or they would not fool with us as they do. Would they
fool with any other people as they do with us? No, they
know too well, that they would get themselves ruined.
Why do they not bring the inhabitants of Asia to be body
servants to them? They know they would get their bodies
rent and torn from head to foot. Why do they not get the
Aborigines of this country to be slaves to them and their
children, to work their farms and dig their mines? They
know well that the Aborigines of this country, or
(Indians) would tear them from the earth. The Indians
57
would not rest day or night, they would be up all times of
night, cutting their cruel throats. But my color, (some, not
all,) are willing to stand still and be murdered by the cruel
whites (D. Walker 62).
Walker refers to other groups of people and uses these to prove his point. Here, he does
so to act on the emotions of his readers and to spur them to find the strength to revolt.
He, in a sense, offends them as a group and compares them to others and, by doing so,
expects them to be provoked to do what he strongly proposes. Walker chooses the
strategy of being critical of and harsh on the African Americans in his country with the
intention of inciting them to action which he feels is crucial and imperative.
Walker‘s strong determination and dedication is to be found in many passages
of the text. He menaces the slaveholders: ―I call men, to witness, that your
DESTRUCTION is at hand, and will be speedily consummated unless you REPENT‖
(D. Walker). Statements like this prove Walker‘s extreme and radical approach towards
the abolition of slavery; he does not hesitate to use violence to reach it and sometimes,
his claims indicate a sense of revenge; in other words, he feels no pity for those who
themselves are violent towards others. With this approach, Walker justifies his support
of a violent revolt.
3.6 Opposing Ideas on Violence Among the Abolitionists
Such attitude was not standard among the abolitionists as William Lloyd
Garrison‘s fears suggest. In his critical article called ―The Influence of Garrisonian
Abolitionists‘ Fears of Slave Violence on the Antislavery Argument, 1829-40,‖ Robert
H. Abzug claims that Garrison anticipated a violent revolt led by African American
slaves and that he was afraid of it (Abzug 15). Abzug argues:
[…] Garrison envisaged a violent crisis over slavery too
profound to be avoided through the slow methods of
gradualism and colonization. He feared that within a
century there would be ―TWENTY MILLIONS‖ of
slaves; no society could hold so many in bondage, and the
blacks would break their chains to take revenge (Abzug
15-16).
This quote indicates that Garrison was aware of the danger of revolt let by those having
been oppressed and in order to prevent it, he promoted immediate abolition of slavery
58
instead of the rather slower way suggested by those promoting colonization. This idea
was developed in the first chapter as well as the fact that Garrison‘s fears were
obviously not the main reason for his active involvement in the abolitionist movement.
His dedication to the case of the abolition of slavery based on his humanist ideals and
belief in freedom for all, is undeniable and obvious from his many speeches and
actions.
On the other hand, as Abzug implies, the possible threat of slave revolt might
have led to Garrison‘s endeavor to accelerate the efforts to abolish slavery. According
to Abzug, Nat Turner‘s 1831 rebellion5 was the omen of what Garrison predicted
(Abzug 20). The critic claims: ―Garrison had argued all along that the cause of slave
revolt was slavery itself. Until the institution was abolished, reason enough existed for
insurrection at any moment‖ (Abzug 20). This description of Garrison‘s aversion to use
violence as discussed by Abzug can make one wonder whether the abolitionist cared
more for the well-being of slaves or rather for the safety of the public. The critic,
however, explains Garrison‘s refusal of violence by his Christian non-violent principles
(Abzug 19).
This diametrically opposite approach towards the use of violence represented by
David Walker, on the one hand, and by William Lloyd Garrison, on the other hand,
demonstrates the distinct approaches of supporters of one movement. These contributed
to the tensions within the abolitionist movement based on belief in using different
means to reaching the same aim - the abolition of slavery. While some strictly refused
violence, others understood it as the only possible way of how to reach freedom. As the
later development of events showed, however, the views of some abolitionists,
including Garrison, adjusted and reacted to current state of affairs.
5
Nat Turner led a revolt during which at least fifty-five white people were killed in Southampton County
in Virginia in August of 1931 (Jaynes 574).
59
4. Feminist Abolitionism: Sexism and Racism as a Single Interconnected Matter
4.1 Women’s Involvement in the Abolitionist Matter
As the importance of the anti-slavery movement grew stronger, some
abolitionists tended to relate other matters with which they were concerned to it as well.
The question of female emancipation belongs among the most noticeable ones because
it not only gave rise to a movement of feminist abolitionism but also caused many
disputes within the existing anti-slavery movement. While some did not see a way of
how to separate the fight for the abolition of slavery from the women‘s question, others
decidedly refused to involve the latter problem in their principal matter of interest.
Similarly to the abolitionist movement, the fight for female emancipation had its
representatives within different groups of women. White women coming from
slaveholding families were involved in it as well as African American former slaves.
Even though women activists had to face criticism from their male counterparts, they
got solid support from some, including one of the most famous and radical ones,
William Lloyd Garrison. Julie Roy Jeffrey argues that he not only encouraged women
in their involvement in the slave question but also recommended their participation in
charitable associations through which they could work on the elevation of their sex
(Jeffrey 18).
4.2 Feminist Abolitionists Come Together to Fight for Emancipation
The development of feminist abolitionism was followed by a rise in the number
of female societies, assemblies and gatherings. Even though, as Shirley J. Yee claims in
her Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860, abolitionists debated
ardently whether or not women should take part in the anti-slavery cause (Yee 7),
female abolitionists managed to stand up for themselves and became very active in the
fight against slavery. Yee claims that the first women‘s antislavery society was
established by African American women in Salem, Massachusetts, in February 1832
(Yee 6). An interesting comparison is that the American Anti-Slavery Society was
formed in 1833, a year later. This suggests that female abolitionist societies focusing on
the women‘s question were being established independently on those directed by men.
Only later, when the male associations gained significance and dominance, the female
ones started being considered as secondary.
60
The tradition of gatherings and associations went on, leading up to the National
Women‘s Rights Convention, first held in 1850, and continued to take place on a yearly
basis. Richard E. Greene explores the origin of the national conventions dealing with
women‘s rights and refers to Abby Kelley. Kelley was an extraordinary lecturer and
speaker and an advocate for radical abolitionism, nonresistance, and women‘s rights
(Atkin 274). Greene claims:
During Kelley‘s New York tour in the 1840s she went
several times to Seneca Falls, a small village in upstate
New York, ―to shake up‖ the people and especially to
involve the women in her anti-slavery ―revivals‖. This
excitement eventually led a number of anti-slavery
women who were also interested in women‘s rights to
hold the first women‘s rights convention there, in 1848
(Greene 179).
Greene argues that after Seneca Falls, more conventions followed and women soon
came to believe that it was time to call together the first national convention, which
gathered speakers such as William Lloyd Garrison, Abby Kelley, Sojourner Truth,
Frederick Douglass or Lucy Stone and which turned out to be a great success (Greene
179).
4.3 Double Oppression of Enslaved Women
Women involved in these associations came from very different strata of
society; their background and past experience varied. Often, enslaved women had to
fight double oppression; not only were they affected by the institution of slavery, but
they were also frequently attacked by men in the sense of sex discrimination. The
speeches of former slaves, who had personal experience with that, were extremely
convincing. Shirley J. Lee explores the topic of African American and white women
oppression and focuses on its differences. She claims:
[…] slaveholders had justified the sexual exploitation and
abuse of black women in particular by contriving images
of black womanhood that stood opposite from those
applying to white middle-class women, who were
portrayed as delicate, morally pure, submissive to men,
and asexual. The only characteristics black and white
61
women supposedly shared was intellectual inferiority to
men, but the inferiority of black women, according to
defenders of slavery, was also a function of race (Yee 4).
Yee‘s words develop the idea of double oppression mentioned above. The critic points
out the trouble which African American women had to face; oppression based on their
sex was not their only problem; their situation was all the more miserable as they fell
victims to racial prejudices, which often culminated in their enslavement. As the quoted
passage indicates, however, the supposed inferiority of women to men was a common
belief among people, regardless the former ones‘ skin color.
4.4 Lucretia Mott: Men as the Oppressors and Obstacles to Women’s
Emancipation
Lucretia Mott (1793-1880) belongs to one of the most publicly active female
reformers of that time; she kept herself busy with travelling and preaching (Speicher
156). Her interests reached even further than the women‘s rights and antislavery
matters; she was involved in nonresistance and temperance, antisabbatarianism, Free
Produce, and Native American rights (Speicher 156). Mott‘s views of the women‘s
rights issue are expressed in a lecture entitled ―Discourse on Woman,‖ which she
delivered in 1849.
Mott begins with a statement that a proper position of women is crucial for the
well-being of the whole society. Claiming this, she indicates what is going to be an
overall tone of the text. Her words are unyielding, harsh and resolute. Mott claims: ―[A
woman] has so long been subject to the disabilities and restrictions, with which her
progress has been embarrassed, that she has become enervated, her mind to some extent
paralysed […]‖ (Mott). This quote suggests that the inferior position, which is often
ascribed to women of Mott‘s time, has been caused by the society and its approach
towards these women. As a consequence of the restrictions which women had
experienced, they became numb, in a sense, and lost motivation and determination to
fight for their rights. From this point of view, the situation might be understood as a
vicious circle.
Developing the topic some more, Mott asserts:
While man assumes, that the present is the original state
designed for woman, that the existing ―differences are not
arbitrary nor the result of accident,‖ but grounded in
62
nature; she will not make the necessary effort to obtain
her just rights, lest it should subject her to the kind of
scorn and contemptuous manner in which she has been
spoken of (Mott).
In this quotation, Mott emphasizes the idea that men are responsible for the current
position of women as well as for their lack of ambition to change it. According to her,
men had oppressed women for a time long enough to eventually have led them to a
condition against which they are afraid to revolt. Mott quotes a passage from Timothy
Walker‘s Introduction to American Law: ―The legal theory is, that marriage makes the
husband and wife one person, and that person is the husband‖ (Mott). The employment
of this quote supports Mott‘s idea that men are the oppressors, who restrict women‘s
freedom.
Mott reaches to religious sources to support her statement and to make her point.
She quotes the Bible when referring to the equality between men and women. What she
concludes based on the biblical text is: ―He gave dominion to both over the lower
animals, but not to one over the other‖ (Mott). Speicher points out Mott‘s theological
radicalism and believes her to have held the most extreme religious views of any of the
women around her; even despite the fact that her religiosity was frequently questioned
in her time (Speicher 159). Mott‘s strong religious conviction is apparent from her
employment of the Bible in her text as an ultimate and unchallenged source of
information on what the order of the world should be like.
Although Mott‘s lecture is feminist in the first place and aims at making people
realize the degraded status of women and at stressing the urgency of eliminating the
obstacles to their freedom, her antislavery views are also present in it. Couple of times
throughout the text, she refers to the terrible condition of slaves, for example, when
admitting that slaves in general find themselves in a worse situation that women.
Despite all its harsh criticism of the society and its system, Mott‘s text expresses
hope. She believes that the new generation of women will live to see a world in which
they will not be dependent on men and one in which they will be able to enjoy their
own freedom without oppression, without losing their feminine qualities. According to
her, changes in society, as well as in education, are steps which will eventually lead
women into this new position.
63
4.5 Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I a Woman:” Promotion of Equality Between Sexes
Sojourner Truth (1797-1883) was very articulate about her matter of interest.
Born a slave in New York, called Isabella Baumfree, she gained freedom in 1827
(Daley 11) and is best known for her influential speech ―Ain‘t I a Woman‖ from 1851.
Truth argues:
That man over there says that women need to be helped
into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best
place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages,
or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And
ain‘t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have
ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no
man could head me! And ain‘t I a woman? I could work
as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it –
and bear the lash as well! And ain‘t I a woman? (Truth
11).
Truth employs rhetorical questions in order to emphasize the absurdity of some
people‘s views of men and women. In her opinion, it is unreasonable not to consider
women equal to men. In the quote, she points out that she is a woman and still manages
to do all the things a man can do; her intention is to prove that there should be no
distinction made based on one‘s sex.
Later in her speech, similarly to Mott, she reaches to the Bible and uses Christ‘s
origin as an argument for women‘s entitlement to their rights: ―Where did your Christ
come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him‖ (Truth 12).
Truth‘s text is uncompromising and focuses on disproving people‘s prejudices, which,
as the speaker feels, are rooted deep in people‘s minds and which are the reason why
the rights belonging to women are taken away from them.
4.6 The Grimké Sisters: Angelina Grimké’s Argument of the Irrationality of
Subordination Among Individuals
Sarah Moore Grimké (1792-1873) and Angelina Emily Grimké (1805-1879)
count among the most significant women linked with the abolitionist movement. They
cooperated with influential abolitionists; Garrison, with his belief that the women‘s
rights movement should be unconditionally interconnected with the abolitionist cause,
kept on publishing the Grimké sisters‘ texts and by doing so he provided his support to
64
all female fighters for the abolition of slavery. One of such writings, which appeared in
The Liberator, was Angelina Grimké‘s Letters to Catherine Beecher. Its complete title,
Letters to Catherine E. Beecher, in Reply to an Essay on Slavery and Abolitionism,
Addressed to A. E. Grimké, itself indicates that it is a response to Beecher‘s text, which
opposed the author‘s convictions.
Letter XII, Human Rights Not Founded on Sex, represents Grimké‘s views of
the question of women‘s rights and contributes to the final point of the Letters, which is
that regardless their sex, all human individuals should be free to publicly express
themselves in the matter of slavery and other issues influencing them. Grimké‘s
argument is based on her persuasion that all human beings should have the same rights
because they are moral beings; among moral beings, she sees no further distinction.
Therefore, rights are not a question of one‘s sex; sex is insignificant in this context.
Grimké claims:
[…] I believe it is woman‘s right to have a voice in all the
laws and regulations by which she is to be governed,
whether in Church or State; and that the present
arrangements of society, on these points, are a violation
of human rights, a rank usurpation of power, a violent
seizure and confiscation of what is sacredly and
inalienably hers - thus inflicting upon woman outrageous
wrongs, working mischief incalculable in the social
Circle, and in its influence on the world producing only
evil, and that continually (Grimké).
According to Grimké, the rights belonging to women are denied to them. The
ideal state of affairs she believes to be one in which women take part in associations,
conferences, and conventions. The antislavery gatherings are undoubtedly meant by
these as well; Grimké professes her abolitionist interests by these words. Instead of the
ideal situation described above, the reality is a man‘s world, where women have
become mere appendages to men, she suggests.
Grimké directly approaches her addressee and all those holding similar views
and claims:
Thou sayest, ‗an ignorant, a narrow-minded, or a stupid
woman, cannot feel nor understand the rationality, the
propriety, or the beauty of this relation‘-i.e. subordination
65
to man. […] it does appear to me, that nothing but a
narrow-minded of the subject of human rights and
responsibilities can induce any one to believe in
subordination to a fallible being (Grimké).
Grimké proposes the absurdity of the idea of subordination among people. In this quote,
she makes the problem more universal when she indicates that a relationship based on
inferiority should exist neither between a man and a woman, nor between any human
beings. The latter case might be applied to the institution of slavery and reveals
Grimké‘s condemnatory approach towards it.
Like the preceding texts discussed in this chapter, Grimké‘s lecture is inspired
by the author‘s religious conviction. She refers to the Bible and declares that only God
is there to govern women; a man was never intended to take on this role. Similarly to
Mott, Grimké is optimistic regarding the future and women‘s condition and believes
that the society is headed to a state in which equality between men and women will not
be a mere dream but reality.
4.7 Other Influential Feminist Abolitionists: Harriet Tubman and Lydia Maria
Child
There are more feminist abolitionists worth mentioning as they belonged among
the movement‘s most influential members. Lydia Maria Child (1802-1880) was
remarkable for her essay writing skills and through publishing literary pieces, such as
Appeal in Favor in That Class of Americans Called Africans, which was published in
1833 and which brought her the label ―radical‖, she asserted the rights of African
Americans (Ryan 142-143). In the forties, she retreated from the abolitionist limelight
for a couple of years; the reason having been unrelenting arguments within the
movement (Ryan 143).
Another significant female activist was Harriet Tubman (1822-1913), whose
fate resembled that of Truth as she was born a slave but managed to make her escape to
freedom in 1849; she traveled to the South frequently in order to rescue slaves by
bringing them to the North (D. E. Smith 652). Due to her illiteracy, however, there is no
memoir left after her (D. E. Smith 652).
66
4.8 Distinct Views Among Feminist Abolitionists
Garrison‘s unconditional support of the women‘s rights matter based on his idea
of its inseparability from the antislavery cause was already discussed; the collaboration
between Garrison and some of the female abolitionists was, however, mutual. In his
book Women, Gays, and the Constitution: the Grounds for Feminism and Gay Rights in
Culture and Law, David A. J. Richards argues that the Grimké sisters, as well as
Lucretia Mott, elaborated upon Garrisonian abolitionism; held similar opinions on
women‘s rights, had critical perception of moral conscience of the American people, or
approached the abolition of slavery in an apolitical manner (Richards, Women, Gays,
and the Constitution: the Grounds for Feminism and Gay Rights in Culture and Law
106).
Richards points to the connection between the Grimké‘s, Mott, and Garrison:
Within this Garrisonian framework, the abolitionist
feminism of the Grimkes and Lucretia Mott expanded and
deepened the Garrisonian rights-based criticism of
American conventional attitudes on matters of race and
gender, but its claims of abridgment of basic rights would
not justify the use of force. To this point in its
development, abolitionist feminism was, like Garrisonian
abolitionism, a moral movement, not a political or
constitutional one (Richards, Women, Gays, and the
Constitution: the Grounds for Feminism and Gay Rights
in Culture and Law 107).
Elaborating on this quote by Richards, it can be said that the fact that the Grimké sisters
regarded slavery as a moral problem is mirrored in their feminist tendencies which they
expressed publicly with a very loud voice. They refused gender as well as race
discrimination and oppression based on it was against their moral convictions.
Richards contrasts Mott and the Grimké sisters with Elizabeth Stanton; the
major distinction lies in the latter one‘s involvement of the political and constitutional
element in the latter one‘s understanding of the slavery and women‘s rights question
(Richards, Women, Gays, and the Constitution: the Grounds for Feminism and Gay
Rights in Culture and Law 107). Richards states: ―[…] her insistence that its
[abolitionist feminism] moral theory […] was the basic political theory of American
67
political and constitutional institutions and thus the just grounds for both political action
and constitutional interpretation‖ (Richards, Women, Gays, and the Constitution: the
Grounds for Feminism and Gay Rights in Culture and Law 107). Despite the dissimilar
attitudes towards the matter, both of these strands of abolitionist feminism gained many
supporters and existed beside each other. This variety within the abolitionist feminism
movement mirrors the diversity of opinions on the right course of action within the
abolitionist movement in general, leading to tensions and arguments among the
abolitionists.
4.9 The Relation Between Racism and Sexism and its Role in the Abolitionists’
Conflicts
Female feminist abolitionism advocates were positive about a connection
between racism and sexism. Within the institution of slavery, of course, reality was far
from observing women‘s rights. However, abolitionists such as the Grimké sisters or
Lydia Maris Child established the interconnection of the two matters on their belief that
sexism and racism were based on the same structural evil (Richards, Disarming
Manhood: Roots of Ethical Resistance 14). Richards calls it moral slavery, which,
according to him, insists on irrational prejudices which eventually violate human rights
(Richards, Disarming Manhood: Roots of Ethical Resistance 9, 14). Both racism and
sexism stemmed from a belief in inferiority of a certain group of people, which is the
linking element of the two problems.
Feminist abolitionists asserted that unless inequity resulting from racism and
sexism ceased, slavery could not be wiped out completely. Therefore, they based their
fight for abolitionism on an open and loud criticism of sexism. The inequality based on
gender and racial distinctions inseparably linked women‘s rights movement to the
antislavery cause. It was advantageous to connect the matters as it drew more attention
to both of them, especially the women‘s rights question became much more visible
when placed in the context of slavery, which was the most discussed political and social
question in the United States of that time.
Racism was a major problem within the abolitionist movement in general;
therefore it was, of course, reflected in its feminist strand. Similarly to some male
abolitionists, including Garrison, feminist abolitionists approached the fight for the end
of slavery as interconnected to women‘s emancipation. However, this fact did not
ensure idyllic relationships among all female emancipation fighters; as Yee argues, true
68
sisterhood between slave and free women was not a reality; if so, then at the most in
individual cases (Yee 6). Yee further comments on the racial issue within the women‘s
branch of the movement and states: ―Racial equality had been an integral part of the
black feminist agenda from the beginning‖ (Yee 8) and adds: ―[…] racism within the
women‘s movement, however, precluded the possibility for black and white women to
work together on an all-inclusive feminist agenda. As a result, black feminist
abolitionists […] organized on their own‖ (Yee 8).
The existence of different attitudes regarding anti-slavery tendencies among
different groups of women is, therefore, not surprising as internal racism had a huge
influence upon the development of the movement. Racism was always present within
the abolitionist movement and although many of its leaders, both white and African
American, struggled to overcome it, they never managed to eliminate it. Despite
feminist abolitionists‘ tendencies to approach racism and sexism inseparably, racist
tendencies of American society during the slavery era were manifested by the tensions
among women abolitionists of different races. Consequently, many failed to follow the
principle of indivisibility of racism and sexism; this is indicated by the contents of the
texts discussed in this chapter; most of them focus on women‘s emancipation in the first
place and mention the slavery matter in a rather secondary manner.
Moreover, racism which African Americans experienced within the antislavery
movement resembled, in certain traits, sexism faced by women. As Stanley Harrold
claims, female abolitionists were on an inferior position in the abolitionist movement
through the 1830 (Harrold 39); one of his arguments is, for example, that despite the
existence of some mixed-gender abolitionist societies, women, generally, had their own
associations as auxiliaries to those governed by men (Harrold 44). This goes back to the
interconnection between racism and sexism and, undoubtedly, it was a reason for
women to relate these two matters. To sum up the nature of the tensions which the
feminist antislavery movement caused within the abolitionist movement, although
racism and sexism were inseparable in the feminist abolitionism concept, women
sometimes failed to evade racism themselves. On the other hand, they were frequently
considered inferior by their male contemporaries.
69
5. African Colonization: Contrasting Voices on the Idea of Removal of African
Americans Beyond American Borders
5.1 The Back-to-Africa Movement and the Emergence of the American
Colonization Society
Concurrently with the rising political attention given to the question of slavery
and its status of one of the most loudly discussed matters, voices dealing with the fate
of free African Americans emerged. While most abolitionists were concerned mainly
with the end of the institution, there were those who looked further in the future, and,
afraid of the possible negative effects resulting from the liberation of former slaves,
formulated a plan of how to deal with the inevitable social and economic changes in the
United States. These changes, consequences of a long-term political situation having
reached back to the eighteenth century and having gone on throughout the nineteenth
century, reflected the fight against slavery and with it connected laws, regulations, and
acts. When the American Colonization Society started to promote its solution of the
disputes over the new social order in the United States by the removal of free African
Americans beyond the borders of the country, Americans divided into two groups,
according to either their support or disapproval of the Society.
Many white advocates of colonization often claimed that people of African race
would be better off enjoying their freedom beyond American borders and that their
departure would be beneficial for everyone. African Americans were, in most cases,
against colonization. Although some of them held the view of their own departure as a
relief compared to living in a country where they felt unwanted, many realized the
direct consequences which the African colonization would have upon them, claiming
that their home was in America and struggling to reach their emancipation in their home
country. Simplified as it sounds, this tracks the general tendencies of the white and
African American citizens‘ approach towards the colonization.
The idea of the departure of Americans of African ancestry was developing
from as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century. Despite many African
Americans‘ desire to leave America and return to the land of their ancestors, it were
white politicians with whom the notion originated (Asante 109). The concept, known as
the Back-to-Africa movement, foreshadowed the 1816 establishment of the American
Colonization Society, which was based on the same idea and which was linked with
names such as Robert Finley, Henry Clay, John Randolph, or Bushrod Washington. The
70
intention of African Americans to leave America and move to Africa was mostly
caused by their dissatisfaction and hopeless prospects of their future provided that they
stayed in the country. Their disadvantageous treatment by white lawmakers had lasted
for so many years that many lost faith in improvement and preferred to move away. The
colonizationists soon started working on turning their concept into reality.
Even before the Constitution, America ratified codes unequivocally putting
African Americans at a disadvantage. The Encyclopedia of African America History
discusses a 1705 law in Virginia: ―the law prohibited blacks, slave or free, from
testifying against whites in court cases. […] The law also made it a crime, punishable
by thirty lashes, for a free black to ‗lift his or her hand, in opposition against any
Christian, not being negro, mulatto, or Indian‘‖ (Finkelman, Encyclopedia of African
American History, 1619-1895, Volume 2 151). It was not until a hundred years later that
the American Colonization Society emerged, however, the treatment of African
Americans based on unequal laws in the eighteenth century already triggered their
discontent in the country and consequent thoughts of leaving their place of residence for
the continent of their ancestors and put base for the Back-to-Africa concept.
There were many more regulations based on racial inequality which made
African Americans feel unwanted in their country and consider their own departure. A
1723 law in Virginia deepened the African American slaves‘ hopelessness: ―This […]
act specifically stated that no slave should be set free upon any pretense whatsoever
‗except for some meritorious services, to be adjudged and allowed by the governor and
council‘‖ (Brawley 25). The situation changed within 60 years. John H. Russell claims:
―The act of 1782 authorizing manumission by the will or other instrument of writing
remained in full force to the close of the Civil War‖ (Russell 82). However, following
adjustments and restrictions to this act, including one by which slaves who were
manumitted after the 1st of May, 1806 were expected to leave the state within twelve
months counting from their liberation (Russell 70), made the integration of freed slaves
in the society difficult.
Despite tendencies to ratify the abolition of slavery decades before its actual
implementation, African American slaves were forced to wait for their freedom until
the issuance of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1784,
Thomas Jefferson came up with the Land Ordinance, which suggested a complete
prohibition of slavery in all western territories after the year 1800 (Saunders 18).
Saunders claims that although it was not enacted, it, in a sense, made it more likely for
71
the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, banning the institution north of the Ohio river, to pass
(Saunders 18).
As for Jefferson‘s colonization views, Grant ―Sylvester‖ Walker refers to
Jefferson‘s 1777 plan of colonization. Walker claims:
This plan called for the gradual freeing of slaves and
colonization in such places as the circumstances of the
time should find most proper. He [Jefferson] felt that
colonization was the solution to the problems of slavery
and the free blacks. The United States would protect the
colony once it got started until the colonists would be able
to protect themselves‖ (G. S. Walker 9).
Jefferson later elaborated this plan in more detail in his Notes on the State of Virginia,
first published in 1781. In 1824, Jefferson returned to his ideas formulated more than
forty years ago (J. L. Golden, and A. L. Golden 430) with an emancipation plan and
suggested the following: ―[to] emancipate the ‗after-born,‘ [l]eave ‗them on due
compensation, with their mother, until their services are worth their maintenance‘; and
[p]ut ‗them to industrious occupations, until a proper age for deportation‘‖ (J. L.
Golden, and A. L. Golden 430). Jefferson‘s suggestion of the prohibition of slavery or
his emancipation ideas do not, however, mean that his approach towards the future of
freed slaves was not controversial.
On the contrary; his abolitionist efforts are in sharp contrast with his ownership
of slaves. His emancipation propositions seem to forfeit sincerity in the light of some of
his opinions, such as those claiming African Americans‘ inferiority to white people.
William Cohen explores these Jefferson‘s attitudes and refers to his 1784 proposition of
this racist view of his as well as its retention throughout the rest of his life (Cohen 507).
Moreover, Jefferson‘s critique of masters having granted freedom to their slaves,
including Edward Coles,6 Jefferson‘s political contemporary, who freed his slaves in
Illinois, contributes to the picture of Jefferson as a supporter of slavery.
Jefferson‘s contradictory attitude to the abolition of the institution is reinforced
by his approach towards the 1791-1804 anti-slavery and anti-colonially motivated
Haitian revolution. Jefferson sided with French planters as opposed to Haitian rebels
(Stam, and Shohat) and held distrust in the colored people‘s ability to govern the state.
6
Edward Coles (1786-1868) was the second Governor of Illinois from 1822-1826.
72
All in all, Jefferson himself, with his contradictory views of slavery, represents the
discrepancies within the abolitionist movement.
The 1807 Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves is another proof for tendencies
of many political authorities in early America to fight for the end of slavery. Gilbert W.
Fairholm explains the meaning of the act: ―[It] ended large-scale importations of slaves
into the United States. It ended, technically, American participation in what is arguably
the most immoral violation of human rights in America‘s history‖ (Fairholm 220).
During this era, acts supporting the actions of the ACS began emerging, too. The Slave
Trade Act introduced by Charles Fenton Mercer was issued in 1819 (Yarema 36): ―[it]
authorized the president to use the navy to return to Africa those rescued from the slave
trade in American waters‖ (Yarema 36).
In spite of the efforts to abolish slavery and political regulations and acts, such
as those discussed above, the truth is that many African Americans remained enslaved
and lost hope for freedom. Many acts issued during the nineteenth century, including
the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, contributed to their hopelessness. As a result, the
frustration of both enslaved and free African Americans rose; the former ones found
themselves in despair of their lamentable perspectives and the latter ones of their
treatment by political authorities in the country and unequal laws.
Unable to integrate within the Southern states, due to the restrictions and laws
based on racial inequality and their consequent discontent, free African Americans
started pondering about changing their location. Consequently, the United States
witnessed mass movement of these from the South to the North. However, African
Americans, not only running away from the most racist part of the country, but also
hoping to find employment and better life conditions, soon met with harsh reality.
Stanley Harrold refers to this problem in his American Abolitionists:
By the 1820s working-class whites, who competed
against blacks for jobs, were reacting against selfassertion within the North‘s urban African-American
communities. Anti-black riots became increasingly
common in northern cities. White working-class antipathy
to African Americans also produced attempts in northern
state legislatures to ban further black settlement (Harrold
51).
73
Harrold suggests that these events helped the colonizationists gain strength, as their
core argument was that there was no place for African Americans in the United States
(Harrold 51).
That the original inhabitants of Northern cities saw the newcomers as a threat
and competition in job opportunities made the former ones feel antipathy for the latter
ones; that these newcomers searching for work were of African American race,
however, contributed to hostility based on racial differences. Inevitably, this led to,
first, the tendency of some African Americans to want to leave the country and return to
Africa, where their roots were, as formulated in the Back-to-Africa movement, and
second, to many white people‘s negative approach towards them and their wish for
them to leave.
Apart from the complicated relationships with the original inhabitants of the
North, the incoming African Americans had to deal with a completely new
environment, which was markedly different from the Southern states to which they had
been used. Peter Kolchin, in his 1993 book American Slavery, 1619-1877, explores the
distinctiveness of the South compared to the North during the era of slavery (Kolchin
174-177). Even though the increased production and export in the antebellum Southern
states led to growing economy (Kolchin even mentions Robert W. Fogel‘s argument
from his Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery referring
to the South, when treated as a separate nation, as globally the fourth most prosperous
nation in the year 1860), the overall reality pointed to the antebellum South having
lagged behind the North in many respects, including education, literacy, railroad
construction, and, most notably, urbanization (Kolchin 174-177). The fact that the new
environment was distinct to such an extent from what the African American newcomers
had known contributed to their difficulties during the integration process.
The way in which the overall situation after their arrival up North developed
inevitably deepened the problem of racism as it was mentioned that the hatred was
directed at people of African American race. Even though the colonizationists claimed
that their aim was to help free African Americans, the idea of moving people of a
certain race due to an inability or reluctance to integrate them within the society points
to the fact that racism became the main force in attempts for removal of African
Americans out of the United States. It suggests itself to interpret it as the
colonizationists‘ unwillingness to live alongside African Americans. This approach is,
to some extent, mirrored in one of the biggest ambiguities of the abolitionist movement
74
discussed in this thesis; i.e. the efforts of the movement to end slavery, on the one hand,
but reluctance to accept that African Americans should have the same rights as white
people, on the other hand.
It was mentioned above that the idea of return to Africa had both its opponents
as well as supporters. Not all African Americans wanted to move away and not all
abolitionists supported the concept. Harrold refers to the possible reasons for its support
within the African American abolitionists: ―During the early 1800s, as their hope for
racial justice in America declined, black abolitionists found the prospects of migration
to a more hospitable land attractive‖ (Harrold 25). Later, he claims, referring to Philip J.
Staudenraus‘ words about the American Colonization Society: ―But by the late 1820s
the ACS had become the foil for those who desired a racially inclusive society in the
United States‖ (Harrold 25).
The comparison of these two quotes from Harrold‘s text indicates that there was
a disunity of interpretation of the ACS‘s concept as understood by its African American
and white supporters. While the former group understood it as the only possible
solution to a complex problem of the whole society and saw no other way of how to get
rid of unequal life conditions in the United States, the latter, based on their racist ideas,
used the opportunity to expel African Americans out of the country. On the other hand,
a great part of abolitionists and free African Americans regarded the ACS‘s
propositions as unacceptable, their primary argument being that America was their
home country, and therefore they did not see a reason for their leaving.
The idea of homeland and nationalism is therefore a recurrent motif in the
colonization opponents‘ texts and speeches, the concept being used in the sense of civic
nationalism, based on one‘s citizenship and place of residence, as opposed to ethnic
nationalism, defining the nation as a group of people having the same cultural heritage,
racial ancestry, language or traditions. The second interpretation of nationalism is
represented by the colonizationists demanding a racially homogeneous nation. As this
chapter shows, there is a fine line between the ethnic form of nationalism and racism.
The following lines will focus on the main motivations and most significant
arguments of both the opponents and advocates of the colonization concept. Moreover,
contradictory views of the concept as represented by white and African American
politicians and abolitionists, including Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Lundy, Frederick
Douglass, and David Walker will be discussed as well as William Lloyd Garrison‘s
influential book Thoughts on African Colonization.
75
5.2 African Colonization as Promotion of White Americans’ Interests
As the race topic played a significant part in the concept of African colonization,
it was approached in a distinct manner by people of different races. Although this does
not apply without exception, as will be demonstrated by Garrison‘s views, there was a
general tendency of white Americans to support the departure of African Americans,
whereas the colored citizens rejected the idea and considered it outrageous. An
explanation suggests itself that white people were not touched personally by the
situation proposed for people of African origin; it were not them who were expected to
leave the country. On the contrary, they were affected by the changing economic and
social order which the freeing of slaves and the movement of African American
population up North brought and, consequently, colonization represented a way of
dealing with this matter for them.
Many theories were introduced by advocates of African colonization in order to
make the concept attractive among the American population. In American Abolitionists,
Harrold points out: ―Others claimed scientific support for the thesis that God had
designed black, white, and other peoples for different climatic zones, so that racial
separation was the natural condition of mankind‖ (Harrold 52). Arguments such as this
one reinforce the irrationality of some of the colonizationists‘ propositions. The idea
observed by Harrold sounds absurd considering that African American slaves had lived
in the United States for decades and the climatic zone idea was never regarded as an
issue when they were enslaved. That the advocates of colonization were concerned with
it only after the liberation of slaves points to their selfish intentions.
The title of Benjamin Lundy‘s 1825 ―A Plan for Gradual Abolition of Slavery in
the United States, Without Danger or Loss to the Citizens of the South‖ indicates a
major concern of the author; even thought he advocates the end of slavery, his interests
lie within the well-being of the Southerners, who are about to lose their slaves by
abolition. Lundy proposes a plan by which planters would not experience an abrupt
change and, therefore, supports gradual emancipation, as opposed to immediate as some
of his contemporaries, including Garrison, do. Lundy argues:
It is conceived that any plan of emancipation, to be
effectual, must consult at once the pecuniary interests and
prevailing opinions of the southern planters, and bend
itself to the existing laws of the southern states. – In
76
consequence, it appears indispensable, that emancipation
be connected with colonization, and that it demand no
pecuniary sacrifice from existing slave-holders, and entail
no loss of property of their children (Lundy).
This proposition defends the interests of the slaveholders, which is ironic regarding the
aim of the abolitionist movement, which fights against slavery and exploitation of
slaves. By dealing with the planters‘ prosperity, it, in a sense, pushes the major problem
of slavery aside. This whole idea goes back to the main conflict within the abolitionist
movement; although the end of slavery is desirable, the future destiny of the slaves is
not taken extremely seriously.
Lundy seems to favor white people in this case. Even though he explains his
intention to make the changing situation bearable for both sides, his own words reveal
his efforts to secure bright future for the white population of America:
This plan, proposed in a spirit of equal good will to
master and slave, is intended to consult the interests of
both. To prepare the latter for liberty, before it is granted,
and in no case to grant liberty, but in accordance with the
laws of the state, by removal out of the state. – To
remove, by gradual and gentle means, a system fraught
with danger, as well as crime – To turn labor to account,
which is, in many places, worse than profitless, and every
where to heighten its value – To assimilate the industry of
the south to that of the north, and enable it to multiply its
productions, and improve all the rich advantages of
southern soil and climate – To open also the field of
industry to free white labor, now in a great measure
closed throughout a large portion of this magnificent
country (Lundy).
Lundy‘s words point to his deep concern with the economic well-being of the country.
Instead of dealing with the integration of the African American citizens into society, he
takes it for granted that the freed slaves should leave the borders of the United States.
Abraham Lincoln‘s ―Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men,
Washington, D.C.‖ from August 1862, in which the President expresses his support for
colonization, demonstrates that the general view of white political authorities of the
77
concept did not change radically within the nineteenth century. With the exception of
some, the displacement of African Americans was universally viewed by white
abolitionists as a reasonable solution to the changing economic situation within the
society. In his speech, Lincoln admits his awareness of the wrongs from which the
African Americans in the United States suffer and of the inequality which they have to
face. At the same time, however, he feels that the white race suffers from living side by
side with them. Separation, consequently, is regarded by him as the right thing to
promote.
Addressing the colored citizens, Lincoln argues:
You may believe you can live in Washington or
elsewhere in the United States the remainder of your life,
perhaps more so than you can in any foreign country, and
hence you may come to the conclusion that you have
nothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country.
This is […] and extremely selfish view of the case
(Lincoln).
In the context of the situation, this statement sounds rather absurd. While accusing
African Americans of selfishness and of enforcing their own well-being at the expense
of their white fellow citizens, he completely omits the fact that it is the other way
around. Douglass criticized Lincoln for favoring interests of white people (as discussed
in the second chapter) and the President‘s attitudes in this speech indicate what might
have been, among others, the reason for Douglass having gained such impression.
Instead of trying to solve the situation of inequality and working on making the life in
the United States of more quality for African American citizens, Lincoln suggests for
these to leave the country and explains that it would be better for both sides.
The President‘s text is another example of a white abolitionist‘s view of the
concept of colonization. Like Lundy, Lincoln, many years later, although condemning
the institution of slavery and devoting a great part of his career to its abolition,
promoted the departure of African Americans and did his best to secure the interests of
Americans of his race. This, too, reflects the major problem of the abolitionist
movement; the paradox caused by racial stereotypes and consequent discrepancy
between the end of slavery and the inability to deal with its consequences.
78
5.3 African Colonization as a Hindrance to African Americans’ Emancipation
African Americans approached the colonization idea from two points of view;
either they felt unhappy in America and believed that their departure would solve their
trouble with which they had to deal while being in a country in which they were
unwelcome by many, or they strongly opposed the idea claiming that their home was
where they were born and no one had the right to ask them to leave. The voice of the
latter group was much louder as they fought what they considered injustice directed
against their race. Harrold refers to an understanding of the intentions of the American
Colonization Society, shared by many colored Americans:
[…]
because
the
ACS‘s
efforts
coincided
with
movements in the states of the upper South to expel free
African Americans, there was considerable fear within the
black community that the organization‘s real aim was to
strengthen slavery through the forceful removal of all
black people from America (Harrold 26).
The ACS‘s alleged way of trying to reach the goal described above will be closely
discussed in a subchapter focusing on Garrison‘s Thoughts on African Colonization.
However, the quote opens up the idea that apart from their unwillingness to leave the
borders of their home country, African Americans worried about their forced departure
presenting a threat to the possible abolition of slavery and were afraid that without them
in the United States, the situation of people of their race would not improve and their
emancipation would never take place.
David Walker‘s radical pamphlet Appeal, published thirteen years after the
establishment of the American Colonization Society, is one of many texts strongly
rejecting the colonization idea. It represents early voices directed against the ACS.
Walker is positive that the true intention of the colonizationists is to a great
disadvantage of the citizens of his race. He understands the concept as aimed at the
removal of free African Americans in order for them not to stay in touch with those still
enslaved. The latter ones would not have the possibility to affect the former ones and,
consequently, to guide them out of their ignorance typical for the life in bondage.
Walker states: ―For if the free are allowed to stay among the slaves, they will have
intercourse together, and, of course, the free will learn the slaves bad habits, by
79
teaching them that they are MEN, as well as other people, and certainly ought, and must
be FREE‖ (D. Walker 48).
Walker points to the colonizationists‘ fear of losing influence over slaves and
the consequent possible danger of slave revolts. He suggests that masters want the
slaves to be obedient and not to know anything about the life they might experience
outside slavery. Walker, himself an advocate of violence in cases in which the end
justifies the means, which, in his eyes, the fight for the end of slavery is, certainly does
not oppose such a slave revolt and therefore, undoubtedly, opposes the idea of
colonization among other reasons also for the unwillingness of losing the influence over
enslaved African Americans. Moreover, viewing the colonizationists as enemies of the
abolition of slavery, he did not support them for he himself was an ardent opponent of
the institution of slavery.
Walker employs a motive frequently used in anti-colonizationists‘ texts – the
significance of home as a place where one was born and grew up and the irrationality of
the idea of leaving this home and returning to a place to which one has no direct
connections:
Will any of us leave our homes and go to Africa? I hope
not. Let them commence their attack upon us as they did
on our brethren in Ohio, driving and beating us from our
country, and my soul for theirs, they will have enough of
it. Let no man of us budge one step, and let slave-holders
come to beat us from our country. America is more our
country, than it is the whites – we have enriched it with
our blood and tears. The greatest riches in all America
have arisen from our blood and tears: - and will they drive
us from our property and homes, which we have earned
with our blood? (D. Walker 64).
In this citation, Walker reveals his nationalistic attitude to the matter; his conviction that
the African Americans‘ home is in America and departure over its borders is therefore
not an option for them is emphasized here. The nationalistic views employed in the
quoted passage refer to the civic nationalism concept, one based primarily on
citizenship.
Chris Apap, in his critical essay ―‗Let No Man of Us Budge One Step‘: David
Walker and the Rhetoric of African American Emplacement,‖ points to one of the
80
rhetorical heights of the text when Walker by repeating and varying the word ―our‖ nine
times in the quote stresses African American possession of the United States (Apap
333). Walker reveals his strong dedication to the cause and by emphasizing the words
blood and tears refers to violence which might be necessary to employ for the people of
his race to defend against their oppressors and colonizationists.
Frederick Douglass‘ article ―Colonization,‖ published in The North Star,
provides another dissenting stand on the concept of colonization. In the text, which
appeared one year before the Fugitive Slave Act, which means at a time when the
slaves‘ conditions were becoming more strict and hopeless, and the whole prospects of
those in bondage were far from promising, Douglass introduces his resolute
disagreement with the departure of African Americans. Determined, he claims:
We are of the opinion that the free colored people
generally mean to live in America, and not in Africa; and
to appropriate a large sum for our removal, would merely
be a waste of the public money. We do not mean to go to
Liberia. Our minds are made up to live here if we can, or
die here if we must; so every attempt to remove us will
be, as it ought to be, labor lost. Here we are, and here we
shall remain. While our brethren are in bondage on these
shores, it is idle to think of inducing any considerable
number of the free colored people to quit this for a
foreign land (Douglass, ―Colonization‖).
Douglass approaches the matter with a similar sense of determination as Walker; being
an African American himself, he feels the injustice of the ACS‘s proposition more
personally than most of his white abolitionist contemporaries.
Douglass points to the expenses that the colonization would require again
almost fifty years later in ―The Folly of Colonization.‖ He finds comfort in the financial
hardship it would take as he believes that the concept would not become reality due to
it. Douglass argues that the costs for the transport of one half of African Americans to
Africa would be higher than those for the war. One of the strongest arguments of his
text is the above discussed sense of one‘s home as an ultimate reason for the folly of
colonization. He is positive about the true home of one being in the country of one‘s
birth and not in the land from where one‘s ancestors came. In the same nationalist tone,
he claims: ―They tell us that we owe something to our native land. This sounds well.
81
But when the fact is brought to view, which should never be forgotten, that a man can
only have one native land and that is the land in which he is born, the bottom falls
entirely out of this sentimental argument‖ (Douglass, ―The Folly of Colonization‖).
Later in the text, Douglass insists:
Every man who thinks at all, must know that home is the
fountain head, the inspiration, the foundation and main
support, not only of all social virtue but of all motives to
human progress, and that no people can prosper, or
amount to much, unless they have a home, or the hope of
a home. A man who has not such an object, either in
possession or in prospect is a nobody and will never be
anything else. To have a home, the Negro must have a
country, and he is an enemy to the moral progress to the
Negro, whether he knows it or not, who calls upon him to
break up his home in this country, for an uncertain home
in Africa (Douglass, ―The Folly of Colonization‖).
Douglass stresses the danger of losing one‘s home and the negative way of how it
affects one‘s inner growth. Consequently, the African Americans as a group are put in
harm‘s way by the colonization and their future emancipation is jeopardized. Douglass
employs the idea of nationalism and, similarly to Walker, focuses on its civic version.
The concept of home is discussed as a physical place first of all, which, inevitably,
becomes a metaphor for one‘s mental understanding of one‘s place of belonging.
In The Nation in History, Anthony D. Smith points to Hans Kohn‘s typology of
nationalism, introducing voluntaristic and organic versions (A. D. Smith 6). Whereas
according to the former, the individual can decide to which nation they belong, the
latter ascribes nationality to a person based on the nation into which they were born (A.
D. Smith 6). Smith explains: ―Migrate where he or she may, the individual always
retains his or her nationality of birth‖ (A. D. Smith 6). The latter theory supports
Walker‘s or Douglass‘ idea of the impossibility of giving up America as their
homeland. Even if African Americans move to Africa, voluntarily or through coercion,
they will remain Americans provided they were born on the American soil. The
voluntaristic type, on the contrary, lets one decide of which nationality one is (A. D.
Smith 6).
82
This theory, thus, also backs up the opponents of African colonization in their
conviction of the colored citizens‘ possession of the right to remain American citizens.
The cited passages by Douglass and Walker provide interpretation by both the organic
and voluntaristic type of nationalism, which are contrasting at first sight. This is
mirrored in Smith‘s argument that there exists no clear division between types of
nationalistic theories; that there is not a wholly ethnic or territorial (referred to as civic
in Smith‘s text) model. Smith claims: ―No Nation, no nationalism, can be seen as purely
the one or the other, even if at certain moments one or other of these elements
predominates in the ensemble of components of national identity‖ (A. D. Smith 25).
Smith later demonstrates this tendency by pointing out a general trend of ethnic
nationalism (carrying many aspects of primordialism, as defined by Smith) recession in
favor of the civic type and, at the same time, admitting the existence of an intermediate
stage between these two and gives examples of Italy, France or Germany to back his
argument up (A. D. Smith 19-20). His words are very current in today‘s Europe as
many countries which, in principle, adhere to values of civic nationalism fight growing
xenophobic tendencies, linked to the ethnic nationalism model.
To get back to Douglass‘ text, his voice changes, compared to the former one;
after an almost century long activity of the American Colonization Society with no
implementation of their ideas in practice, Douglass is confident about the failure of the
concept. He, however, confirms the general negative approach of African American
free citizens towards colonization and his absolute conviction of the irrationality and
absurdity of the concept.
Throughout the whole nineteenth century, African Americans mostly rejected
the idea of colonization as they fully realized the destructive outcome it would bring to
them. Apart from their reluctance to leave their home country, they were afraid of the
effects which the American Colonization Society would have upon the future of African
Americans. The suspicion that the ACS did not aim at the abolition of slavery but rather
on a radical solution opposing the racial integration matter, made many fear the loss of
hope for the end of slavery as well as for the future emancipation of African Americans.
5.4 William Lloyd Garrison’s Criticism of African Colonization and of the
American Colonization Society
William Lloyd Garrison belongs among the other group of white abolitionists
mentioned in this chapter; he was one of those who strongly opposed African
83
colonization and the activities of the American Colonization Society. With his opinions,
he held views more typical for African Americans, who were personally concerned with
the matter. Considering his collaboration with African American abolitionists, his
support of their attitudes in this sphere is not surprising. In 1832, at a time when the
ACS had already gained considerable influence upon American citizens, Garrison
gathered his ideas about the colonization in a publication called Thoughts on African
Colonization.
Typically for his texts and speeches, Garrison‘s tone in the book is radical and
unyielding. Garrison, who devoted his career to the abolition of slavery and was one of
the most prominent leaders of the anti-slavery movement, criticizes the ACS mostly for
its lack of abolitionist motivation and suspects it of the effort to keep the institution.
Slavery was an economically motivated institution from its very beginning. Its financial
benefits for the slaveholders provide an explanation for their reluctance to end the
institution. Economy of the country was interwoven with slavery very closely and was
relevant to it throughout its history. Peter Kolchin provides a wholly economic
perspective of slavery when he explores the similarities and difference of the
antebellum North and South in American Slavery, 1619-1877. Pointing out the marketoriented nature of agriculture in the South, he emphasizes the commercial orientation of
slavery in the Southern states (Kolchin 171-172). Referring to other historians before
him, Kolchin mentions the idea of Southern slaveholders having been a variant of
Northern industrialists and capitalists (Kolchin 172).
Garrison, himself an advocate of immediate abolitionism as the only way of
ending slavery, decidedly rejects the idea of gradual abolition proposed by
colonizationists. His arguments are unequivocal; according to him, the cruelty and
oppression of slavery do not allow for any other solution but a complete and immediate
termination of the institution. In addition to that, a gradual process is, in his eyes, an
impracticable one. Garrison explains his understanding of immediate abolitionism:
Immediate abolitionism does not mean that the slaves
shall immediately exercise the right of suffrage, or be
eligible to any office, or be emancipated from law, or be
free from the benevolent restraints of guardianship. We
content for the immediate personal freedom of the slaves,
for their exemption from punishment except where law
has been violated, for their employment and reward as
84
free laborers, for their exclusive right to their own bodies
and those of their own children, for their instruction and
subsequent admission to all the trusts, offices, honors and
emoluments of intelligent freemen (Garrison, Thoughts
on African Colonization 53).
These words demonstrate the urgency with which Garrison approaches the problem of
slaves‘ freedom. His text emphasizes the significance of a complete emancipation of
colored people within the American society. In this sense, Garrison‘s views of African
American emancipation resemble those of many African American leaders, including
Douglass. Similarly to these, he is engaged, apart from the abolition of slavery and the
African colonization matter, in the integration bringing equality for the African
American race.
With his strong anti-segregation opinions, Garrison belonged among a few
white abolitionists who fought racial segregation. By having done so, he opposed many
influential political authorities, including Booker T. Washington. Fenwick W. English
demonstrates Garrison‘s opposition to racial segregation by pointing out his support of
a boycott of schools in Boston as they were segregated (English 104). Activities such as
this one disprove frequent allegations claiming that Garrison held racist opinions.
Moreover, Garrison is critical towards the gradual approach of colonizationists
because it does not in actual fact aim at the ultimate emancipation of slaves. One of his
major arguments, linked to this attitude of his towards the ACS, is that its adherents do
not oppose slavery. Garrison points to the colonizationists‘ excuses for slaveholders. To
show the absurdity of this, he puts his own views in contrast to those which he is
opposing, such as:
‗Our brethren of the South, have the same sympathies, the
same moral sentiments, the same love of liberty as
ourselves. By them as by us, slavery is felt to be an evil,
as hindrance to our prosperity, and a blot upon our
character. But it was in being when they were born, and
has been forced upon them by a previous generation‘
(Garrison, Thoughts on African Colonization 41).
Garrison regards statements such as this one as incompatible with one‘s struggle for the
abolition of slavery. Standing up for the slaveholders‘ oppressive behavior by referring
85
to their ancestors is in contrast with the idea of immediate abolitionism and suggests the
reluctance to terminate slavery, which is unacceptable for Garrison.
Another topic which Garrison opens up in his Thoughts on African Colonization
is his understanding of the ACS as an institution driven by fear and selfishness. He
believes that what motivates colonizationists to want to move free people of color out to
Africa is their worry about the latter ones‘ influence over the slave population. He gives
evidence for this by quoting the ACS‘s view of free African Americans as a ―standing
perpetual incitement to discontent‖ (Garrison, Thoughts on African Colonization 67) to
the slave. Connected to this is the understanding that colonizationists intend to
systematically keep slaves in ignorance; this idea is present in Walker‘s ―Appeal,‖ too.
Garrison aims at disproving the ACS‘s efforts to make the citizens believe that its goal
is to civilize Africa and to meliorate the condition of free African Americans in the
United States.
To demonstrate this, Garrison introduces quotes by the ACS‘s supporters,
including: ―The existence of this race among us; a race that can neither share our
blessings nor incorporate in our society, is already felt to be a curse; and though the
only curse entailed on us, if left to take its course, it will become the greatest that could
befal the nation‖ (Garrison, Thoughts on African Colonization 69). That the author of
this quote claims the alleged inability of African Americans to integrate within the
society to be a simple fact without considering that it might be changed, suggests the
interpretation that instead of trying to help the colored citizens use their newly gained
freedom as efficiently as possible, colonizationists choose the easier way to deal with
the social change.
The American Colonization Society‘s insistence on colored people‘s
emancipation beyond the borders of the United States as the only possible way of their
emancipation is regarded as unreasonable by Garrison. The idea sounds like a
concealment of the truth which is too harsh to be expressed publicly; that ACS wishes
to remove African Americans because of its tendency for racial segregation and
unwillingness to deal with growing competition in the economic sphere. Garrison
criticizes the ACS for its aim of utter expulsion of the colored population, which
confirms his opposition to any form of oppression based on racial aspects. He employs
the motive of homeland, which was used by Walker and Douglass and discussed above:
The great mass of our colored population were born in
this country. This is their native soil; here they first saw
86
the light of heaven, and inhaled the breath of life; here
they have grown from infancy to manhood and old age;
from these shores they have never wandered; they are the
descendants of those who were forcibly torn from Africa
two centuries ago; their fathers assisted in breaking the
yoke of British oppression, and achieving that liberty
which we prize above all price; and they cherish the
strongest attachment to the land of their birth. Now, as
they could not have been born in two countries, and as
they were certainly born here, it follows that Africa is not
their native home, and, consequently, that the Society has
dealt in romance, or something more culpable, in
representing them as strangers and aliens (Garrison,
Thoughts on African Colonization 82).
Garrison describes one‘s relationship to one‘s home country in a very emotional manner
in order to stress the attachment which one develops towards a location during their
lifetime. Despite their ancestors‘ African origin, Garrison has no doubt that the home of
African Americans is in America exclusively. Therefore, he refuses the idea of their
expulsion from American society. From Garrison‘s point of view, the ACS denies the
free African Americans‘ right to live freely and happily in the United States. He
emphasizes the illogical way of thinking of the colonizationists by ironically claiming
that white people have no right to stay in America because they themselves have once
immigrated in the country (Garrison, Thoughts on African Colonization 85).
In the book, Garrison introduces another quote by the advocates of the ACS:
―[…] in Africa alone can they [colored people] enjoy that complete emancipation from
a degrading inequality, which in a greater or less degree pervades the United States, if
not in the laws, in the whole frame and structure of society […]‖ (Garrison, Thoughts
on African Colonization 94). These lines seem to be claimed by the ACS in order to
make its plan appear philanthropic instead of selfish. However, what the society admits
is that the matter, including racism, is a problem of the whole society. Indirectly, it also
acknowledges that it is incapable of fighting the problem. Garrison and other opponents
of African colonization wish to, on the contrary, work towards the emancipation of
liberated slaves in America as that is their home and staying there would, therefore,
make the process of emancipation more successful.
87
5.5 No Unitary Stand on the Future of Liberated African Americans
The African colonization idea gained great significance within the politics of
nineteenth century America. The texts discussed in this chapter, as writings published in
the course of the whole nineteenth century and containing recurring ideas and
arguments, capture the general tendencies of both white and African American leaders.
African Americans who were not advocates of the Back-to-Africa movement
emphasized the concept of homeland in the sense of first territorial and then civic
nationalism and refused to leave America. White colonizationists, in most cases,
proposed their departure.
Contrasting views of different groups of abolitionists of the matter contributed
to major disputes within the movement. White colonizationists were frequently
criticized for promoting the African colonization out of selfish reasons and their
inability to deal with changing economic and social changes. Moreover, advocates of
the ACS were accused, by Garrison, among others, of not fighting the institution of
slavery and trying to keep it because of the advantages it brought to Southern planters.
Garrison counts as an example of the fact that even though African colonization did not
belong among the main concerns of many white abolitionists, there were still those who
managed to promote their ideas on this topic all the more persuasively. Garrison‘s antisegregation attitudes certainly contributed to his opposition to the removal of African
Americans from the United States.
The plans of white colonizationists were foreshadowed as early as in the second
half of the eighteenth century, when many legal acts and ratifications by white
politicians, referring to the unwillingness to live alongside African Americans,
emerged. The matter is inseparable from one of the major problems of American
society; that of racism. Racial issues, also mirrored in the tensions within the
abolitionist movement, belonged, interpreted differently, among the strongest forces of
both supporters of colonization and its opponents. Apart from the racial issue, economic
reasons made many reluctant to fight for the abolition of slavery. Southern planters, for
whom slaves were crucial for production and consequent prosperity, disliked the idea of
freeing slaves as well as having free African Americans living close to their slaves.
Allan E. Yarema sums the reasons for the failure of the colonization idea up as the
expenses for resettling and transporting immigrants, the unwillingness of African
Americans to leave the United States, the general view of the ACS as lowering the
88
status of free African Americans, or the Southerners‘ opposition to the idea due to
economic reasons (Yarema 72-73).
89
6. Black Nationalism: African Americans’ Fight for Self-Determination and
Emancipation in an Oppressive and Racist Society
6.1 After 1865: Did the Official Abolition of Slavery Bring a Change to the U.S.
Society?
The years following the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution proved that, apart from an official abolition of slavery, the situation in
America did not change in a radical way. In a country, where generations of people got
used to a certain social stratification and economic patterns, citizens were not ready or
willing to adjust their way of thinking to a new state of affairs. Former slaves quickly
learned that the way from their liberation to a real emancipation would be protracted
and full of hardship.
Since the position of those experiencing newly gained freedom did not change
overnight, the efforts of the abolitionists did not cease either. The point of interest only
moved slightly according to the new order of things. Political activists focused their
attention on emancipation and civil rights of the oppressed instead of trying to
guarantee physical liberation of slaves. Frederick Douglass, whose involvement in
politics continued after 1865, counts as an example of activists struggling for African
American emancipation even when the institution of slavery was no longer in existence.
The chapter on African Colonization discussed the tendency of many African
Americans from the South to move North hoping to get away from everyday racism in
the Southern states. Instead of finding ease, they often encountered even stronger
opposition. The post-war years evolved in a similar manner. Peter Kolchin sums the
years after the abolition of slavery up with the following words:
The post-emancipation world brought significant changes
to the lives of the freedpeople – as well as to the society
at large – but it also brought continued hardship,
exploitation, and oppression. As a result, within a
generation, hope largely gave way to disappointment, and
enthusiasm yielded to sullen resentment and sometimes to
despair (Kolchin 200-201).
The reality was completely different from what African Americans optimistically hoped
for and it was clear based on the current state of affairs how the situation would develop
in the following years. Instead of excitement and emancipation which were expected to
90
follow the Thirteenth Amendment, America witnessed disillusion. Not only legal and
social discrimination but also racially motivated assaults, frequently ending up with
lynching, became an everyday reality.
Dean E. Robinson elaborates on the discriminatory tendency of America at that
time by naming restrictions, such as prohibition of African Americans in the South to
assemble for self-help or political purposes or denied opportunities for them to work in
particular trades (Robinson 11). In the North, Robinson argues, African Americans
faced similar obstacles; for instance, most of them could not vote (Robinson 11). In
1896, the separate but equal policy was established the legality under Plessy vs.
Ferguson by the Supreme Court decision (González 294). According to the
Encyclopedia of Bilingual Education, ―this policy gave impetus to segregation,
discrimination, and separate educational services for African Americans and language
minority communities‖ (Ochoa 294). The existence of doctrines such as separate but
equal made it even more difficult for African Americans to fight their miserable
conditions because once something was recognized legal, it was very hard to change it.
The establishment of Jim Crow laws in the 1870s confirmed the racist nature of
the United States legislation. Encyclopedia of African American History provides the
following definition: ―Jim Crow laws were state laws and local ordinances enacted
primarily in the South from 1876 to 1960 that sought to segregate – that is, separate –
the races and to deny African Americans their civil rights‖ (Carney, and Finkelman 27).
Facing these laws, African Americans struggled on their way to emancipation and,
moreover, experienced violent attacks from extremist movements, which added
physical oppression to the legal, economic and social discrimination.
The Ku Klux Klan belongs among the major representatives of such
associations. Established in 1866, it is regarded as the most enduring and notorious
racial hate group in the history of America (Lay 123). Kolchin, however, stresses the
devastating effect which other terroristic groups, including the Red Shirts or the
Knights of the White Camelia, had upon the South (Kolchin 234).
The fact that the above mentioned laws and events took place right after the
abolition of slavery and basically did not meant anything else than a smooth transition
from an era of an official existence of the institution of slavery to a less official but all
the more violent era of segregation and racial discrimination, left many abolitionists and
activists involved in the fight for emancipation with a drive to continue their efforts.
Racial issues in the United States did not end with the Thirteenth Amendment and the
91
post-war era as well as the whole twentieth century proved that the racial problem was
rooted deep in the American society. The following chapters will show that the impact
of the unjust treatment of the African Americans during slavery years did not go away
with the events of 1865 but, on the contrary, grew stronger with the ongoing injustices
and turned out to be crucial for the Black nationalism concept.
6.2 The Black Nationalism Concept and Its Advocates
The Black nationalism concept was present in the United States almost from the
country‘s beginnings till its modern times. Wilson J. Moses introduces a chronology of
the movement, starting with the protonationalistic phase dating back to the 1700s and
ending with its recrudescence in the 1960s (Moses 6). Between the years 1850 and
1925, Moses claims, the fullest expression of classical Black nationalism took place
(Moses 2). A possible definition of the concept is: ―[an] effort of African Americans to
create a sovereign nation-state and formulate an ideological basis for a concept of a
national culture‖ (Moses 2). For the purpose of demonstrating the connection of the rise
of Black nationalism in America‘s history with the dissatisfaction and frustration of
African Americans caused by injustices and harms committed on them during slavery
and the post-slavery era, focus will be given to Black nationalism of the second half of
the nineteenth century and early twentieth century.
The most significant ideas of the concept are best displayed analyzing the work
of some of its leading advocates. Martin R. Delany (1812-1885), a prominent writer,
journalist, and political activist as well as physician, elaborates on the problem of
inequality based on racial differences in his The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, and
Destiny of the Colored People of the United States (1852). Claiming that the colored
people are subject to all species of degradation, Delany stressed inequality of political
and natural rights in the country. Not being exclusively involved in the case of slaves
like many of his contemporary abolitionists, he emphasizes the miserable condition of
free African Americans. Freemen in the non-slaveholding states, according to Delany,
are politically, civilly, or religiously on the same level as bondmen in the slave states.
These opinions, shared by many Black nationalism supporters, explain their
attitude towards the country‘s treatment of colored people. They view their race as
oppressed and want to deal with the inequality. Delany argues:
He (the bondman) is denied all civil, religious, and social
privileges, except such as he gets by mere sufferance, and
92
so are we. They have no part not lot in the government of
the country, neither have we. They are ruled and
governed without representation, existing as mere
nonentities among the citizens, and excrescences on the
body politic – a mere drag in community, and so are we
(Delany).
This quote reveals Delany‘s Black nationalistic voice as compared to an abolitionist
one. He is not merely concerned with the condition of slaves, but, suggesting that their
position is the same as that of the colored freemen, he does not consider slaves a group
of people any more miserable than free people of his race. Regardless of their status,
African Americans are all approached equally in Delany‘s text. They are not seen as
either slaves or freemen but as members of one nation and their connecting element is
their race. This is crucial for the concept of Black nationalism as it stresses the
importance of the sense of belonging based on one‘s race and gathers African
Americans into a separate nation, which stands against those mistreating them.
Delany stresses the need of remedy for African Americans as they have
belonged to the oppressed citizens in the United States. The elevation that is
emphasized should, however, according to Delany, be a result of self-effort. In other
words, he encourages the colored citizens to stand up to their oppressors and he opens
up the idea of self-determination as the only means. Delany introduces his perspective
upon the history of degradation of the African American race in the United States and
explains that due to systematic and long-term activities of white Americans,
degradation is encoded within the society. He states:
The degradation of the slave parent has been entailed
upon the child, induced by the subtle policy of the
oppressor, in regular succession handed down from father
to son – a system of regular submission and servitude,
menialism and dependence, until it has become almost a
physiological function of our system, an actual condition
of our nature (Delany).
One of Delany‘s major topics is emigration. He deals with it also in his fiction
Blake; or the Huts of America. The matter is approached in a more theoretical voice in
The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, and Destiny of the Colored People of the United
States. Delany suggests that emigration is necessary for the colored citizens of the
93
United States and represents the only way of how to extricate them from the state of
degradation. It involves, however, a complicated issue of finding the right destination.
Delany dismisses Liberia as a country weighted down by too much dependency and
analyses other places to which African Americans might emigrate. Since he regards the
American continent as the most convenient for his race and since the United States are
already excluded from his possible choice, Canada suggests itself to be a proper country
for this purpose. Despite Delany‘s objections to Canada‘s tendency to Americanism, he
encourages the oppressed African Americans to travel and remain there. However,
Central and South America and the West Indies, are, according to Delany, the ultimate
destination for the colored race. Both its climatic advantages and prosperity of their soil
is appreciated in his text. What is also emphasized is the absence of inequality based on
race and of prohibition of rights to anyone there.
The elevation of the African American race, as a central topic of the fighters
against racial oppression, was dealt with in the work of most of them. Marcus Garvey
(1887-1940), who was born in Jamaica and belonged among the leading political
figures concerned with the status of African Americans, was one of these. As an
influential activist, he established the Universal Negro Improvement Association
(UNIA) in August of 1914 in his home country. Encyclopedia of African American
Popular Culture introduces the aim of this association as the following: ―economic and
political independence and social justice for people of African ancestry‖ (Davis 1432).
Later, the association had an impact on many people involved in Black nationalism
(Davis 1432), which affirms the significance of Garvey‘s effect upon the movement.
A compilation of Garvey‘s ideas called The Philosophy and Opinion of Marcus
Garvey; Or, Africa for the Africans, introduces one of the major topics of Black
nationalism - the importance of the African American race to unite and to defy their
oppression. Garvey claims:
What will become of the Negro in another five hundred
years if he does not organize now to develop and to
protect himself? The answer is that he will be
exterminated for the purpose of making room for the
other races that will be strong enough to hold their own
against the opposition of all and sundry (Garvey 66).
According to Garvey, the most dangerous member of the society is a person of African
origin who benefits by the help of philanthropists. What the author seems to fear is that
94
one might settle for a relatively contented life (in contrast to lives of those fighting their
oppression), which, however, would be granted by the white majority society expecting
allegiance in return. Consequently, Garvey argues, this person might not be fully
dedicated to the cause of emancipation. Garvey, as a typical Black nationalism leader,
decidedly encourages every colored individual to fight for their emancipation.
A similar imperative voice is to be found in the work of Henry Highland Garnet
(1815-1882). The president of the African Civilization Society connected the fate of
Africans both outside of and within the United States and claimed that the responsibility
of oppressed people was to liberate themselves (Konadu 131). Another significant
Black nationalist, Henry McNeal Turner (1834-1915), known as a politician and the
bishop of the African Methodist Episcopal Church was a prominent proponent of
African American emancipation. Encyclopedia of Black Studies states: ―[Turner]
advocated the view that God was black, and extended his message of black pride in
Africa‖ (Konadu 131). Similarly to most of the members of influential movements in
history, the Black nationalists started their own newspaper in order to propose their
ideas and opinions. The Weekly Anglo-African, published by Robert Hamilton,
introduced contributions by Garnet and other significant names in the movement.
A different approach to the same topics discussed by his contemporaries is
provided by Booker T. Washington (1856-1915). Having continued the tradition of
African American emancipation movement in the United States, Washington looked
back to the past and gave reasons for the current state of affairs. Using this strategy, he
elaborates on many ideas crucial for the Black nationalism concept in his famous book
Up From Slavery: An Autobiography. Washington is concerned with the history of
slave education, which eventually influenced the future of the African Americans in the
country. Referring to the Reconstruction period (which he describes as an era from
1867 to 1878), Washington suggests that America found many African Americans
without proper education, or with no education at all. This, the author asserts, was a
natural consequence of their life in bondage and ―heathenism,‖ as Washington calls it
(Washington). By ―heathenism,‖ he seems to have in mind, rather than its proper
religious meaning in the biblical sense, simply a life without education and one in the
shadow of ignorance and a belief in myths instead of an accepted religious doctrine.
The government is seen as a failure for not having provided general education to former
slaves in the period after the official abolition of slavery (Washington).
95
Washington points out a significant problem of many people of his race during
the post-war era - the lack of education as a consequence of their enslavement.
Washington‘s text shows that the emancipation advocated by Black nationalist leaders
needed to start from scratch in order to be successful. It was impossible for it to happen
in an instant, without changes within the whole American society. However,
Washington‘s arguments might be interpreted as an idea that not only white Americans
need to transform their way of thinking but also former slaves need to take time to get
rid of the effects of their life in bondage in order for them to succeed in the American
society.
In Up From Slavery, Washington claims that the ignorance of African
Americans was misused in the rivalry between the North and the South, without having
thought further about the consequences it would have upon the race.
[…] the ignorance of my race was being used as a tool
with which to help white men into office, and there was
an element in the North which wanted to punish the
Southern white men by forcing the Negro into positions
over the heads of the Southern whites. I felt that the
Negro would be the one to suffer for this in the end
(Washington).
Despite his admission of the fact that this did not apply without exceptions and that
there were many African American authorities fit for their positions, Washington
indicates that some on the important posts were illiterate (Washington). The author
views slavery as a sin that needs to be paid for and asserts that the only solution to the
racism problem is an implementation of a law applicable to both races completely alike
(Washington).
In 1897, the American Negro Academy (ANA) was established in Washington,
D.C. (it ceased to exist in 1924) (Moore 84-85). Its founder, Alexander Crummell
(1819-1898), was an Episcopal priest (Moore 84). Moore sums the ANA‘s program up
with the following words: ―[its] mission was to defend Africans against vicious
assaults, foster higher education, publish scholarly works, and help cultivate intellectual
taste by promoting original literature, art, and science‖ (Moore 85).
Crummell‘s dedication to the cause of African Americans‘ emancipation
inspired many later Black nationalist and Pan-Africanist leaders; W. E. B. Du Bois‘
essay ―Of Alexander Crummell,‖ included in his iconic The Souls of Black Folk (1903)
96
serves as an example of Crummell‘s influence. In the poetically written text, Du Bois
mediates his version of Crummell‘s efforts for reaching the emancipation of the African
American race. The essay‘s figurative language and treatment of universal human
feelings, such as hate and doubt, make it an analogy on the struggle for freedom in
general. In this sense, it can be applied to a great number of Black nationalists and
abolitionists as well as all emancipation advocates.
Du Bois stresses his protagonist‘s dedication to his cause as well as his
intransigence. He demonstrates these attributes by a story in which bishop Onderdonk,
who agrees to receive Crummell in his diocese, bases the admission on the condition
that no African American priest will sit in the church convention and no African
American church will ask for representation there. Crummell‘s determined refusal of
such conditions proves his resolution. This passage is one of many metaphors in the
essay; it refers to the Black nationalists‘ insistence on African Americans‘ emancipation
and their rather radical approach to the cause; without a complete emancipation, they do
not consider their goal fulfilled.
In the essay, Du Bois writes:
Out of the temptation of Hate, and burned by the fire of
Despair, triumphant over Doubt, and steeled by Sacrifice
against Humiliation, he turned at last home across the
waters, humble and strong, gentle and determined. He
bent to all the gibes and prejudices, to all hatred and
discrimination, with that rare courtesy which is the armor
of pure souls. He fought among his own, the low, the
grasping,
and
the
wicked,
with
that
unbending
righteousness which is the sword of the just (Du Bois).
This passage puts emphasis on justice; it suggests that the ultimate argument of fighters
for African American emancipation is the unalienable right for liberty. Apart from this,
the importance of persistence and belief in the meaning of one‘s struggle is showed in
the quote.
6.3 The Influence of White Racism and Oppression of African Americans upon the
Emergence of Black Nationalism
It was suggested in the preceding chapters that the emergence of Black
nationalism was interconnected with the political and social situation in the era
97
following the abolition of slavery. Kolchin argues: ―Never before having fought a civil
war or turned a slave into a free-labor society, Americans vigorously debated how to
proceed‖ (Kolchin 209). Although the post-war era was a new situation for everyone,
there is no excuse for the unequal treatment of African Americans. In fact, as it was
already discussed in this thesis, it were not only freed slaves who faced oppression, but
all African Americans. What follows is that the hatred of and violence against them was
racially motivated. Combined with hopeless expectations caused by unjust legislation
favoring white citizens, African Americans got into a state of frustration and many
ended up determined to emancipate their race completely.
The racially motivated oppression, from which movements such as Back-toAfrica, Pan-Africanism, or Black nationalism emerged, goes back to the era of slavery.
It was during slavery that the oppression culminated as a result of official laws having
permitted possession of one person by another one. The preceding chapters discussed
the conflicts within the abolitionist movement and demonstrated that the problem of
racism was a frequent phenomenon in relationships among abolitionists. It is, therefore,
not surprising that many African American abolitionists gradually included the fight for
racial equality in their activities. The more radical ones of these, together with other
fighters for African American emancipation, went even further and started proposing
Black nationalism.
Wilson J. Moses calls the nineteenth-century Black nationalism ―racial
nationalism,‖ based on the assumption that one‘s race could ascribe national identity to
one (Moses 5). Although ―racial nationalism‖ in this sense is very close to Anthony
Smith‘s ―ethnic nationalism,‖ there is a slight distinction between these two forms of
the concept. Instead of cultural history and values, or language, Black nationalists
emphasize race exclusively as a deciding factor of belonging to a nation. This
presumption suggests a new form of nationalism, apart from civic nationalism and
ethnic nationalism, or at least a new form of ethnic nationalism. However, the idea of
Black nationalism itself, originally primarily fighting white racism, can turn into an
ideology based on exclusiveness. In other words, Black nationalism, in its extreme
form, advocating that people of African ancestry should be proud of their race and soul
and should not integrate within white society, itself indicates racism; black racism in
this case.
At first sight, the Black nationalism concept resembles the idea of African
colonization or Back-to-Africa movement in certain traits. In all of these movements,
98
their advocates propose emigration outside of the United States. There are differences,
however. Black nationalism, in contrast to the Back-to-Africa movement or African
colonization, was not a plan developed with the intention to deal with insufferable
conditions for African Americans or as an excuse for racist tendencies of some of the
white Americans, but a plan, which, although having stemmed from the difficult
situation in the country, emphasized sovereignty of the African American race and its
independent government.
Moreover, the chapter on African Colonization showed that advocates of the
African Colonization Society were mostly white Americans and that African Americans
were often against it. Black nationalism was, on the contrary, proposed almost
exclusively by colored people. This did not guarantee its support by all African
American leaders, though. Moses asserts that Frederick Douglass was convinced that
the African Civilization Society was a front for the other African Colonization Society
(Moses 27). Since Black nationalism presents a rather extreme solution to the problem
of racism and oppression and due to its radicalism it was far from being supported by
all African Americans.
6.4 Later Era of Black Nationalism and Black Racism
With the focus of this chapter on the connection between racism and oppression
during slavery and the post-war era and the establishment of the Black nationalism
concept, attention was paid to the early phase of the movement. It was in the twentieth
century that Black nationalism grew significantly popular in the United States and some
of its more modern leaders and movements emerged.
The black Muslim movement, often described as violent and radical, gained
power during the black Nationalism era. Its most well-known and discussed branch, the
Nation of Islam, included members such as Malcolm X or a professional boxer Cassius
Clay, who later changed his name to Muhammad Ali (both of them eventually left the
Nation of Islam and adhered to Sunni Islam). The religious movement The Nation of
Islam, founded by W. D. Fard in 1930, advocated an independent nation consisting of
African Americans in the United States (Hall 433-434). The ultimate goal of Elijah
Muhammad, Fard‘s successor, was separation, instead of integration (Hall 434).The
Encyclopedia of American Activism quotes: ―Black Muslims advocate black selfsufficiency and independence from white dominance. […] A fundamental tenet of the
Black Muslims‘ teaching is that all blacks are Muslims by nature and that Christianity is
99
a white religion‖ (DiCanio 59). The racist ideology of the Nation of Islam is a very
complex matter which will be dealt with in this chapter only in relation to its core – the
phantasmagoric ideas about the origin of the white race.
Malcolm X (1925-1965) explains the interconnection between racial issues in
the United States and Islam in his 1962 speech entitled ―Black Man‘s History‖ in more
detail. The speaker introduces the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, the leader of the
Nation of Islam. Malcolm X points out the African Americans‘ lack of knowledge of
the history of their race and considers it the reason for their failure in the United States
(Malcolm X, ―Black Man‘s History‖). Malcolm X asserts: ―They [black people] are
trying to make contact with the white man, trying to make a connection with the white
man, trying to make a connection with a kidnapper who brought them here, trying to
make a connection with, actually, the man who enslaved them‖ (Malcolm X, ―Black
Man‘s History‖). This expresses the speaker‘s view of the role of white people in the
history of his own race; white people are understood to be responsible for his people‘s
bondage in the first place. He is not speaking about slave masters, but about white
people in general; he blames the whole race. The aversion towards white people turns
into black racism as Malcolm X describes the evolution of the white race and considers
it inferior: ―[…] the lighter they got, the weaker they got. As they began to get lighter
and lighter they grow weaker and weaker. Their blood became weaker, their bones
became weaker, their minds became weaker, their morals became weaker. They became
a wicked race; by nature wicked‖ (Malcolm X, ―Black Man‘s History‖).
Malcolm X‘s distaste for the white race seems to follows from his conception of
the evolution of races based on the religious teaching of Elijah Muhammad, claiming
that the white race was bred by employing a violent eugenics theory by Yacub
(Malcolm X, ―Black Man‘s History‖), a mythical ―scientist‖ invented by the African
American religious movement The Nation of Islam and identified by them with the Old
Testament Jacob. This eugenic concept made mothers hate and murder their own darkskinned babies and, Malcolm X claims, this hate of anyone darker and the desire to
murder them became consequently a part of white people‘s nature (Malcolm X, ―Black
Man‘s History‖). In the speech, he makes a direct link between the religion of the
Nation of Islam and white racism which, consequently, gives rise to black racism.
Malcolm X‘s radical ideas appear to be on the edge with black racism. The
support of and opposition to Black nationalism as discussed above is mirrored in his
ideas compared to those of Martin Luther King (1929-1968), who advocated a
100
completely different strategy of how to overcome the racist problem in the United
States. In his book Martin and Malcolm and America: A Dream or a Nightmare, James
H. Cone offers a possible explanation of the opposing attitudes of the two leaders:
―Comparing Malcolm X‘s and Martin King‘s early childhood experiences provides a
clue to their radically different perspectives on America in their later lives‖ (Cone).
Among these childhood distinctions are, according to Cone, Malcolm X‘s exposure to
white hate groups‘ violence on the one hand, and Martin Luther King‘s protection from
white racism in its worst form, on the other hand (Cone). The theory of stressing the
reflection of one‘s childhood experience in one‘s adult life is a widely recognized one
and Cone‘s argument is therefore one to consider when discussing the differences
between both leaders.
Whereas King‘s tone is a very calm and even-tempered one, even when talking
about topics to which he devoted his whole career and life, the voice of Malcolm X‘s
speeches is very angry and urgent. The latter one criticizes the former one for teaching
African Americans to be non-violent, which he interprets as defenseless, in the face of
the American white man and compares King‘s role to the so-called Uncle Tom, who,
during slavery, used to keep African Americans from resisting violence committed on
them (King, and Malcolm X). King asserts, however, that non-violence means resisting
in a strong manner, and claims that it should not be mistaken for nonresistance, which
finds one in a state of stagnant passivity (King, and Malcolm X). Based on Malcolm
X‘s attack of the non-violent principle, his own attitude is that of violence, which
suggests his extremism.
Malcolm X continued the tradition of establishment of associations helping the
emancipation cause when he founded the Organization of Afro-American Unity in
1964. The goals of the OAAU are described as the following: ―black self-defense,
improved education for blacks, and increased economic and political power for black
Americans‖ (Jaynes 623). That the racial segregation matter was one of the main
concerns of Black nationalism throughout the whole history of the movement regardless
of a specific era, is evident from Malcolm X‘s outrage at the James Meredith incident.
Malcolm X considered it America‘s hypocrisy to admit only one single African
American student into the University of Mississippi and, consequently, using it as an
argument for their efforts to solve the problem, while in reality not letting other colored
citizens study at universities (Malcolm X, ―Malcolm X: Our History Was Destroyed by
Slavery‖).
101
The later era of Black nationalism was linked with the 1966 establishment of a
political party called the Black Panther Party. Its philosophy was rather controversial:
―The Black Panthers advocated militant self-defense of minority communities against
the U.S. government and sought to establish revolutionary socialism through mass
organization and community-based programs‖ (Jaynes 121-122). The party‘s radical
aiming confirms the violent nature of later Black nationalism.
Black racism is to be seen in the work of Amiri Baraka (1934-2014), an
American poet playwright, and prose writer. Like some of his contemporaries, his
Black nationalism was aggressive as it was linked with violence against white people;
Baraka‘s violent public actions themselves were connected to the assassination of
Malcolm X. The controversy of his work was reinforced by his anti-Semitic views.
Baraka, who converted to Islam, was a leader of Kawaida, a black Muslim organization
(Layton 49).
6.5 Black Nationalism as a Consequence of Racism and Oppression During
Slavery
The analysis of the texts by the most prominent leaders of Black nationalism
discussed above gives evidence of a connection between racism and oppression in the
slavery and post-slavery years (also within the abolitionist movement itself) in the
United States on the one hand, and the emergence of Black nationalism on the other
hand. A frequent topic of emancipation in the writings was a reaction to African
Americans‘ disillusionment from inequality and to their lost hopes of just treatment by
political authorities. Continuing its racist tendency, which escalated during slavery,
America turned out to be an oppressive country with inequitable treatment of African
Americans.
The end of slavery did not bring racial equality at all; on the contrary, free
colored people found themselves to be politically, economically, socially, and also
physically at a disadvantage. As a consequence, there arose a need in many African
Americans to unite all people of their race and, with the goal of self-determination,
emancipation, and independence, they advocated the Black nationalism concept. During
the era of reactions to white racism, there appeared to be a fine line between protecting
oneself and fighting white racism and oppression and between the emergence of black
racism. The latter showed itself in extreme Black nationalism groups, such as the Black
Muslim movement.
102
Black racism introduces a violent refusal of all previous plans to solve the
African American matter. The advocates of black racism rejected the idea of emigration
(suggested by many African American leaders but also by the American Colonization
Society) as well as integration within the majority white society. The black racism
movement puts emphasis on aggressive and expansionist features of Islam. Black
racism tries to achieve separation of the African American race, instead of integration
within the majority society and, in this sense, it is dangerous for the United States.
Racism has continued to be a major problem within the American society up to the
present. White racism and police violence against African Americans make black
racism even stronger.
103
Conclusion
The research in this thesis is based on the assumption that there existed
ambiguities in the ideology and action of the abolitionist movement resulting from
complex tensions and conflicts within it. Even though the abolitionists seemed to be a
united group of activists struggling to reach the same goal, the reality was different and
many of them held opposing opinions on the position of slaves and African Americans
in general. Both the analysis of the primary texts as well as the research done in the
thesis confirm that although the common aim of the anti-slavery leaders was to put an
end to slavery, which was considered to be a racist institution, their opinions on the
social position of people of African race diverged. The thesis discusses disagreements
and conflicts which occurred frequently within the movement as well as their
consequences in America in a complex way which secondary literature on this era
seems to lack.
As slavery affected the whole country and all its citizens, the members of the
anti-slavery movement had different backgrounds and personal experience. Influential
abolitionists included white people of distinct social backgrounds, such as William
Lloyd Garrison, a representative of low class, or Gerrit Smith and the Grimké sisters,
who belonged to upper class, as well as African Americans born slaves, for example,
Frederick Douglass, and born free, for instance, David Walker. Representatives of
different groups had distinct approaches towards the methods that the movements
should follow. This is demonstrated in a notable conflict regarding the use of violence
in the abolition fight. While Walker incites African Americans to physically fight their
oppression and Douglass approves of violence if used in a defensive manner, Garrison‘s
attitude towards it is rather reluctant. Feminist abolitionists, for whom violence was
connected to physical oppression of enslaved women and who fought it resolutely as
they understood it as a threat directed against their gender, refused the use violence, in
most cases.
The conflicts between Garrison and Douglass belong among the most significant
within the abolitionist movement as they represent views of its most influential leaders.
Having begun with a mentor-apprentice relationship, the two grew apart regarding their
views of the Constitution, or of the general direction in which they believed the
American Anti-Slavery Society should develop. Moreover, the thesis discusses that
Garrison, in a sense, took advantage of Douglass because the latter one, as a freed slave,
104
might have given the former one‘s case relevance and publicity. This is mirrored in
Garrison‘s use of Douglass‘ Narrative as a propaganda tool, too.
Douglass‘ ambiguous relationship with Abraham Lincoln gives evidence of
another crucial disagreement among the abolitionists. The former slave accused the
President of preferring white Americans‘ interests to African Americans‘ interests, in
other words, of intending to keep peace in the country, even if it meant continuous
oppression of slaves. This opens the question of economic nature of the institution of
slavery, which many white politicians took into account, whereas African Americans
approached the issue on an existential level because their life or the lives of their
relatives depended on it.
One of the tensions which eventually contributed to the split of the American
Anti-Slavery Society was contrasting opinions on whether the women‘s rights question
should be connected to the fight against slavery. While Tappan and others refused it,
Garrison and Douglass supported feminist abolitionism, whose advocates linked racism
and sexism and asserted that it should be treated as a single problem. However, even
within this strand of the anti-slavery movement, its members came across racism and
were often considered inferior to their male abolitionist contemporaries.
The main argument which this thesis develops is the existence of a tension
within the anti-slavery movement connected to racism. While abolitionists struggled to
reach the end of the institution, there were many white people among them who refused
to accept equality of African Americans. This racist tendency became intensified in the
idea of African colonization, when colonizationists, although they, more or less,
appeared to support abolitionism, proposed sending free African Americans over the
borders of the United States. Opponents of the American Colonization Society claimed,
among others, that the colonizationists‘ motive was their unwillingness to live alongside
African Americans, which refers to the social phenomenon of white racism. Moreover,
the advocates of colonization, including Benjamin Lundy and Abraham Lincoln, were
suspected of trying to keep the institution because they favored the slaveholders‘
economic interests to the slaves‘ freedom. Many African Americans, including
Douglass, strongly attacked the ACS, referring to their unwillingness to leave America,
their home country.
The thesis further focuses on the situation in the country after the Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and contributes to the discussion on the
slavery and post-slavery era topic by making a direct connection between the
105
oppressive and racist tendencies of white Americans and the rise of Black nationalism,
proposed by Martin Delany or Henry Highland Garnet, and, later, black racism, e.g.
seen in the Nation of Islam. In the thesis, these movements are treated as consequences
of the African Americans‘ frustration with the inequality which they fought both during
their enslavement and in the years after 1865. Instead of the end of racism and
oppression, which many hoped would have followed after the official abolition of
slavery, African Americans witnessed the same oppressive treatment and reacted to it
by advocacy of an independent nation proposing segregation, in contrast to integration.
Some of the Black nationalists crossed the line of racism themselves and became very
radical. Together with white racism, radical black racism has continued to be a part of
the United States society and poses a threat to American citizens.
The research done in this thesis shows that the conflicts within American
abolitionism occurred on all levels of the movement; both among individuals, such as
between William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, and among the movement‘s
different branches, for instance, between feminist abolitionists and those refusing to
include the women‘s rights question into the fight against slavery. Disagreements were
also present between the colonizationists and the anti-colonizationinsts. A complex
matter as it was, the tensions influenced major affairs within the movement, including
the development of the American Anti-Slavery Society, and contributed to changes
within American society and politics, demonstrated by the rise of Black nationalism and
racism, which have affected the United States of America till the present.
106
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Delany, Martin R. ―The Condition, Elevation, Emigration, and Destiny of the Colored
People of the United States.‖ Archive.com. 26 Nov. 2005.
<http://www.archive.org/stream/theconditionelev17154gut/17154.txt> 25 Oct. 2016.
Douglass, Frederick. ―An Address to the Colored People of the United States.‖ In:
Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, 2013. 61-66.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Colonization.‖ Virginia.edu.
<http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/abolitn/abar03at.html> 4 Sep., 2016.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Douglass to George Luther Stearns, Douglass’ Monthly, August
1863.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents.
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013. 105-107.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Douglass to the editor, Rochester Democrat, October 31, 1859.‖
In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, 2013. 80-82.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Douglass to William Lloyd Garrison, January 27, 1846.‖ In:
Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, 2013. 39-44.
Douglass, Frederick. ―From ‗Frederick Douglass on Garrison.‘‖ In: Fredrickson,
George M., ed. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 8993.
Douglass, Frederick. ―From ‗Proceedings of the Plymouth Co. A. S. Society,‘
December 10, 1841.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in
Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013.48-50.
Douglass, Frederick. ―John Brown of Ossawattomie, Kansas.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed.
Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press,
2013. 76.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Life and Time of Frederick Douglass.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed.
Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press,
2013. 34-38.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed.
Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press,
2013. 19-25.
Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass. New York, NY:
Dover Publications, Inc., 1995.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln.‖
TeachingAmericanHistory.org.
107
<http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/oration-in-memory-of-abrahamlincoln/> 17 July, 2016.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Our Martyred President.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick
Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013.
114-116.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Our Paper and Its Prospects.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick
Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013. 5658.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Prejudice Against Color.‖ In: Foner, Philip S., ed. Frederick
Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings. Chicago, IL: Lawrence Hill Books, 1999.
99-101.
Douglass, Frederick. ―Speech of Frederick Douglass on the War.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane,
ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia
Press, 2013. 92-99.
Douglass, Frederick. ―The Folly of Colonization.‖ TheachingAmericanHistory.org.
<http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/the-folly-of-colonization/> 4
Sep., 2016.
Douglass, Frederick. ―The Late Election.‖ In: Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick
Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2013. 8791.
Douglass, Frederick. ―What to the Slave is Your 4th of July?‖ Brainmass.
<https://brainmass.com/file/1385559/Douglass_July_4_1852.pdf> 1 July, 2016.
Du Bois, W. E. B. ―Of Alexander Crummell.‖ Bartleby.com.
<http://www.bartleby.com/114/12.html> 21 Oct. 2016.
Garnet, Henry Highland. ―An Address to the Slaves of the United States of America.‖
In: Foner, Philip S., and Robert James Branham, eds. Lift Every Voice: African
American Oratory, 1787-1900. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998.
198-205.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―Address to the Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in the
United States.‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey,
NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 52-55.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―Editorial on Nat Turner‘s Insurrection.‖ In: Fredrickson,
George M., ed. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 2426.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―Fourth of July Address.‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed.
William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 11-21.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―From the Liberator of December 15, 1837.‖ In: Fredrickson,
George M., ed. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 4751.
108
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―Garrison Endorses the War.‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed.
William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 63-66.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―On John Brown‘s Raid.‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed.
William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 59-62.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―Preface.‖ In: Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of
Frederick Douglass. New York, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 1995. vii-xiii.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―The Great Crisis!‖ Fair Use Repository. <http://fairuse.org/the-liberator/1832/12/29/the-great-crisis#p7> 21 May, 2016.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―The Liberator and Slavery.‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed.
William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 27-30.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―The Valedictory of the Liberator.‖ In: Fredrickson, George
M., ed. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 67-71.
Garrison, William Lloyd. Thoughts on African Colonization. USA: Jefferson
Publication, 2015.
Garrison, William Lloyd. ―To Zebina Eastman.‖ In: Merrill, Walter M., and Louis
Ruchames, eds. The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison, Volume VI. Cambridge, MA:
The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1981.
Garvey, Amy Jacques. The Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey, or, Africa for
the Africans. Dover, MA: The Majority Press, 1986.
Grimké, Angelina E. ―Letter XII: Human Rights Not Founded on Sex.‖ Virginia.edu.
<http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/abolitn/abesaegb5t.html> 18 June, 2016.
Lincoln, Abraham. ―Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men,
Washington, D.C.‖ Learner.org.
<https://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/address.html>
3 Sep., 2016.
Lundy, Benjamin. ―A Plan for Gradual Abolition of Slavery in the United States,
Without Danger or Loss to the Citizens of the South.‖ Antislavery Literature.
<http://antislavery.eserver.org/tracts/lundyplan> 1 Sep., 2016.
Malcolm X. ―Black Man‘s History.‖ Malcolm-X.org. <http://www.malcolmx.org/speeches/spc_12__62.htm> 17 Nov. 2016.
Malcolm X. ―Malcolm X: Our History Was Destroyed by Slavery.‖ Youtube.com. 5
Sept. 2006. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHP89mLWOY> 17 Nov. 2016.
―Martin Luther King and Malcolm X Debate.‖ Youtube.com. 7 May 2011.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4PqLKWuwyU> 22 Oct. 2016.
Mott, Lucretia. ―Discourse on Woman.‖ Infoplease.
<http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/discourse-on-woman/> 15 June, 2016.
Tappan, Lewis. ―From His Journal for June 6, 1839.‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed.
William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 82-86.
109
Thoreau, Henry David. ―Civil Disobedience.‖ The Thoreau Reader. 8 Sept. 2009.
<http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html> 15 May, 2016.
Truth, Sojourner. ―Ain‘t I a Woman?‖ In: Daley, James., ed. Great Speeches by African
Americans. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2006. 11-12.
Walker, David. Walker’s Appeal, in Four Articles, Together with a Preamble, to the
Coloured Citizens of the World, but in Particular, and Very Expressly, to Those of the
United States of America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011.
Washington, Booker T. Up from Slavery: An Autobiography. New York, NY: Skyhorse
Publishing, Inc., 2015.
Secondary Sources
Abzug, Robert H. ―The Influence of Garrisonian Abolitionists‘ Fears of Slave Violence
on the Antislavery Argument, 1829-40.‖ The Journal of Negro History [Chicago, IL]
55.1 Jan. 1970: 15-26.
Apap, Chris. ―‗Let No Man of Us Budge One Step‘: David Walker and the Rhetoric of
African American Emplacement.‖ Early American Literature [North Carolina] 46.2
2011: 319-350.
Atkin, Andrea M. ―Foster, Abigail Kelley (1811-1873).‖ The Historical Encyclopedia
of World Slavery, Volume 1: A – K. Junius P. Rodriguez, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABCCLIO, Inc., 1997: 274-275.
Atkin, Andrea M. ―North Star.‖ The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume
1: A – K. Junius P. Rodriguez, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1997: 473.
Asante, Molefi Kete. ―Back-to-Africa Movement.‖ Encyclopedia of Black Studies.
Molefi Kete Asante, and Ama Mazama, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc., 2005: 109-110.
Ayers, Edward L., Lewis L. Gould, David M. Oshinsky, and Jean R. Soderlund.
American Passages: A History of the United States. Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage
Learning, 2009.
Barnes, L. Diane, ed. Frederick Douglass: A Life in Documents. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, 2013.
Barnes, L. Diane. Frederick Douglass: Reformer and Statesman. New York, NY:
Routledge, 2013.
Beilke, Jayne R. ―Douglass, Frederick (1818-1895).‖ In: Wayne, Tiffany K., ed.
Women’s Rights in the United States. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, LLC., 2015. 44-46.
Brawley, Benjamin G. A Social History of the American Negro. New York, NY:
Cosimo, Inc., 2005.
110
Carney, Thomas E., and Paul Finkelman. ―Jim Crow Laws.‖ Encyclopedia of African
American History: 1896 to the Present: From the Age of Segregation to the TwentyFirst Century, Volume 1. Paul Finkelman, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
2009. 27-30.
Chapman, John Jay. ―From ‗John Jay Chapman (1913).‘‖ In: Fredrickson, George M.,
ed. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 138-144.
Chesnutt, Charles W. ―Introduction.‖ In: Washington, Booker T. Frederick Douglass: A
Biography. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2012.
Cohen, William. ―Thomas Jefferson and the Problem of Slavery.‖ The Journal of
American History [Oxford, UK] 56.3 Dec. 1969: 503-526.
Colaiaco, James A. Frederick Douglass and the Fourth of July. New York, NY:
Oalgrave Macmillan, 2006.
Cumbler, John T. From Abolition to Rights for All: The Making of a Reform Community
in the Nineteenth Century. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.
Cone, James H. Martin & Malcolm & America: A Dream or a Nightmare. Maryknoll,
NY: Orbis Books, 1991.
Daley, James. Great Speeches by African Americans. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications,
Inc., 2006.
Davis, Olethia. ―Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) (1914).‖
Encyclopedia of African American Popular Culture, Vol. 1. Jessie Carney Smith, ed.
Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2011.
DiCanio, Margaret B. ―Black Muslims.‖ Encyclopedia of American Activism: 1960 to
the Present. Margaret B. DiCanio. Lincoln, NE: IUniverse, Inc., 2005.
English, Fenwick W. The Art of Educational Leadership: Balancing Performance and
Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2008.
Ernest, John. ―Crisis and Faith in Douglass‘s Work.‖ In: Lee, Maurice S. The
Cambridge Companion to Frederick Douglass. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press, 2009. 60-72.
Ernest, John. ―Introduction.‖ In: Ernest, John, ed. Douglass in His Own Time. Iowa
City: University of Iowa Press, 2014.
Fairholm, Gilbert W. Exceptional Leadership: Lessons from the Founding Leaders.
Plymouth, ENG: Lexington Books, 2013.
―Foster, Abigail Kelley.‖ The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery, Volume 1: A –
K. Junius P. Rodriguez, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1997.
Frank, Lisa Tendrich. Women in the American Civil War, Volume 1. Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO. Inc., 2008.
Fredrickson, George M. Great Lives Observed: William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey,
NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.
111
Golden, James L., and Alan L. Golden. Thomas Jefferson and the Rhetoric of Virtue.
Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002.
Gordon, Jacob U. Black Leadership for Social Change. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press, 2000.
Greene, Richard E. ―Abby Kelley Foster: A Feminist Voice Reconsidered, 1810-1887.‖
In: Trotman, C. James, ed. Multiculturalism: Roots and Realities. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press, 2002: 170-182.
Hall, John G. ―Nation of Islam.‖ Encyclopedia of American Race Riots, Volume 2.
Walter Rucker, and James Nathaniel Upton, eds. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,
2007: 433-435.
Harrold, Stanley. American Abolitionists. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited,
2001.
Havard, John C. ―Slavery and the Emergence of the African American Novel.‖ In:
Tawil, Ezra, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Slavery in American Literature. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016. 86-99.
Holcombe, Randall G. From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American
Government. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2002.
Holland, Jesse J. Black Men Built the Capitol. Guilford, NC: The Globe Pequot Press,
2007.
Jaynes, Gerald D. ―Nat Turner‘s Rebellion.‖ Encyclopedia of African American Society.
Gerald D. Jaynes, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2005.
Jeffrey, Julie Roy. The Great Silent Army of Abolitionism. North Carolina: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1998.
Kinshasa, Kwando M. African American Chronology: Chronologies of the American
Mosaic. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006.
Kolchin, Peter. American Slavery, 1619-1877. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1993.
Kolmerten, Carol A. The American Life of Ernestine L. Rose. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1999.
Konadu, Kwasi. ―Black Nationalism.‖ Encyclopedia of Black Studies. Molefi Kete
Asante, and Ama Mazama, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2005:
130-134.
Lay, Shawn. ―Ku Klux Klan.‖ Encyclopedia of African American History: 1896 to the
Present: From the Age of Segregation to the Twenty-First Century, Volume 1. Paul
Finkelman, ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 123-127.
Layton, Rebecca. Arab-American and Muslim Writers. New York, NY: Chelsea House
Publishers, 2010.
Levine, Robert S. Martin Delany, Frederick Douglass, and the Politics of
Representative Identity. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997.
112
Levine, Robert S. Martin R. Delany: A Documentary Reader. Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Litwack, Leon, and August Meier. Black Leader of the Nineteenth Century. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1991.
Martinez, Michael J. Carpetbaggers, Cavalry, and the Ku Klux Klan. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2007.
McCarthy, Timothy Patrick, and Stauffer John. Prophets of Protest: Reconsidering the
History of American Abolitionism. New York, NY: The New Press, 2006.
Meer, Sarah. ―Slave Narratives as Literature.‖ In: Tawil, Ezra, ed. The Cambridge
Companion to Slavery in American Literature. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press, 2016. 70-85.
Merrill, Walter M., and Louis Ruchames, eds. The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison,
Volume VI. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1981.
Miller, Connie A., Sr. Frederick Douglass: American Hero and International Icon of
the Nineteenth Century. USA: Xlibris Corporation, 2008.
Mintz, Steven, and Joy Hakim, eds. A History of US. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, Inc., 2005.
Moore, Del-Zola. ―American Negro Academy.‖ Encyclopedia of Black Studies. Molefi
Kete Asante, and Ama Mazama, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,
2005.
Moses, Wilson J. Classical Black Nationalism. New York: New York University Press,
1996.
Müller, Kurt. ―Anti-Slavery Rhetoric on the Fourth of July: William Lloyd Garrison.‖
In: Goetsch, Paul, and GerdHurm, eds. The Fourth of July: Political Oratory and
Literary Reactions, 1776-1876. Tübingen, DE: Gunter NarrVerlag, 1992.
Nye, Russel B. ―William Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers.‖ In:
Fredrickson, George M. William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1968. 157-163.
Ochoa, Alberto M. ―Federal Court Decisions and Legislation.‖ Encyclopedia of
Bilingual Education. Josué M. Gonzáles, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc., 2008. 293-298.
Olivares, Jaime Ramón, and Leslie M. Alexander. ―Brown, John.‖ Encyclopedia of
African American History. Leslie M. Alexander, and Walter C. Rucker, eds. Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC, 2010.
Olney, James. ―‗I Was Born‘: Slave Narratives, Their Status as Autobiography and as
Literature.‖ Callaloo [Baltimore, MD] 20 1984: 46-73.
Quarles, Benjamin. Black Abolitionists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1969.
113
Rhodes, James Ford. ―From ‗James Ford Rhodes.‘‖ In: Fredrickson, George M., ed.
William Lloyd Garrison. New Jersey, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. 132-137.
Richards, David A. J. Conscience and the Constitution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1993.
Richards, David A. J. Disarming Manhood: Roots of Ethical Resistance. Athens, OH:
Swallow Press/Ohio University Press, 2005.
Richards, David A. J. Women, Gays, and the Constitution: The Grounds for Feminism
and Gay Rights in Culture and Law. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Roberson, Gloria Grant. Encyclopedia of African American History, 1619-1895,
Volume 2. Paul Finkelman, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2006.
120-121.
Robinson, Dean E. Black Nationalism in American Politics and Thought. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Rogers, Dorothy. ―Elizabeth Cady Stanton.‖ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
<http://www.iep.utm.edu/stanton/> 21 May, 2016.
Russell, John H. The Free Negro in Virginia 1619-1865. New York, NY: Cosimo Inc.,
2009.
Ryan, Barbara. ―Child, Lydia Maria.‖ The Historical Encyclopedia of World Slavery,
Volume 1: A – K. Junius P. Rodriguez, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1997.
Saunders, Robert M. Power, the Presidency, and the Preamble. Westport, CT: Praeger,
2002.
Schenken, Suzanne O‘Dea. ―Douglass, Frederick (1817-1895).‖ In: Schenken, Suzanne
O‘Dea. From Suffrage to the Senate, Vol. 1. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.,
1999. 209-210.
Schultz, Jeffrey D., and Laura Van Assendelft. ―Victoria Claflin Woodhull (18381927).‖ Encyclopedia of Women in American Politics. Jeffrey D. Schultz, and Laura
Van Assendelft, eds. Phoenix, AZ: The Oryx Press, 1999. 249.
Simkin, John. ―William Lloyd Garrison.‖ Spartacus Educational. Aug. 2014.
<http://spartacus-educational.com/USASgarrison.htm> 22 May, 2016.
Smith, Anthony D. The Nation in History. Oxford, UK: Polity Press, 2000.
Smith, Dale Edwyna. ―Tubman, Harriet.‖ In: The Historical Encyclopedia of World
Slavery, Volume 1: A – K. Junius P. Rodriguez, ed. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO,
Inc., 1997.
Speicher, Anna M. The Religious World of Antislavery Women: Spirituality in the Lives
of Five Abolitionist Lecturers. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 2000.
Stam, Robert, and Ella Shohat. Flagging Patriotism: Crisis of Narcissism and AntiAmericanism. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007.
114
Sterngass, Jon. Leaders of the Civil War Era: Frederick Douglass. New York, NY:
Infobase Learning, 2013.
Streitmatter, Rodger. Mightier Than the Sword. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2016.
Sundquist, Eric J. Empire and Slavery in American Literature, 1820-1865. Jackson:
University Press of Mississippi, 2006.
Walker, Grant ―Sylvester.‖ A Conspiracy to Colonize 19th Century United States Free
Blacks in Africa by the American Colonization Society. USA: Trafford Publishing,
2014.
White, Ronald C., Jr. A. Lincoln: A Biography. New York, NY: Random House, 2009.
Williamson, Scott C. The Narrative Life: The Moral and Religious Thought of
Frederick Douglass. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2002.
Yarema, Allan. The American Colonization Society: An Avenue to Freedom? Lanham,
MD: University Press of America, Inc., 2006.
Yee, Shirley J. Black Women Abolitionists: A Study in Activism, 1828-1860. Knoxville:
The University of Tennessee Press, 1992.
Zilversmit, Arthur. ―Grant and the Freedmen.‖ In: Abzug, Robert H., and Stephen E.
Maizlish, eds. New Perspectives on Race and Slavery in America. Lexington: The
University Press of Kentucky, 1986. 128-149.
XXX. ―Black Codes and Slave Codes, Colonial.‖ Encyclopedia of African American
History, 1619-1895, Volume 2. Paul Finkelman, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, Inc., 2006.
XXX. ―Black Nationalism.‖ Encyclopedia of Black Studies. Molefi Kete Asante, and
Ama Mazama, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2005.
XXX. ―Brown, John.‖ Encyclopedia of African American History. Leslie M. Alexander,
and Walter C. Rucker, eds. 3 vols. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Llc., 2010.
XXX. ―Garnet, Henry Highland.‖ Encyclopedia of African American History, 16191895, Volume 2. Paul Finkelman, ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Inc.,
2006.
XXX. ―Voting Rights Act of 1965.‖ Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution,
Volume I. David A. Schultz, ed. New York, NY: Facts on File, Inc., 2009.
115