American Experience; The Abolitionists; Interview with W. Caleb McDaniel, part 2 of 4

Okay, we're all set. So the notion of ending slavery by letting slave owners know that they were doing something wrong, seemed a little far-fetched to a modern audience. Can you explain a little bit about the religious context that make that seem like a possible solution to these people at that time? Well, Christian Americans grew up in a culture that privileged the word and believed that it was possible for dramatic spiritual conversions to take place. Someone could, by reading the Bible, come to a new awareness of their sin and could be changed by that awareness. Many of the abolitionists came out of evangelical backgrounds in which these dramatic transformations were taken as a fact of life. Garrison's own mother, for example, had a dramatic conversion as a teenager that really

sustained her faith for the remainder of her life. So many abolitionists thought that they could make appeals to their brothers and sisters in the South, their fellow Christians, on the grounds of the Bible and other texts that they held in common, like the Declaration of Independence, and that they might be changed. And did it instantly have opposed these reactions up to the first sentence? I think a lot of the strategies that abolitionists were thinking of in the early 1830s were really premised on an understanding of slavery that as slavery was in the 1820s, net turners revolt really changes the position of many southerners in the upper south who had been willing to entertain the thought of some sort of gradual emancipation scheme like the ones

that had been passed in the north after the American Revolution. But after turners revolt, there's a mentality in most parts of the south that favors clamping down, passing laws for bidding slaves to read. And in some ways, trying to ensure that slavery is better defended than before. Would the South become more homogenous in its support slavery after 1830? After net turners revolt and after the great postal campaign of 1835, to voice anti-slavery opinions in the south was a sure ticket out of town or was grounds for imprisonment, sometimes violence was directed against lectures who were found carrying anti-slavery materials on them.

They might be tarred and feathered if a press of a newspaper began to say things that seemed like they were on the wrong side of the slavery question the press might be destroyed. So after 1835, it becomes harder and harder to voice anti-slavery opinions in the south. And of course, the violence starts heading north as well that, well, I guess this touches on the early point of mediators and why would Northerners react so strongly to why would there be a mob in Boston? I think that a lot of Northerners responded positively when southerners argued that abolitionists were threatening the union and by criticizing slavery and by haranging southerners' slave holders were really posing a threat to the continued harmony of the country.

So many Northerners, even if they believed that slavery might be a necessary evil or a moral wrong, thought that the way that abolitionists were talking about slavery was too fanatical, too dangerous, too radical, and was going to incite further insurrections in the south at the very least and perhaps at the worst might cause the American Republican experiment to collapse. The mobs, depending on the city, were made up of different groups. But what was, I think, disheartening and maybe surprising to a lot of abolitionists was how often these mobs included what the abolitionists called gentlemen of property and standing elites in these communities who felt threatened by the way that abolitionists were questioning

their authority and were also pointing out the connections of northern economies to southern slavery and very often the mobs included a mixture of both working class anti-abolitionists and these gentlemen of property and standing. How was Garrison's perfected by his encounter with the mob in Boston? The mob in Boston, much like the jail sentence in Baltimore, I think deepens Garrison's commitment to continuing as an abolitionist. But it also convinces him as never before how much slavery is a national sin. The complicity of the north and upholding slavery in the south becomes clear to Garrison after the Boston mob than maybe ever before.

The Boston mob was the culmination of a whole series of anti-abolitionist mobs in 1834 and 1835. Abolitionists had dodged rotten eggs and stones and bricks being thrown at them at public meetings and anti-abolitionist mobs had been especially infuriated by the presence of British abolitionists in the north who were also lecturing American audiences on the problem of slavery. In fact, the mob that targeted Garrison in 1835 had initially been assembled to attack Garrison's English friend, George Thompson, who had been touring the northern states in 1834 and 1835, lecturing on slavery. What was that other one?

How many mobs were there in those years and what impact did they have on the movement of the whole? Historians estimate that there were between 100 and 150, I'm going to get this wrong now, but I know that somewhere in there, here I'll fit it this way. There were over 100 mobs attacking abolitionists, and actually that's not quite right. I should back up. I was going to get these numbers wrong. There were over 100 mobs in 1834 and 1835, but only some of them targeted abolitionists. I think you could say, because we're really talking about the climate of violence, so just don't say specifically about abolitionists. Specific numbers, okay. In 1834 and 1835, there was a wave of mobs across the northern states, and many of them

targeted abolitionists and the English abolitionist lecturer, George Thompson, who was touring the north during those years. You know, we're going to talk about wealth and talk about Cincinnati and the whole thing. You did a very interesting thing when we were talking on the phone, just how this is the genesis of all sorts of things when everybody's reacting differently and it's to tensions within general sense that there's this wave of mobs and other people's. Garrison understands the mobs as a concerted attempt to silence abolitionists in the north. He perceives the mobs as a challenge to the freedom of speech, to abolitionist agitation,

and I think that it really causes him to see critics of his positions or his strategies after 1835 in a different light. He's very defensive of his freedom to advocate for whatever causes he supports precisely because he thinks that the mob and the threat that mob violence poses to American republican ism needs to be defended against. Many abolitionists as they started to think about the way that slavery had corrupted the

nation couldn't help but notice other evils in American society that needed to be reformed. For Garrison thinking about slavery made him think about the problem of violence during the mob of 1835 made him see violence as something that was antithetical to, I'm blanking, should back up. So I'm just painting. Is that what you meant, sort of the different reforms that people are getting involved in? Yeah. Where do they stand from? Many abolitionists in the mid-1830s had been convinced that slavery was related to a host of other evils that also needed to be reformed and so some abolitionists believed that in advocating for immediate emancipation they should also support women's rights to

speak in public and should also adopt other more reforms like pacifism, non-resistance. Other abolitionists in the late 1830s thought that given how unpopular abolitionism clearly was after the mobs even in the north it made most sense for abolitionists to focus on the slavery issue and not burden the movement as they put it with other unpopular fanatical reforms. And this sets up a real difference of opinion between Garrison and his critics in the American anti-slavery society. Just going back there because I want to talk about Garrison's strategy, was the postal campaign undertaken in the aware that this might provoke a violent reaction and that that would, in fact, serve their purposes?

I think abolitionists were expecting that southerners would react negatively to Garrison just to personalize it. Okay. I think that Garrison knew that publishing the liberator in the north, that sending anti-slavery pamphlets into the south would provoke a reaction and after all he had been imprisoned in Baltimore for singling out a slave trader. But I think that Garrison believed that agitation and bringing attention to the issue of slavery was the best way to get public opinion moving. He believed that only with a revolution in public opinion could slavery come to an end and with slavery all of the associated problems with racial inequality that were bound up in it. And so a reaction in some ways was confirmation for Garrison that he was on the right path. If he had been saying something that did not provoke a strong reaction in the south or

in the north, I think that he would have worried that he was being too moderate. And I guess that's part of the threat that he sees in 1840 except that his organization is taken over by moderates. Garrison's concern is that as abolitionists become interested in other potential tactics like forming a separate political party to try to nominate abolitionist candidates for office that they're going to be forced to compromise some of their principles in order to gain more popularity. And he's most concerned I think that abolitionists who get involved in politics will have to lower their sights and in focusing on slavery won't be able to have as free a hand to criticize racism and all of the other evils that slavery has created. So how is his view of, you know, in the big picture of the program, we're kind of looking

at how change comes in a democratic society that he kind of profits from, he gains visibility in the aftermath of Matt Turner's rebellion, the movement gets a big boost from the violence and the wake of the post of campaign, even his lobbying and he gets actually in a grim campaign being robbed and how is it evolving and how does he see his role? Garrison, like many agitators, faces a dilemma because on the one hand he wants to create public support, public support for his cause means that he's succeeding and that his message is getting out there. On the other hand, he always worries that if his message is becoming too popular, then his audience will settle for something short of his radical vision for America.

So he's always looking for signs that his agitation is starting to have an effect on public opinion while at the same time he's less ready than some abolitionists to say that public opinion has gone far enough to attempt a political movement. And when, just jumping ahead, when Desi feels, like what makes him feel that, when does he reevaluate his own position with respect to politics? Garrison always evaluates the political climate in light of public opinion. If he thinks that the rise of a particular politician or political platform shows some progress in the way that northerners are thinking about slavery, then he's more willing to support it. If politicians though are stopping short of calling for immediate emancipation or

are still flirting with colonizationism or aren't willing to denounce racial inequalities even in the north, then he worries that politicians are instead a sign of how far public opinion still has to go in the north. Right, so let me still have to deal with all of those candidates with Lincoln, I guess. Yes. We'll get there. Yes, okay. Now, so at first glance, it would seem that the schism was a disaster for the anti-slavery membership of the slash, think of the slash, why Garrison is exultant in his letters to his wife? Why did he say a triumph? Well, I think Garrison realized that losing some of his key backers in the American anti-slavery society was going to leave the society with a financial burden. He lost subscribers to the liberator after the schism.

So he knows that after the schism, times are going to be tough for the society for a while. At the same time, I think that he sees the schism as a vindication of his position, the fact that his opponents walked out of the society and a small nucleus of supporters remained with him. To him is a sign that sticking with principle and refusing to compromise is the right way to go. Better to be a voice in the wilderness almost. I think that Garrison also realizes that the schism is going to make it possible for he and his supporters to operate with more freedom in the American anti-slavery society to talk about women's rights, to talk about non-resistance, to criticize church leaders who are insufficiently radical on the subject of slavery. So in some sense, the thinning of the ranks allows Garrison a freer hand in the society that

remains. You mentioned the Gideon. Right. Maybe so, yeah. Garrison also, even though he's become much more critical of Northern churches, he still knows all of the hymns and all of the Bible stories that he learned from his mother as a young child. And so he knows that God is able to do great things with a small number of true believers. He knows the stories of the band of Gideon's warriors in the Old Testament who are actually stronger once they send the ones who aren't courageous enough for the fight back home. And in some ways, he sees the schism as a way of identifying those who were too weak need and too compromising to make up a part of God's band.

Great. Thank you. Not Gideon. Nothing to bring in a TV audience like Gideon. Like Gideon. The Old Testament. Does that ever tell us? I mean, actually, well, we're quoting scripture here when Gideon's stories come the time. Yeah. After Padawada. Because Brown. Yeah. Why did it go back to the, why did Garrison publish actually in a group he's letter? I mean, he himself says that he kind of doubted that he wanted him to do it. Garrison always views the liberator as sort of bulletin board for the movement. He publishes almost anything that he can lay his hands on that's supportive of his positions. And he even publishes his critics in the liberator.

So he takes a very broad view of the liberator's mission to publish and be heard about slavery. So I think when he receives Angelina Grimke's letter and he sees a Southern woman who is confirming everything that the abolitionists have been saying from the north about slavery's evils. For him, it's a godsend. Great. Thank you. And so the next big find that comes along is Frederick Douglass. What did he see in Frederick Douglass? Why would he be eager to, in this term? In a real sense, Frederick Douglass needs William Lloyd Garrison to draw attention to his lectures to help him publish his narrative. But I think that in an even deeper sense, William Lloyd Garrison needed Frederick Douglass to give him credibility to confirm what the abolitionists had been saying about slavery

in the South and to demonstrate in a really compelling way the fact that this black man who had grown up in slavery was very articulate and very thoughtful and really disproved all of the things that Southerners said about people of African descent in order to justify slavery in the South. And I guess it comes along at the right time, too, it's like a year after this Kiss him. He's a great find, yeah, for that reason, that's probably true, yeah. One, if you'd mind expanding on it, just so we can link it back to you, I should get it. Sure, sure, sure, yeah. Sure, sure, yeah. Yes. Okay. After this Kiss him, Garrison's organization is looking for ways to gain support and Frederick Douglass really provides them with that.

His autobiography goes through multiple printings is very popular in the North and by appearing on, well, I probably shouldn't say that, I guess it's not really, yeah. The autobiography is in published in 45, so. Okay, so you're talking about Justin in 41, yeah. Sure. We're doing the scene in the hall. Gotcha. Like, here we go. Yes. After the Kiss him, Garrison is really looking for support, anything, to get the American Anti-Slavery Society going again, and when Douglass appears and begins to speak on platforms with Garrison and other members of his society, it really bolsters Garrison's movement. So, what's Garrison's position in the wider movement by 44, is he still kind of the acknowledged leader? Garrison is by 1844 the clear leader of the American Anti-Slavery Society, but by that

time there are also many other societies of abolitionists that have splintered off from the national organization, some of them are organizing political movements like the Liberty Party, others of them are continuing to try to work within churches and church organizations to bring northern denominations, power to bear on slavery in the South. Garrison is clearly the leader of his group of abolitionists, but the Schism has really created a broader spectrum of abolitionists. Yeah, and actually, I asked you about the Schism specifically from Garrison's point of view in terms of the movement, both of them. Sure. The Schism in some ways damages the abolitionist movement, but I think in the long run, it makes it possible for more northerners to get involved in the Anti-Slavery movement

because it's easier for them to find various options, various ways of plugging in, various organizations, and so a northerner who might be uncomfortable with Garrison's particular views about women's rights or non-resistance or religion. After the Schism, Garrison's organization isn't the only game in town, and there are other groups that anti-slavery northerners can join. So in a way, the Schism makes it possible for a broader and more diverse array of northerners who are beginning to pay attention to the abolitionists to get involved in the movement. So, as mentioned by 44 Garrison, he's not on the margins, but he's not the pivotal figure that he was.

Why does he advocate this union? Garrison begins to advocate this union in 1842, but he's not able until 1844 to get the American Anti-Slavery Society to endorse it as its official position. Disunionism has a lot of appeal to Garrison for several reasons. It's a position and a rallying cry that really calls attention to the North's complicity in slavery in the South, which is something that Garrison has been saying from the beginning. Every and Garrison's view is a national sin, and calling for disunion is a way for Garrison to urge northerners to rid themselves of their complicity with slavery in the South. It's also a doctrine that is morally stringent and appeals to Garrison's belief that moral reform should involve a complete rooting out of everything that is evil in one's self

or in one's society. At the same time, disunionism appeals to Garrison first and foremost, I think, as a way of getting the nation's attention and in particular of forcing politicians to think about the way that the political structures of the country are supporting slavery in the South. Garrison's hits upon the idea of calling for disunion in 1842 after a petition has been sent to the House of Representatives calling it... I'll stop you thinking that'll probably be more detailed. Then you're going to go into that, yeah. But I do think it's important to talk about the political impact of disunion in a way. Garrison is at a time when many northerners are concerned about the rising power of slave holders in the federal government giving that concern and that anxiety a sort of very

concise...he's expressing that concern in a very concise way by calling for no union with slave holders. Even though it makes him marginal, it's also an idea that gradually becomes more and more palatable to northerners who feel that slave holders in the South are dominating northerners and northern politicians and assuming that they have the prerogative to run the country the way that they run their plantations. No, I think, yeah, sure, because this speaks to, you know, we talk about how some northerners are enlisted because of the threat to their rights.

Yes. So I wonder if you could just be clear about that. Many northerners who may not support the abolitionists' calls for immediate emancipation are still in the 1840s becoming more and more aware of the way that slave holders are using their political power to infringe on the civil rights of northerners to free speech, to limit their states' support for slavery by returning fugitive slaves to the South. And so many northerners are concerned about the existence of what they call the slave power in the federal government. Garrison is not satisfied to stop there and criticize the slave power. He believes that northerners need to see the evils of slavery itself rather than just the dangers that it poses to the North. At the same time, Garrison also believes that the slave power is a bad thing, and he and other abolitionists are willing to call attention to that in order to gain more support in the

North. Great. Thank you. Excellent.