American Experience; The Abolitionists; Interview with John Stauffer, part 3 of 5

So you already touched on this, but just specifically, how did Douglas change the first time in Britain? Douglas was changed because he became much more confident of himself. He understood the... Let me start over again. Douglas was changed by his time in Britain in a number of ways. One is he acquired an increasing confidence and a sense of dignity, two. More than anything else, he understood from his time in England that one of the greatest curses that blanketing the United States was racism. The racism was a central cause for the perpetuation of slavery and for the degradation of African-Americans in general. Because in England, he saw a comparative dearth of racism and absence of racism. He could walk anywhere. It was the first time a white man would look at him without scowling, without calling him a nigger, without spitting at him.

It was the first time he could walk into any public establishment without event, without people trying to kick him out or throw him out by the collar. And so he, being in England, made him aware of the degree to which the United States was simply marinated in racism and that racism was the foundation... One of the foundations at this time for perpetuating slavery and preventing free blacks from achieving equality. The other way in which England and Ireland and Scotland changed Douglas is that he realized the potential for the United States to be revolutionary transformed. Because after all England, not that much in England a few years previously, had been one of the greatest slave nations in the country. And yet the Emancipation Act of 1834, England overnight frees 800,000 slaves in the West Indies.

And so Douglas saw England as a kind of religious anticipation, almost in the way in which Christians see the Old Testament particularly, Isaiah as anticipating Christ's coming in the New Testament. And Douglas saw England as anticipating what the United States can become. So it also gave him a new sense of confidence that slavery could end soon in the United States. Douglas was very wary about returning to the United States initially because after all he experienced the most joyous and most joyous time in his life. And he knew that returning to the United States he would face this blankative racism. He had no patriotism for the United States. Why would he? He had no loyalty to the United States. Why would he?

The main reason he returned is because he felt a certain obligation and responsibility for blacks and he also felt that he could help to end slavery. After all he saw himself as a prophet. He understood the power of his speech, the power of his words. And he had already witnessed time and again the degree to which he could convert the multitude, thousands of people in one, two-hour speech, which is the standard performance. So he comes back and he and Garrison go on this tour together that he had at West. Why was the parting so difficult? The parting between Douglas and Garrison was extremely difficult for a number of reasons. First when Douglas returns to the United States and goes out West with Garrison, Douglas knows that he wants to start his own newspaper. He doesn't tell Garrison. After the tour ends, Douglas announces to other abolitionists that he has decided to go to New York or to Rochester, New York to start his newspaper. So Garrison has to learn that this man that he mentored and his close friend is leaving him abandoning him and Douglas doesn't even tell him first hand.

And Garrison felt spurned. He saw himself as the mentor of Douglas. He saw himself as responsible as anyone for Douglas's success, for Douglas's fame, for Douglas's popularity. In a sense, the analogy I would use is that Garrison is this highly acclaimed football player or basketball player. He takes a young, tennis player, basketball player, under his wing, trains him, helps him acquire immense fame and popularity. And there's a certain competitiveness also within the abolition side. Among abolitionists, because oratory is so highly valued, there is a sense of who's the best order, who's the best public speaker. And Garrison, one level understands that Douglas has stolen the show of every abolitionist. So this mentee, this man that he feels he has made and mentored, has spurned him, have abandoned him.

He felt he feels spurned, he feels cheated. And he never forgives Douglas. He never forgives Douglas. And I didn't have to hold a grudge. One of Garrison's very talented. In terms of the anti-slave slavery movement, how would Rochester different come about? Rochester was the hotbed of political abolitionism in the way the Boston was the hotbed of Garrisonian or non-resistant abolitionism. Political abolitionists believed that the Constitution was inherently an anti-slavery document. So political abolitionists believed that they could work through the existing legal channels and work through the courts and work through the legislative process because after all they believed that the Constitution was on their side. Garrison and Garrisonians believed that the Constitution was thoroughly corrupt, was a pro-slavery document. In fact Garrison famously said that the Constitution was an agreement with hell and a compact with a devil. And at one point Garrison publicly burned the Constitution.

Garrison and Garrisonians saw the Constitution as a great liability to the cause of ending slavery. Douglas and other political abolitionists, and when Douglas became formally becomes a political abolitionist, believed that the Constitution is a crucial aid in ending slavery because by believing the Constitution is on your side, it means that you can use the power of the federal government to intervene against slavery. So that's one important difference. Rochester and upstate New York more generally is the hotbed of political abolitionism. Boston is the hotbed of Garrisonian abolitionism. When Douglas's goes to New York, Garrison has already announced that abolitionists should disunite from the United States. The United States are so corrupt, so sinful that they should disunite and form their own perfect utopia that becomes a beacon or model for other righteous people to follow. Upstate New Yorkers, political abolitionists believe that they just need to purify what the ideals of the Declaration and the Constitution already articulate.

So that's one important difference. The other important difference is that when Douglas moves to Rochester, Rochester and upstate New York more generally was considered the frontier. Social lines and social hierarchies had not yet been codified or established. In Boston, the Brahman society was already very well entrenched. And Douglas never felt entirely comfortable having a meal interacting with Brahmans because there was a sense of this almost aristocratic bearing that was totally absent in Rochester. When he moves to Rochester within months of beginning his newspaper in this printing press, he's invited by other white Rochesterian journalists to participate in the annual Ben Franklin celebration. Celebration for journalists and printers and editors. That kind of thing, the chances of it happening in Boston among printers at large would not have been great.

So Rochester is an abolitionist hotbed like Boston, but the social lines are more fluid and as a result Douglas felt more comfortable. In fact, he said that in many respects, his most productive years were in Rochester. So Rochester was a place in which he felt the least amount of racism of any city that he had lived in. In large part because it's on the frontier, it doesn't have the reputation and the Brahman establishment that Boston does. Why was he drawn to the prison level? Why was he drawn to Garrett Smith? Douglas was drawn to Garrett Smith for a number of reasons. First, Garrett Smith initiated the friendship when Frederick Douglass moves to Rochester. Garrett Smith had already announced that he would give away most of his wealth. Garrett Smith was one of the wealthiest men in the country.

Garrett Smith's father, Peter Smith, had been a business partner with John Jacob Astor. While Astor acquired most of what's now Manhattan, Garrett's father, Peter, had acquired roughly a million acres of land in upstate New York. So Garrett Smith grew up in one of the wealthiest families in the country. And there are a series of crises that Garrett Smith underwent that led him to this radical abolitionism. And one of them is the panic of 1837 and subsequent depression which Garrett Smith is almost bankrupt. In fact, only alone from John Jacob Astor's father's old business partner prevents him from going bankrupt. And during this period of trial, Garrett Smith becomes much more religious, becomes much more fervently and militantly millenialist and believe comes to believe that blacks have every right as whites comes to want to see himself as a black man. And during this period, Garrett Smith also vows that if he can ever climb out of this mountain of debt, he's going to give his money away to the poorest of the poor. Who's the poorest of the poor? Blacks.

In 1846, Garrett has recovered from this mountain of debt and he announces that he will give away 120,000 acres of land to some 3,000 poor New York state blacks. He wants to be loyal to the poor in New York, the poorest of the poor are blacks. And the land is together in Franklin and Essex County up in the Adirondacks. And he hopes to create a kind of black colony or what the settlers themselves refer to as Timbuktu named after the fabled city in West Africa known for its innovation and farming, its education, its diversity, its interracialism. And so this was already known throughout New York and really throughout abolition of circles. When Douglas arrives in Rochester, Garrett Smith sends Douglas a welcome note welcoming him to the state and including a deed of 50 acres to Timbuktu. What does Douglas make of all of his cows? Douglas considered an army backtrack. Do you want me to talk about the Compromise of 1850 and this part of that?

There's just one question about it because I just realized that it's going to be because I'll talk about the law and transmissions and the narration I think. But what was the atmosphere in Congress and the bill that they just sent the acronym? When Douglas moves to Rochester, it's 1847 and this was a period of intense conflict within the United States because the Mexican Wars underway, the Mexican War ultimately increases the size of the United States by virtually 100%, it almost doubles the size. And the big question is what are we going to do with all this land acquired from Mexico? Savoners wanted it all to be slave territory, anti-saving northerners all wanted it to be free territory. And it leads to such a crisis that in 1850 the nation itself is in peril, southerners are threatening to secede.

And so the compromise of 1850, as it's called, is a way to prevent southerners from seceding a way to keep the nation together. There are a number of aspects of the compromise of 1850s. The most notorious was the fugitive slave law of 1850. The fugitive slave law of 1850 revises the older slave, fugitive slave law of 1793. And the best way to summarize it is that it virtually legitimates the kidnapping of free blacks. This is a law that explicitly repeals habeas corpus. It means that a southerner can hunt down any black in free soil and identify black and say you're my slave. Bypass is the court. It goes before a commissioner. If the commissioner agrees with the southern white, that suspect is immediately sent back into slavery. The commissioner has paid double if he sends the slave into slavery, then if he declares that this suspect is free.

And most significantly, in one sense, this fugitive slave law calls upon every white citizen in the north to participate in the roundup of suspected fugitives, meaning that any white can be deputized at any moment day or night and is required to help round up the suspected fugitive. And if he refuses, it's an automatic fine of what in today's money would be tens of thousands of dollars, and if he's caught aiding or abedding a fugitive, it's an automatic prison term. What the fugitive slave law does to northerners, in essence, is that it convinces millions of northerners that they can no longer wash their hands from slavery. Before 1850, it's safe to say that the majority of white northerners considered slavery and evil considered it wrong, but said, hey, it's not my problem, it's the south's problem. And I don't want to get involved in abolitionism or even anti-slavery because it's just going to threaten the fabric of the union.

After 1850, they understood that it is my problem, because now white northerners understood that they could no longer act like Pontius Pilate and wash their hands from slavery. They themselves were culpable because they could be called any day or night to help round up the suspected fugitive. In many respects, the fugitive slave law, ironically, was suicidal to the south because nothing galvanized electrified the anti-slavery movement in north as much as the fugitive slave law. Both sides considered the compromise of 1850, a victory for the other side. So, northerners saw because of the fugitive slave law that southerners had been victorious. southerners got the better half of the bargain. southerners thought the northerners got the better half of the bargain because, after all, California is allowed to enter the union as a free state.

southerners had wanted nothing better than to send their slaves to California to mine for gold because gold had been discovered in California in 1848. They desperately wanted California to be a slave state. It almost became a slave state. southerners also, they were outraged that they could not trade slaves in Washington, D.C. They could no longer trade by and sell slaves in front of the capital, which they didn't see as a contradiction. So, they considered that to be a victory for northerners. But it was enough of the compromise that it alleviated the media cries of secession. And so, how do you be distilled? So, in the wake of the fugitive slave law, in the immediate wake of the fugitive slave law, Harriet Beecher Stowe, who is horrified by this new law, is inspired to write a book that will highlight the horrors of slavery and hopefully convince millions of northerners. And in her mind, millions of southerners to see the horrors and the evils of slavery.

The fugitive slave law, and she acknowledges this time and again, it was one of the two main inspirations. The second inspiration for her novel is that Stowe had witnessed the death of her own son. And when her own son died, she began to empathize and identify with the plight of slave women whose babies, whose sons and daughters were yanked from them and sold to another plantation, in which they'd never see them again. And so, Harriet Beecher Stowe begins for serializes Uncle Tom's Cabin in an abolitionist newspaper called The National Era. And the book is truly a sensation. Uncle Tom's Cabin sells over a million copies within a year. It is ultimately the best-selling book in the United States in the 19th century after the Bible. It is one of the literary sensations of world history.

Now, Harriet Beecher Stowe defined herself as a reluctant abolitionist. She didn't see herself as a militant. She did not endorse violence as a means to enslave her in a way that Frederick Douglass already did. And after all, Douglass's turning point in his life is a fight with Covey, even when he's technically part of Garrisonian's non-violent non-resistant society. And Stowe, as part of her understanding of the abolitionist, like Garrison, has been too militant to shrill, the end of Uncle Tom's Cabin couples colonization with an immediate end to slavery. So, she tries to have it both ways. Every abolitionist, in part, defines himself herself as an abolitionist in their complete repudiation of colonization and gradual means. And to be an abolitionist is to be an enemy of colonization.

Colonization is one of the main ways in which slavery will be ended in that novel. And in fact, at the end of the novel, the narrator appeals to the reader and said, what can any reader do? Any reader can listen. She can listen to her heart. And if she listens to her heart, she'll understand how horrible slavery is. And she will work to make slavery known to be an evil. And she places great faith, Stowe places great faith in women. Because if women act on their capacity to use a voice, the women themselves will create a court of public opinion that will ultimately end. The women will convince their husbands who are politicians not to pass laws, defending and perpetuating slavery. She's speaking specifically to women, but in general to northerners and southerners. And then she asks, well, what if Americans don't listen to their heart?

What will happen? And she concludes, slavery is going to end one way or another. If Americans listen to their heart, it will end. Probably gradually, maybe swiftly, but if it's in 25 or 50 years, and if it comes with colonization, so be it. But if they don't feel, listen to their heart and act on their heart, God is going to intervene. And there's going to be an apocalypse, and it's going to be nasty. And slavery will end one way or another. Either through the will of Americans, or through God's intervention, it will end. And because of Stowe's embrace or acceptance of colonization alongside of immediate abolition, in fact, it's not a dominant theme in the novel. But she does point to free blacks living as citizens, as middle class, gainfully employed people in Cincinnati.

But the dominant thread for ending slavery is colonization and gradual approach. Frederick Douglass, and for that matter, every other with one or two exceptions, every other black abolitionists, understand the great power and the great benefit that that novel does for the movement to end slavery, and they call it one of the greatest weapons that they have. So privately, Frederick Douglass sends Stowe letter, chastising her for her colonization. But publicly, he says it's one of the greatest things that has happened to the abolition movement. Thank you. So I wanted to jump ahead to the radical abolitionist meeting. Okay.

So nicely. The, first of all, who were the radical abolitionists and what quote would you mention? The radical abolitionists are a successor to the National Liberty Party. And the National Liberty Party itself is a successor to the Liberty Party. The Liberty Party was the first political party in the United States that was an explicitly abolition party. And in 1848, the radical strand. Okay. So the radical abolition parties is a successor to the National Liberty Party, which had been founded in 1848. The conservative strand of the National Liberty Party had been the free-soil party. Free-soilers considered slavery in evil, but free-soilers like the Republicans who succeeded the free-soilers argued that there are certain guarantees for slavery in the Constitution. So free-soilers believe that it was unconstitutional to intervene with slavery in the slave states.

The National Liberty Party called for an immediate end to slavery using the Constitution, using the federal government to intervene if necessary. The radical abolition party as a successor to the National Liberty Party encompasses not only National Liberty Party members, but other abolitionists who are increasingly drawn to political action. And they're not that many of them because it's such a radical party. In fact, it's the most radical party in the United States to date. The founding convention takes place in Syracuse, New York, and late June of 1855. Ms. McEun Smith, who is the foremost Black intellectual in the United States and a close friend of Frederick Douglass, is the... Pause, sorry.

McEun Smith is the... Which is titled the... Well, I was going to say that McEun Smith is the head of the convention. And the next time that a Black man heads a National Political Convention is 1988 when Ron Brown, so that's... But I can skip that if you want me to. So when radical abolitionists convene in Syracuse in 1855 to establish their platform, first of all, it's a thoroughly integrated convention. It's the first political convention in history in which blacks and whites, men and women are all participating, all considered equal. The next time that happens is the late 1960s at the earliest.

In that convention, the platform that they articulate is full suffrage for every person, regardless of sex, skin color, or character, full suffrage and citizenship for men, women, blacks, whites. And immediate end to slavery, even if that means intervening in the Southern States, even if it means using violence. They also call for what they refer to as penicostal visitations or messages from God. God is going to give them the means and the will and the way for making this happen. It's really God who articulates this platform. And at the meeting, John Brown is there. John Brown is the most militant abolitionist at the time.

John Brown's sons are already in Kansas. There is a letter read from John Brown's sons in Kansas describing these pro-slavery people who've gone to Kansas, who want to try to make Kansas a slave state. And what they're up against. And John Brown, who is on his way to Kansas and want support from his fellow radical abolitionists, then gives a speech. And in his speech, he quotes Hebrews 9 in which he says, without the remission of sin, there is no shedding of blood. Let me start over again. John Brown, in his speech, quotes Hebrews 9 in which he says, there is no God. Okay, here we go without this anymore. John Brown gives a speech at this, let me start over again. John Brown gives a speech at the convention in which he begins his speech by saying, without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. And it is a militant, it is a galvanizing electrifying speech.

And in the wake of the speech, there are few people who dissent from his violent means. They take a vote on only one member actually opposes it via a vote. And then, depending on which newspaper report you read, people give money to Brown. And according to a few newspapers, they give pistols or guns to Brown to take with them to Kansas to fight these pro-slavery advocates. And it sets a tone for what these radical abolitionists feel that they are up against. And it reflects the fact that one of the things that unites all these abolitionists, one is, of course, equality before the law for all people. The second is the understanding that slavery itself is a state of war. These radical abolitionists see themselves as peacemakers. And after all, they're just heating God's will. They see themselves as peacemakers. Because of slavery, the United States is drenched in civil war.

If I'm a peacemaker, what do I need to do? I need to vanquish slavery as soon as possible to preserve the peace. That's what John Brown says about and says that he's going to do. Brown always called himself a peacemaker.