Even as late as 1828, in faraway Mississippi, a frontier region of the United States at that time, the cry for the end of slavery was to be heard. Gerard C. Brandon, Mississippi's governor in 1828, urged the banning of further importation of slaves into the state. In a speech on the subject of elimination of the slave trade, Governor Brandon struck at the heart of slavery itself. Brandon stated:
Slavery is an evil at best, and has invariably operated oppressively on the poorer class in every community into which it has been introduced, and excludes from the State, in proportion to the number of slaves, a free white population, through the means of which alone can we expect to take rank with our sister States. With these reflections I submit to the wisdom of the general assembly to say whether the period has not arrived when Mississippi, in her own defense should, as far as practicable, prevent the further introduction of slaves for sale.""
With the adoption of the 1832 constitution of Mississippi, a limit was placed upon the introduction of slaves into the state. Unfortunately, with the coming of the cotton boom in Mississippi, and the attacks upon the South by Radical Abolitionists, the abolition movement in that state slowly died. In discussing the change that overtook Mississippi as it related to the institution of slavery, one historian observed that "this changed attitude resulted from the ever more insistent attacks of the Abolitionists, who forced Mississippians to defend themselves in any way they could."" What was said about Mississippi could be truthfully said about any of the Southern states during this time in history.
Slowly at first, a new attitude about slavery had begun to take hold in the North. The new attitude replaced the older and more benevolent view of slavery. It was the latter attitude that existed in the North as long as slavery was viable there. From co-labors with other abolitionists, the Southern slaveowner was now seen as the embodiment of all forms of sin and evil in America. Remember, some of the first abolitionists in the South were slaveowners. They led the way in freeing slaves at their own expense and in fostering the early Southern abolition movement. As has been noted, both the North and the South held similar views regarding the elimination of slavery in America during the first forty-five years of this nation's existence. Nevertheless, by 1830, an obvious change had taken place in the views of both the North and the South on the issue of slavery. The need for black labor decreased in the North while, with the invention of the cotton gin, the usefulness of black labor increased in the South. At the same time the black population was increasing in the South, stories of gruesome atrocities perpetrated by slaves during the slave uprising in Santo Domingo reached the United States. Thus, the possibility of a bloody "servile insurrection" became a daily reality to Southerners, both slaveholders and non-slaveholders. Is it any wonder that Southerners became just a little irritated and nervous by the actions of Northern Radical Abolitionists?
As the radicals increasingly indulged in slanderous propaganda against Southern slaveholders, soon everything Southern, not just slavery or slaveholders, was viewed as evil. Noting the tendency of the Radical Abolitionists to falsely accuse Southern slaveholders of any number of evils, historian Francis B. Simkins states:
Having lost faith in a heaven beyond the sky, they [Radical Abolitionists] hoped to make heaven-or at least a New England-of that section of the country cursed with slavery... They indulged in slanderous propaganda against slaveholders, calling them robbers, manstealers, and thieves who worked the slaves to death in seven years, beat them with many lashes, cropped their ears for purposes of identification, threw them to bloodhounds to be chewed, put red pepper, turpentine, and vinegar in their wounds, and failed to give them enough clothes to protect them from the weather.32
Early in the history of America's abolitionist movement, the radicals were few in number and influence. Nevertheless, they had an effect upon the South that was unrelated to their size or influence in the North. In the South the ranting of radicals such as William Lloyd Garrison "evoked such fear and anger that a peaceful attainment of his aims was made impossible."33 Here is seen another example of good intentions (the elimination of slavery) having an unintended result-the impossibility of the peaceful attainment of ending slavery.
Few if any Southerners believed that the slave-master relationship was free of abuse. With their typical biblical world-view, most Southerners understood the innate evil that resides within all men. Holding such a world-view, they believed that the system of slavery, just as any other system of labor or human endeavor, was likely to be abused. Southerners viewing the system of Southern slavery believed this abuse was the exception to the rule and not the rule. Yet, the strident and abusive rhetoric of the Radical Abolitionists, declaring that the sins occurring within the system of Southern slavery were the rule and not the exception, poisoned the last well of good feelings between the North and the South. Worse yet, every Southerner became the chosen object of scorn and ridicule because of the supposed "sin" of slavery. Thus, whether it was the atrocities committed by arch-abolitionist John Brown in Kansas or the incendiary actions of the invading Union Army during the War for Southern Independence, the viewpoint was the same: All Southerners were the enemy. Little or no protection was afforded any members of the non-slaveholding class, which comprised 80 to 90 percent of the Southern population. Thus is seen the outcome of radicalism in the North as it sought to end slavery in the South.
The radicals' anti-South view has its modern equivalent in the politically correct notion that anyone who defends the honor of his Confederate ancestors is "defending slavery." Even though 80 percent or more of the Confederate soldiers were non-slaveholders, politically correct society stigmatizes them as evil defenders of slavery and therefore not worthy of honor or respect. Any descendent of such a Confederate soldier who insists on honoring his ancestor is quickly labeled a buffoon or, worse yet, a racist by the modern-day Radical Abolitionist. Even Confederate heroes who held anti-slavery views are castigated or consigned to the Orwellian memory-hole. At this point, one can see how the "hate the South" movement of the Radical Abolitionists has continued into the twenty-first century.
With the passage of time, the antics of the Radical Abolitionists continued to increase. What started out as a few fanatics rapidly grew in numbers and influence. Soon, Northern industrialists saw the issue of slavery as the Achilles heel of the Southern free-trade block. By scandalizing everything Southern, Northern congressmen and senators could he intimidated to vote against the interests of Southern agriculture and for the interests of Northern industry (i.e., protective tariffs). Northern industrial and commercial interests found a natural ally in the new abolitionist movement.
As their numbers increased, the Radical Abolitionists redoubled their efforts to denounce the South, not just slavery. By 1830, Radical Abolitionists were flooding the Southern mails with magazines and tracts denouncing slaveholders. Radical Abolitionist Lydia Child asserted that slavery in the South was the outgrowth of licentiousness inherent in Southern character.34 Wendell Phillips, a leading radical, stated that due to the nature of slavery the South was "one great brothel."35 Garrison even charged that Southern ministers of the gospel were protecting slavery because slavery made it easier for them to secure concubines. According to Garrison, these clergyman of the South were engaged in the raping of black parishioners.3hh The actions of the early abolitionists were so offensive that President Andrew Jackson called such activity "a wicked plan of exciting the negroes to insurrection and to massacre."37
Southern historian John S. Tilley correctly analyzed the effects of the Radical Abolitionists
The record has disclosed that a reaction set in concurrently with the advent of the group known as abolitionists. These agitators centered their attention largely upon the Southern states in which, for climatic and economic reasons plus a shrewd transfer of slave holdings, the institution had let down its anchor. To the Southerner, who knew well the ugly story of incredible exploitation of child-workers in Northern mills, it was more than passing strange t
hat crusading zeal emanating from that section should adopt as a goal the uprooting of the economic system of the South.;"
More and more, men of the North read, believed, and passed on the incendiary words of the Radical Abolitionists. The radicals' depiction of the South as an ethical and a moral cesspool in America did not have the desired effect of ending slavery. As a result of a torrent of insults, lies, and other abuses, the near universal desire for gradual abolition of slavery in the South was dealt a death blow.
The South had given America such men as George Washington (a slaveholder), Thomas Jefferson (a slaveholder), and Patrick Henry (a slaveholder), just to name a few. This same South had also provided more men per capita for the defense of the nation than any other section in both the War of 1812 and the Mexican War.39 Now, after giving so much to the nation, the South found itself being portrayed as a place of ignorant, brutal, and wicked people, one whose equal rights within the union were increasingly under attack. Within the span of fifty years the South, according to the Northern view, went from being the foremost defender of liberty ("give me liberty or give me death") to being a cruel tyrant. Within the same time frame, it went from being a co-laborer with the North for the abolition of slavery to being the defender of its rights, one of which was its peculiar system of labor. In reality, the South had changed, but not nearly as much as the North had changed.
It is difficult to discern the motives of men. But one thing is for sure, if abolition of slavery had been the desire of the Radical Abolitionists, they would have put forth a plan for gradual emancipation with compensation for slaveholders and proper training for all perspective freemen. Great Britain had ended slavery in its colonies using just such a plan. But the Radical Abolitionists ridiculed and disregarded the British plan. Moreover, they "scorned the British example ... the radicals refused to consider [compensation to slaveholders] ... refused to accept the legalities of laws passed when the nation was formed. They argued that slavery was a The definition of slavery as a "sin" was a godsend for Yankee abolitionists. If slavery was a sin, then its end had to be immediate, not gradual, and no compensation could be countenanced for the sinful slaveholders. And conveniently, the tax money that would have gone South to compensate slaveholders could then be spent on Northern internal improvements. Also, Northerners who had sold slaves to the South for almost two hundred years, and having thus liquidated their slave assets before this dreadful "sin" had become "self-evident," had nothing to lose by this process.
Thus the radicals succeeded in changing the definition of slavery and the focus of the abolition of slavery. From a debate on how to control and eliminate a poor political policy, the debate had become a question of sin and therefore morality. The definition of slavery having been changed, the question then moved to a different level. No longer were Americans discussing changes in social or political policy; they were discussing the nature of the individuals who were responsible for the sinfulness of a nation. As long as social and political policy was under discussion, compromise and progress (incremental as it may have been) was possible. But no one can compromise on accepted morality or he will become an immoral person. With the possibility of compromise withdrawn, the only solution was total war on the offending party (the South). Thus is seen the steady progress from mutual respect and compromise between the North and the South to an attitude of open hostility.
In reaction to the activity of the Radical Abolitionists, the Fire- Eater movement surged to the forefront in Mississippi and other Deep South states. The Fire-Eaters were a group of Southerners who believed that the "safety and happiness"4' of the South demanded the creation of a new form of government. To achieve this end, they pushed for secession of the Southern states from the Union. In 1853, the Fire-Eaters of Mississippi published a series of articles under the title "Chronicles of the Fire-Eaters of the Tribe of Mississippi." Utilizing biblical phraseology, these articles, reportedly written by one "Seraiah the Scribe," used humor to demonstrate how the South was in danger from attacks by the North. In part, the Chronicles stated:
Seraiah the Scribe unto the Fire-Eaters, and Filibusters, and the State Righters, and the Submissionists, and the Unterrified, and the Hard-fisted, the United and Harmonious Democracy of the tribe of Mississippi, sendeth greetings.
He that hath ears to hear let him hear; he that hath eyes to see let him see; he that hath knowledge let him understand; for the end of these things, even the "finality" thereof, is not yet come.
And it came to pass in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, in the second year, whose surname was Copperas Breeches, ruled over the land of Mississippi.
That the wise men of the city of Jackson and the county round about assembled together in the Great Hall of the city, and said with one accord, what do we here, and why sit we here idle when dangers are pressing us from the North, and from the East and from the West, on account of the children of Ham, whom we hold in servitude in our midst.
Go to, now let us act as becometh wise men, and assemble together the whole people.... lest we be blotted out from the face of the earth.
And when they had assembled together, Daniel the son of Adam arose in the midst of the congregation and said unto them, lo, now as ye are assembled is it not wise and proper that our Governor, even Joseph, whose surname is Copperas Breeches, should preside over you; for he is a man that is wise in counsel, and he will show us his opinion; and the whole congregation said, Amen.
And Joseph arose and said unto them, men and brethren, I pray you hearken unto my speech, and give ear unto that which I now say, that ye may live long in the land which ye now possess, and that it may be well with thee and thy children after thee forever.
For behold the day cometh and is even now at hand that ye must rise in your might and your strength and show unto the tribes of the North, even the Yankees and the Free Soilers, that ye are a great and mighty people, and that none can withstand you, yea not even the tribes of the Yankees, the people of all nations, nor the rest of mankind.
Now therefore ... let there be no division, but be ye reconciled one to another, be united as brethren, be strong, be courageous and be valiant.
For know ye not that evil betideth you, that the tribes of the Yankees in the North have said ye shall not go over to the land of California if ye take any of the children of Ham with you as bond men or bond women. [Here, the speaker is making reference to lands won by the United States from Mexico during the late war. In that war, Southerners represented the largest portion of men who fought. Then, after Southern blood had won the territory, the North told Southerners that they could not take their property into the commonly held territory of the Union.]
Is not this the land for which you have fought, bled and died; yea, for which the bones of your sons and your brethren now lie on the plains of Mexico and none are there to bury them? And the whole congregation said, Amen.
Behold California is as the land of Ophir, its mountains and its streams aboundeth in gold, its traffic is with the isles of the ocean and in silks of China and riches of the Indies.
Who are they that defy the might of Southern chivalry? Are they not the white-livered, cold-blooded, and brazen-faced Yankees, that deal and traffic in notions, and all sorts of wares and brazen clocks, and blue vessels and wooden nutmegs? They think of naught but gain, they are full of treachery and deceit, their words are smooth like oil, but under their tongues is poison of asps, and their cry is as the horseleech, "give, give." [One complaint Southerners had against the North was its use of the Federal government's taxing powers to extract revenue from the South and spend it for internal improvements in the North.]
And the Yankees have not regarded the covenants of their fathers, which were made in the days of old, when this land was delivered from the oppression of our British rulers, when the Free Soilers held the children of Ham in bondage, as we now do. [This is a cry against Yankee hypocrisy that is still heard today by the defenders of the South.]
And they ha
ve refused to deliver them [that is, return fugitive slaves as directed by Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution] again unto us as they had promised, but they have held them in their own land to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
Behold these things have been done in their solemn assemblies. Their leaders have led them astray.
Now, therefore, that which seemeth right in mine eyes is that ye should call upon all the people, in every town and village, upon the highways and by ways, and send forth your wise men and your eloquent orators, that they may raise a commotion, and sound an alarm throughout the length and breadth of the land, even from Bull mountain, in the land of Itawamba, to the sea shore, and from the borders of Alabama to the waters of the Mississippi.
And let them say, behold the Yankees have robbed you of all the gold in California; they have stolen your servants, they have wasted your substance, they have utterly condemned the laws and the covenants which have heretofore been made, and all which ye have faithfully observed.
And your labor and that of your servants profiteth you not; for the Yankees ... sell unto corn, and wine, and Nock & Rawson, and swine's flesh, and all your fabrics of wool, and your land is emptied year after year.
And buy ye no more of the Yankees and Gothamites, the blue cloths and fabrics of English dye, or purple, or scarlet, or fine linen, or needle work, garments of all kinds, and color all your breeches with copperas, as this day you see that your servantJoseph has done.
And when Joseph had made an end of speaking, the whole congregation shouted with a great shout, and clapped their hands and said, God save our Governor, even Joseph whose surname is Copperas Breeches.42
Governor Joseph W. Matthews, "Old Copperas Breeches," was elected as a candidate of the people. As a Democrat, he reflected the political philosophy of the common free white male population of Mississippi. It should be noted here that the common people of Mississippi were not the folks who owned large plantations and, therefore, slaves. The rich plantation owners were more likely represented by the Whig party. The people of the South were, by the time of the writing of this Fire-Eaters article, so enraged by the antics of the Radical Abolitionists that the Democrats (i.e., the common people of the South) were now defending the right of slavery under the Constitution. Rather than increasing the spirit of abolitionism in the South, the Radical Abolitionists had polarized the Southern people, even those who owned few or no slaves, to stand with the large plantation owners (Whigs) and against Radical Abolitionism. But the history of slavery in America neither begins nor ends in the South. We now must look at the history of slavery in the North.
Myths of American Slavery Page 4
