Not only did the Radical Abolitionists adversely affect the nature of the abolition struggle of the nineteenth century, they have had an adverse impact on both church and state today. Because of the adoption of the radical view of slavery, everything Southern-flags, heroes, monuments, plantations, and holidays-are all subject to condemnation. The struggle for Southern independence has also been redefined to coincide with the views of modern followers of the Radical Abolitionists. No longer are Southern armies characterized as fighting to defend home and family from an invader; now they are depicted as fighting to promote slavery-that most odious of all sins.
In dealing with the issue of Radical Abolitionism and Christianity, several myths have been exposed:
MYTH: Slavery is and has always been a sin in itself.
REALITY: According to the only constitution that true Christianity recognizes, the Holy Bible, there are no unequivocal passages that condemn slavery as a sin in itself. What is true is that the pagan system of slavery in which the whole person was owned by a master was disallowed. Under the biblical system of slavery, only the labor of the individual was secured for the master; the slave's body, soul, and spirit always belonged to God. This concept, as seen in both the Old and the New Testaments, provided the starting point for the amelioration of the evils of slavery and eventually, the complete abolition of it. It should be noted that the biblical system of slavery and its eventual abolition were denigrated by the Radical Abolitionists as a "defense of slavery."
MYTH: The passage in the Bible that condemns "man stealing" is proof that Southern slaveholders were sinful.
REALITY: Man stealing, according to the laws of every Southern and Northern state was a crime. The liberation of a slave in Louisiana, by the authorities in Louisiana, because, as a free man of color in New York, he had been kidnapped and sold into slavery proves the point.22 Buying a person already a slave, having been taken in war, as punishment of crime, or one who had sold himself into slavery, is not man stealing. The taking of slaves in this manner was common practice by both the Hebrews in the Old Testament and the Puritan Fathers of New England. According to the law of Moses and common jurisprudence in the several American states, man stealing is the reduction of a free person into slavery, not the buying of lawful slaves. At one time, prior to the advent of Radical Abolitionism, this was the commonly held view of both the North and the South.
MYTH: The Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," makes holding a person in slavery sinful.
REALITY: If the Golden Rule is enforceable upon the master of a slave, it is also enforceable upon a slave. Therefore, according to the Golden Rule, a slave must view his master's betterment before his own. How can taking away a valuable asset (slave property) better his master? If both master and slave live by the Golden Rule, all the evils of pagan slavery are destroyed. But even more benefits can result if the Golden Rule is correctly followed. The good will established by these two men, while following the Golden Rule, makes it possible for the slave to gain his freedom. This was the plea of the early American emancipationists; a plea that was given a death blow by Radical Abolitionism.
MYTH: The view of slavery as a biblically sanctioned institution was a Southern idea, held by very few religious leaders.
REALITY: As has been demonstrated in Chapters 1 and 2, the view of slavery held by Southerners in the mid-nineteenth century was held by the vast majority of Christians up until that time. Early New England clerics were some of the strongest advocates of biblical slavery. Even as late as 1863, an Anglican bishop, John Hopkins of Vermont, was defending this biblical view of slavery. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Methodists all at various times were defenders of this view. In the state of Maryland, the largest slaveholders were a group of Catholic priests of the Jesuit order. In Louisiana, the largest Roman Catholic state in the Union, Catholics were just as involved with the institution of slavery as their Protestant neighbors. Nevertheless, Catholic religious leaders were no more condemning of slavery as a sin than their Protestant counterparts.
CHAPTER 4
African-Americans,
Free Born and Slave
Slave and free, black and white, lived close to one another, and their relationship led to a wide spread reputation for "better
Eugene D. Genovese
Roll, Jordan, Roll The World the Slaves Made
No prophet in early times could have told that kindliness would grow as a flower from a soil so foul, that slaves would come to be cherished not only as property of high value but as loving if lowly friends.2
Ulrich B. Phillips
Life and Labor in the Old South
No study of American slavery would be complete without a look at the relationships that developed in American society between the two races in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Following the traditions of the Radical Abolitionists when looking at race relationships in early America, most investigators look only at the relationship between master and slave in the South. While it is true that by the nineteenth century the vast majority of slave and free blacks lived in the South, there were still some slaves in the North as well as a growing body of free blacks at that time. In the following text, the lives and conditions of free people of color and slaves in both the North and the South will be examined.
The quotations by Genovese and Phillips given at the beginning of this chapter may make it appear as if these authors are attempting to paint a "moonlight and magnolias" picture of slavery. But, be reassured, they are not blind to the abuses that took place within the institution. Southerners are much aware of the evils associated with the institution of slavery and the need to abolish slavery. Also, they are quite aware of the paradox that exists in a society which holds men in bondage and yet proclaims itself to be a nation of liberty. But if an individual is sincere in his desire to pursue truth, he must be willing to follow the trail of facts wherever it goes. The complete and true story of American slavery in general and Southern slavery in particular is far beyond the comprehension of the average modern American. Tutored by the liberal (and therefore politically correct) theory of American history, most Americans have been exposed to only one view of slavery. That view is taken from fiction, not from jures up images of bullwhips, broken families, abusive overseers, and maniacal masters? This is the Uncle Tom's Cabin and Roots version of fictionalized history. "Fictionalized history" is an oxymoron, but it is the sanctioned view of slavery that is enforced by the established order in modern American society.
In the following brief overview of African-American life in early America, some of the myths about slavery as well as black freedom in both the North and the South will be exposed. Again the reader will notice that the facts about living conditions for black Americans in both sections of the United States and the mythology advanced by the victors of the War for Southern Independence are at odds with each other.
IN THE NORTH
As was demonstrated in Chapter 2, early in American history slavery existed in every colony and state of the North. This fact in itself flies in the face of conventional wisdom, which views the North as a land of freedom. Early in the history of New England, the enslavement of Native Americans was justified by none other than Rev. Cotton Mather. As his fellow countrymen were making slaves of Native Americans and selling them in the Caribbean islands, Rev. Mather stated: "We know not when or how these Indians first became inhabitants of this mighty Continent, yet we may guess that probably the Devil decoy'd these miserable Savages hither, in hopes that the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ would never come here to destroy or disturb his Absolute Empire over them."3 It should be noted that the Native American slave trade had as one of its byproducts the purchase of African slaves. Native Americans captured near the colony of Massachusetts did not make good slaves; therefore, they were sold in the Caribbean, and more profitable African slaves were bought. Thus, African slaves were introduced into New England, whereupon is demonstrated the genesis of the Intra- Americ
an slave trade.
When confronted with the evidence of the North as a society of slave traders and slaveholders, Southerners are often rebuked with the assertion that because of their sense of humanity, Northerners freed their slaves and ended the slave trade. Yet, the claim of humanity and brotherhood for the downtrodden Northern slave does not hold up under historical scrutiny. Speaking on the question of why the North abolished slavery, John Adams stated, "Argument might have some weight in the abolition of slavery in Massachusetts, but the real cause was the multiplication of labouring white people, who would no longer suffer the rich to employ these sable rivals so much to their injury. The common people would not suffer the labor, by which alone they could obtain a subsistence, to be done by slaves. If the gentlemen had been permitted by law to hold slaves, the common white people would have put the slaves to death, and their masters too Was it the feelings of fraternal equality that Adams was describing when he said that the good people of Massachusetts would have killed the slaves if necessary? Without any sophism about liberty, equality, and fraternity, it becomes clear why the North ended slavery. It was not the desire for "liberty, equality, and fraternity" that prompted Massachusetts to abolish slavery; it was for the economic advantage of white men that slavery was abolished there. Fifty years after John Adams explained why slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville made the following observation about the abolition of slavery in America: "It is not for the good of the negroes, but for that of the whites, that measures are taken to abolish slavery in the United States."5
Rather than being a land of freedom and opportunity for African-Americans, the North was a place of bondage for most blacks and second-class citizenship for those few who were freed. Long before Virginia or South Carolina passed laws defending a master's right in his slave property, Massachusetts became the first American colony to do so in 1641.6 As demonstrated in Chapter 2, slavery and the slave trade existed in the North as long as it was needed. Puritans, Quakers, Anglicans, and Catholics all participated in the institution of slavery in the North. Some of the most prominent men of New England were involved in the institution of slavery. Benjamin Wadsworth, president of Harvard College, was allowed to pay for a slave on an installment plan;? Peter Faneuil, a prominent Bostonian who gave the city Faneuil Hall, was engaged in the slave traders Benjamin Franklin advertised slaves for sale in his newspaper; and Josiah Franklin, Benjamin's brother, sold slaves at his tavern.9 These are but a few examples of New Englanders who profited from the institution of slavery.
In 1636, the Desire, America's first slave ship, was built at Marblehead, Missachusetts.l° The following year, 1637, it went on a trading voyage in which it conveyed slaves from the Pequod Indian tribe-two women and fifteen boys-to be sold in the Caribbean. These Native Americans became slaves after being captured by colonists during a recent battle near Fairfield, Connecticut." On the return trip from the Caribbean, the Desire brought back to Boston commodities of cotton, tobacco, and Negro slaves. As historian George F. Dow asserts, "[I]t was not long before negro and Indian slaves were owned in all of the New England From this meager beginning in 1637, the number of slaves in the Boston area increased to more than 4,489 by the year 1754.
In the year 1644, New England advanced into the big league of slave trading. At that time New England, along with most other European powers, entered into the commerce of the Trans-Atlantic African slave trade. That year, a group of Boston merchants financed a slaving venture to the coast of Africa. The success of this endeavor was the stimulus for other Boston merchants to move into the lucrative business.13 Rhode Island proved to be Massachusetts's staunchest rival in this enterprise. As late as 1758, this ad was printed in the Boston Gazette.
Just imported from Africa, and to be sold on board the brig jenney, William Ellery, Commander, now lying at New-Boston, A Number of likely Negro Boys and Girls, from 12 to 24 years of Age; Inquire of said Ellery on board said Brig, where constant attandance is given.
Note. The above Slaves have all had the Small-Pox. Treasurer's Notes, and New England Rum will be as Pay.'4
From early in colonial history right up to the advent of the War for Southern Independence, the North was engaged in the African slave trade. After 1842 the United States Navy maintained a fleet off the coast of Africa to police its merchant fleet for slavers. On April 21, 1861, the American slaver Nightingale was captured off the African coast. The Nightingale, affectionately known as the "Prince of Slavers," was built in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, fitted out for the slave trade in Salem, Massachusetts, and its captain was from New York. When captured by the U.S.S. Saratoga, the Nightingale was flying the United States flag, and had more than nine hundred slaves on board.
One of the last American vessels to be captured in the slave trade was the Erie, Capt. Nathaniel Gordon of Portland, Maine, commander.15 It should be noted that these vessels were not bringing slaves into the South. Not only did the Constitution of the Confederate States not allow the importation of African slaves, but the Union Navy had an effective blockade which ended any illegal importation of slaves into the South. As black historian Dubois noted, during the War for Southern Independence several thousand African slaves were brought into the Western Hemisphere. These Africans, like 94 percent of all African slaves, were destined for Cuba or South America, not Dixie.16
According to historian George H. Moore, Massachusetts was the first colony not only to institute positive laws for the protection of a master's right in his slave property but, using the biblical foundation, identified those classes of people who were subject to the classification of a slave in that state. The law describes the following groups of people as slaves:
1. Indian slaves-their captives taken in war.
2. Negro slaves-their own importations of "strangers" obtained by purchase or exchange.
3. Criminals-condemned to slavery as a punishment for offences.
Thus stood the statute through the whole colonial period, and it was never expressly repealed [emphasis added]. Based on the Mosaic code, it is an absolute recognition of slavery as a legitimate status, and of the right of one man to sell himself as well as that of another man to buy him. It sanctions the slave-trade, and the perpetual bondage of Indians and negroes, their children and their children's children, and entitles Massachusetts to precedence over any and all the other colonies in similar legislation. It anticipates by many years anything of the sort to be found in the statutes of Virginia, or Maryland, or South Carolina, and nothing like it is to be found in the contemporary codes of her sister colonies in New England.17
As demonstrated in Chapter 2, according to many historians, New England's slave codes, punishments, and other evils which are normally associated with Southern slavery were different from its Southern counterpart only in the numbers of slaves and slaveholders within each region's society.
According to the Congressional Record, March 26, 1884, a Southern congressman from North Carolina saw fit to remind the folks of Massachusetts how much they were responsible for slavery in the Americas:
Massachusetts is a State more responsible under heaven than any other community in this land for the introduction of slavery into this Continent, with all the curses that have followed it; that it is the nursing mother of the horrors of the middle passage, and that after slavery in Massachusetts was found not to pay, her slaves were sold down South for a consideration, and then their former owners thanked God and sang the long metre Doxology through their noses, that they were responsible no longer for the sin of human slavery.18
As has been abundantly demonstrated, the North played a large part in the institution of slavery in America. But, more than just black slaves lived in the North. What was life like in the North for a free person of color? Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, noted the conditions of the free people of color in the North:
The prejudice of the race appears to be stronger in the States which have abolished slavery, than in those where it still
exists; and nowhere is it so intolerant as in those states where servitude has never been known. . . . If oppressed, they may bring an action at law, but they will find none but whites amongst their judges; and although they may legally serve as jurors, prejudice repulses them from that office. The same schools do not receive the child of the black and of the European. In the theatres, gold cannot procure a seat for the servile race beside their former masters.... The negro is free, but he can share neither the rights, nor the pleasures, nor the labor, nor the afflictions, nor the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared to be; and he cannot meet him upon fair terms in life or in death.
Thus it is, in the United States, that the prejudice which repels the negroes seems to increase in proportion as they are emancipated, and inequality is sanctioned by the manners whilst it is effaced from the laws of the country.19
In 1834, a Frenchman, Michael Chevalier was sent by the Minister of the Interior of France to study various public works in the United States. So intriguing did Chevalier find American society that he extended his stay and toured every section of the United States. His observations and impressions of America were published in 1839 in a book titled Society Manners & Politics in the United States.20 Chevalier's impression of life in the North for free blacks supports the view described by his fellow countryman, Alexis de Tocqueville. According to Chevalier, "[T]o the men of the North ... the negro is a Philistine, a son of Ham. In the States without slaves, as well as in those which slavery is admitted, the elevation of the black seems impossible.... The man of color is a Pariah; he is denied lodging at the inns; at the theatre or in the steamboats he has a distinct place allotted him far from the whites."21
Myths of American Slavery Page 12
