"Was Abolitionism a Failure?" Topic

"ON Jan. 31, 1865, Congress passed the 13th Amendment, banning slavery in America. It was an achievement that abolitionists had spent decades fighting for — and one for which their movement has been lauded ever since.
But before abolitionism succeeded, it failed. As a pre-Civil War movement, it was a flop. Antislavery congressmen were able to push through their amendment because of the absence of the pro-slavery South, and the complicated politics of the Civil War. Abolitionism's surprise victory has misled generations about how change gets made.
Today, diverse movements cast themselves as modern versions of the struggle against slavery. The former Republican senator Jim DeMint, now the president of the Heritage Foundation, claimed that small-government "constitutional conservatism" has inherited the cause; the liberal TV host Chris Hayes, writing in The Nation, said battling climate change was the "new abolitionism." That term has become shorthand for "fighting the good fight." But the long struggle against slavery shows how jerky, contingent and downright lucky winning that good fight was…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

They actually weren't able to push their amendments through despite the absence of the pro-slavery South. At least not at first.

Interesting article. Truly bad place to post it.

It was an insightful article, I disagree though. Anyone who casually studies U.S. politics in the mid 18th century will quickly figure out it is dominated by the issue of slavery. It was a problem.

Professional politicians do not like to solve problems. They enjoy the status quo, even if it is uncomfortable. Anyone who was labelled an Abolitionist was not in favor of the status quo. They would have a hard time getting any support from established politicians. Anyone claiming to be an Abolitionist would be sticking there professional necks out for little gain. In the end, the Abolitionist movement did succeed.

To offer a second opinion, the posting seems appropriate to me.

Thanks for the post, Armand.

As they say, the most successful abolitionist was the first one to fire on Fort Sumter.

Abolitionism's surprise victory has misled generations about how change gets made.

It has only misled stupid people who draw the wrong conclusions.

Abolition's victory came about in one of the most ordinary ways, through mass murder.
-Kle.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend ArmymenRGreat! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting article, but the author misses one crucial point. While it's true that the Southern slave-holders essentially destroyed the institution themselves because of their extreme actions, the REASON they took those actions was because the abolitionists existed at all. The mere idea of abolitionism terrified Southerners.

From the early days of the abolition movement, the South consistently over-reacted to their every move. When the abolitionists sent fliers through the mail to Southern slaveholders to urge them to free their slaves, the South responded by censoring the mails--a clear violation of Federal law. When the Abolitionists sent petitions to congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia (the one place the Federal government had authority to do anything about slavery) the South responded with the Gag Rule--a clear violation of the Constitution's guaranteed right of petition. The few abolitionist newspapers in the South were stamped out one by one--often violently--again in violation of the First Ammendment. When the Abolitionists started helping runaway slaves the South responded with the Fugitive Slave Act--a violation of the Fourth Ammendment.

Each tiny, usually futile step, by the Abolitionists provoked an extreme over-reaction by the South. And each of THOSE actions produced outrage in the North. To many Northerners it seemed like the Southern slave owners were running the country--and you didn't have to be an abolitionist to be mad about that. This ultimately brought about the emergence of the Republican Party, the Election of 1860, secession, war, and ultimately emancipation.

It could be argued that without the Abolitionists 'terrorizing' the South, none of that would have happened. Or at least not when and how it did.

Klebert- I suppose the Allies won WWII in the same way?

I second ScottWashburn

Fine post, Scott !

Abolition's victory came about in one of the most ordinary ways, through mass murder.
-Kle

Abolition was a byproduct of the mass murder. The 600,000 dead were sacrificed to preserve the federal government.

Armand,

Interesting article, thank you very much for sharing it with us.

Abolitionist's were a very small minority of the Northern pubic, both before and even during the early stages of civil war, and probably didn't amount to more than 5 – 10 percent of the Northern population(some accounts I've read go as high as 15 percent).

Most of the moderate population and politicians(including Abraham Lincoln)that oppose slavery in the North at time, would have classified themselfs as "anti-slavery" or "free soilers", not abolitionist.

The political goals of most anti-slavery politicians were aimed not at the abolition of slavery, since the Constitution protected it, but the exclusion of slavery in the territories, as a way to isolated slavery and hopefully lead to its decline and eventual demise.

I also believe that Scott is correct when he stated, the Antebellum's South over-reaction to the small abolitionist movement in the North, provoked an extreme overreaction by Southerners that I beleave saw slavery as the cornerstone of their economic wealth, social order, and there feelings of racial superiority, ultimately brought about the emergence of the Republican Party, the Election of 1860, secession, war, and ultimately emancipation.

Once again, A good thought-provoking article thank you for sharing.

Interesting analysis ScottWashburn.

Also interesting was the illustration at the top of the article – Reverend Lovejoy is considered to be the first American martyr for freedom of the press in addition to his enshrinement as an Abolitionist martyr.

I think in many ways that the involvement of the abolitionists in the South (including efforts to use violence to achieve what they were convinced was right), led to more entrenchment of the defense of slavery and reactions by many cited above. I think we have to look at the great fear that was ever present in all slave holding lands throughout history. The history of insurrection involving slaves (and even indentured servants like some of my ancestors) was likely well known.

Given that many of the main slave holding areas/states often had large majorities of slaves vs owners/whites. Coupled with recent history (including the increasing agitation of the abolitionists inciting rebellion), caused immense fear. After all, who would not want to protect your family?

In any case, the southern states were heavily divided on the issue as well, with large portions of the population interested in the gradual abolition of the institution (like had been done in northern states in the late 1700s and early 1800s).

Here is a wealth of information which can be read to get another perspective on a problem that is not as cut and dry as many modern day folks want us to believe.

link

link

link

link

Doug

A votre service mon ami Rick! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Klebert- I suppose the Allies won WWII in the same way?

Yes, exactly the same way. Force and the threat of force are usually the final arbiters of pretty much everything.

Abolition was a byproduct of the mass murder. The 600,000 dead were sacrificed to preserve the federal government.

Same thing. The war, like all the other ones, was about forcing opinions on people through institutionalized mass crime.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for wars. I just wish people would be realistic about reality, instead of always trying to sugar-coat it.
-Kle.

Did abolition, whether through its own devices, or causing slaveholders to overreact, bring about the end of slavery? Yes. That seems like hardly a failure to me.

"But before abolitionism succeeded, it failed."

That's patently absurd. That's like saying I voted for the legislation before I voted against it. Washington lost most of his major battles, but still won the Revolution. The North Vietnamese lost most if not all of their land battles with the US and ARNV, but still ended up winning the war. The end result is all that matters. I'd say abolition succeeded, period.

Of course, once slavery was abolished didn't mean they were granted equality. Still had to go through 100 more years to legalize equality, and we're still working on the social aspect as well. But on the face of it abolition did what is set out to do, free the slaves.

Abolition was a byproduct of the mass murder.

Yes that's totally correct. As I understand it somewhere between 1.5 and 5 million.

All of them Black!

The argument as presented in the Times is under modus esophagus-- If you'll swallow this you'll swallow anything.