Reading the The Dangerous Isms and the Fanatical Ists by Michael F. Conlin was not only an interesting read but an comically ironic one as well. I don't want to sound like I was laughing through the whole passage because I wasn't at all it's just that even after years of history classes and many lessons on the Civil War I still cannot wrap my head around what society was like in this period of American history. The United States of America is known as a melting pot, a country of many freedoms and liberties to all citizens but in this document Conlin's analysis and explanation clearly paints a picture of the foundation and starting point of this very important issue in our history. In class we have talked about how yes, the U.S. has developed and overcome the unfair treatment of many individuals in this country but how we also still have a long ways to go.
Conlin identifies dozens of different "isms" feared in this time period of American history. This document highlights on Abolitionism, the movement to end slavery, and the many fears of not only white southerners but northerners throughout the U.S. as well. Throughout my years as a student there has always been this fixation on how horrible and mean the Southerners were and how they hated African Americans and fully supported slavery, up until recently I did not realize how improperly unformed I have been. One of the reoccurring reminders I really appreciated in this article was that Northern conservatives just like Southern conservatives feared the "isms" and advocated for the right of slave ownership.
At the end of our last class meeting Professor Gannon posed the question, "If 75% of Southern whites don't own slaves why is slavery so important to all white southerners?" I think this question can be expanded to some Northern white citizens as well. Conlin states, "It was the fear of losing power to the powerless that made elite conservatives in the North as well as the South dread the 'isms'". This rings true for Southern non-slave owners as well. Whites were basically afraid to lose their status and power as individuals in society if slavery were to be abolished. I doubt any white man or woman would have admitted as much because that would have been like saying slaves had the capacity to surpass them economically, politically or socially. The fact that whites even had to worry about such things is proof in my mind that they too believed that slaves had the ability and brains to live in the "white mans world". Whites across the nation feared for the loss of their social status, even if they were on the lowest rung of society they were still ahead of black slaves as long as slavery was permitted throughout the country.
The idea of "ultraism", the combination of all the "isms" had never even entered my mind. I had never considered that all of these different "ism" were essentially connected. While I don't agree that they are all the same I do think they stem from the same important idea that something is wrong with society and the need for change develops into different movements. This again highlights on the fear of change during this period of American history. I don't think there is a single person in the history of ever that has not been afraid of change at one time or another but I feel like this pre Civil War period was the foundation for change in the United States. The nation in this period of time was still relatively young and had had its fair share of obstacles to overcome but nothing like the idea that all men are created equal challenged American citizens as an entire nation like slavery did. This difficult but very important abolition period not only eventually abolished slavery and paved the way for freedoms and rights for other minorities as well but also produced change and a more open minded way of thinking in citizens across the United States.
Including the northerners to the question asked by Dr. Gannon is a great idea. Northern and southern conservatives absolutely did not want black slaves to have the same power as them. The white conservative elite feared any kind of ism that threatened their power. The fact that 75% of southerners did not own slaves but still were against abolition can help us make the inference you stated that the whites wanted to keep their superiority against black slaves. We discussed in class that only the top 1% owned more than 20 slaves and it was on those plantations that most of the southern agricultural money was made. Could one assume that some whites bought a couple slaves to make themselves look wealthier? I do not believe all southerners did this, but if they felt superior there would not be a better way to show that superiority than to own a couple slaves.
ReplyDeleteI came to the conclusion that I was also wrong about the northerners. I always believed most wanted to abolish slavery, because they felt some kind of remorse for what the South did to slaves. Looking more in depth we can see the north felt there way of modernization was better than the South’s, and used slavery to show how the South was wrong in their modernization. Of course some northerners did believe all men were created equal, but it might not be as many as I thought before.
In all the beginnings of the Civil War show us that there was much more to the fight than some of us might have thought before.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy own studies have revealed to me a truth that seems evident all throughout history. As historians, we are constantly exposed to hypocrisy. As Cook notes, Southerners and Northerners could very well be against slavery for moral reasons. However, the question that should be posed is this: ok, then what? I think it's safe to assume that the majority of Americans, North and South, would practice a level of racism that would maintain slavery in everything but name.
ReplyDeletePaulino made a good point about Modernization having a direct relationship with the Northern relationship with slavery. A traditional slave laboring and/or agricultural based economy could potentially threatening the industrializing North. As we learned in class today, in the span of 10 years, the North vastly increased the mileage of rail roads, iron works, and perhaps the arguably most important of all: education. This tension with a free market based economy certainly benefited the abolition movement but not exactly for the right reasons.
Even after the end of slavery, "free" blacks faced constant persecution and prejudice if they attempted to use their right to vote. The Klan and Jim Crow laws are but just two examples of the shackles that still existed for anyone who wasn't white. Slavery had ended in name but not practice. In fact, I would argue that the persecution became worse with time. Check out The Birth of a Nation (directed by D.W. Griffith and released in 1915). It is a masterful movie in it's own right, but also terribly racist in it's depiction of black men as drunken louts following the end of slavery after the Civil War. US President Woodrow Wilson wrote at the time: “It is like writing history with lightning and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”
The question begs to be asked: is someone a hero if they fight against slavery for reasons not pure or moral? If profitable actions lead to the dissolution of slavery, are the means to an end justified?
Here's a link to The Birth of a Nation:
https://archive.org/details/dw_griffith_birth_of_a_nation
I think that the groups Northerners and Southerners can be broken down into one group as a whole, white males. I think that both Paulino and Max both made excellent points when they stated that Northerners and Southerners were afraid of being seen as equals to blacks. But I think that you can expand on that fact and say that white males across America were afraid that if you were to give the slaves any rights that you had to give other groups, such as women, religious groups, political groups, etc… their rights as well. White males didn’t want to lose the authority that they had created to anyone and were willing to do whatever it took to maintain their interests. However, there were those who did oppose the idea of slavery but still wanted to keep their power in society. This is where the racism card comes into play. Michael asked a terrifically simple question of, “Then what?” What is the plan after these slaves are free? Will they face similar situations of abuse? Who will make sure they are getting fair treatment? I think that people wanted to keep slavery as a whole but they just didn’t want to live with the term being associated with America. My viewpoints and assumptions changed greatly in class when we said that ¾ of Southerners didn’t own slaves and when we talked about Northerners being just as racist as Southerners. These are both very sobering truths that I have faced within the last week and hopefully it will be something that I can continue to build on as far as making assumptions.
ReplyDeleteCheap free labor was the only way of producing mass amounts of cotton back then. Without slavery, cotton couldn’t be harvested and the large plantation owners would be in trouble. Although the owners did not gather to a majority of the south, they were the political leaders and what drove the economy. Now, making a point on the question Dr. Gannon asked in class. I agree with Paulino and what he said about all whites not wanting there power to be threatened by black slaves. Southern population owned very few slaves if any at all. However, most all of them agreed that it was their job to keep white supremacy and look down upon slaves. I also believe that white southerners who didn’t own slaves fell victim along with the slaves. They depended on the owners for many monetary concessions. Also, slave owners were some of the most influential people at the time and could make or break poor whites. Even if you didn’t own slaves, imagine the profit and revenue brought in for white people capturing slaves and selling them to the public.
ReplyDeleteMax, I thought your comment about the pre-Civil War era being a foundation for change was really thought provoking. Being a young nation at the time, both northerners and southerners wanted to protect what they had worked hard for. I too had thought that the northerners were always against slavery for the moral issue and not for the growing modernization of the north. It is fascinating to read how only a small percentage of the southern population owned slaves and of that an even smaller percentage owned 20 or more slaves. That is why I think it is hard to wrap my mind around why people in the South still fought against the abolishment. I would have to agree with your statement on how the white population feared losing their superiority if the black population had their same civil liberties. I wonder if the southern population had actually seen the success that the north was having in their modernization efforts. Did they not see how profitable it was becoming or was the worry of actually being equals to the minorities too hard to stomach and they would risk a war to fight for it? These changes in the society were really starting to shake up the nation geographically and though we obviously know the outcome, I think it is still difficult to fathom justification of ideals in people from both the north and south.
ReplyDelete