Freedom's Journey: African American Voices of the Civil War
570
Freedom's Journey: African American Voices of the Civil War
570eBook
Available on Compatible NOOK devices, the free NOOK App and in My Digital Library.
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9781569769959 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Chicago Review Press, Incorporated |
| Publication date: | 02/01/2004 |
| Series: | The Library of Black America series |
| Sold by: | INDEPENDENT PUB GROUP - EPUB - EBKS |
| Format: | eBook |
| Pages: | 570 |
| File size: | 3 MB |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Freedom's Journey
African American Voices of the Civil War
By Donald Yacovone
Chicago Review Press Incorporated
Copyright © 2004 Donald YacovoneAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-56976-995-9
CHAPTER 1
What Is at Stake: Black Abolitionism, Politics, and Lincoln's Election
"They differ only in the method"
Thomas Hamilton
March 17, 1860
American politics offered few options to African Americans. Most blacks could not vote, and in some states, such as Pennsylvania, where they had exercised the franchise, whites took the privilege away from them. In New York, where the great journalists Thomas and Robert Hamilton spent their lives, property qualifications reduced the number of voting blacks. Despite these restrictions, African Americans took a keen interest in politics and participated wherever they could, even if that participation was restricted to the local level. They followed national politics closely and were careful to note how the principles and practices of the Democrats and Republicans affected black rights and the institution of slavery. Two decades of antislavery politics had taught blacks that they could not place their trust in a political party. Party principles and platforms certainly mattered, but the ability to advance abolitionism and equality mattered more. While black leaders like Thomas Hamilton might find some satisfaction in the rise of third party antislavery politics and be heartened by white political abolitionists such as Joshua Giddings in the House of Representatives or Charles Sumner in the Senate, in 1860 the progressive few were vastly outweighed by the intolerant many. The Democratic Party offered nothing for African Americans; it represented the slave power of the South and the bitterest racial prejudice of the North. The new Republican Party convinced some black leaders that it embodied the progressive force in the nation and held out the best "practical" hope of becoming a bulwark against the institution of slavery. But its racist campaigns, its insistence on enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law, its preference for colonizing blacks, and its limited commitment to opposing only the spread of slavery, proved inadequate for the hour. Only three years earlier, the Supreme Court of the United States had ruled that black men had no rights that whites were bound to respect. Republican states like Illinois offered no rights to blacks, not even to testify in court. What could African Americans expect from a man like Lincoln, who publicly declared his belief that blacks could never be the equal of whites? To many, his victory in the fall elections represented nothing more than the "fag end of a series of pro-slavery administrations."
Thomas Hamilton (1823–1865), son of William Hamilton (who believed he descended from Alexander Hamilton), began his career in reform and antislavery journalism in 1837, when he worked for the Colored American. He also worked for a variety of other papers before establishing his first newspaper, the People's Press, in 1841. One of New York's most important black leaders, he spoke out for temperance, black suffrage, equal rights, and resistence to the Fugitive Slave Law. He and his brother Robert published the Anglo-African Magazine and the New York Weekly Anglo-African, the leading black newspaper of the Civil War era, which ran from 1859 to the close of 1865. While Hamilton's views were decidedly pessimistic, many agreed with him that in 1860, "We have no hope from either [Democrats or Republicans] as political parties." Ripley et al., The Black Abolitionist Papers, 3:42–54, 359, 5:27–28; Yacovone, Voice of Thunder, 12–13.
THE TWO GREAT POLITICAL PARTIES
The two great political parties separate at an angle of two roads, that they may meet eventually at the same goal. They both entertain the same ideas, and both carry the same burdens. They differ only in regard to the way they shall go, and the method of procedure. We, the colored people of this country, free and enslaved, who constitute the burthen that so heavily bears down both of these parties — we, who constitute their chief concern, their chief thought — we, who cause all their discord, and all their dissentions, and all their hates, and all their bitter prejudices — we, say both of these religious political parties, we, the blacks, must, in some form or other, be sacrificed to save themselves and the country — to save the country intact for the white race.
The Democratic party would make the white man the master and the black man the slave, and have them thus together occupy every foot of the American soil. Believing in the potency of what they term the superior race, they hold that no detriment can come to the Republic by the spread of the blacks in a state of servitude on this continent; that with proper treatment and shackles upon him, proper terrors over him, and vigorous operations for the obliteration of his mind, if he have any — that with these, and whatever else will brutify him, he can be kept in sufficient subjection to be wholly out of the pale of danger to the Republic; that he can never be so much as a consideration in any calculation of imminence to the government. On the contrary, it is held by this party that his presence, under these restrictions, is of incalculable benefit to the nation — the chief instrument in the development of her resources, and the cornerstone of her liberties. What the Democratic party complains of is that the Republican party — not for the negro's, but for their own political advancement — advocate the necessity for a check upon the spread of the blacks — not as free, but in chain, not as men, but as slaves; for in this — that the blacks, as free men, shall have neither their rights, footing, nor anything else, in common with the whites, in the land — both parties are agreed; and in looking at matters as they present themselves to us at this moment, we are not sure that if any of the many withheld rights were to be secured to us, they would not come from the Democratic side after all, notwithstanding the great excesses their leaders frequently carry them into. We mean the great body, acting, as it will some day, independent from the party leaders. The great masses, if left to themselves to act up to their true instincts, would always do much better in matters involving right and wrong than they do when operated upon by what are generally supposed to be intelligent leaders. These are generally great demagogues or great conservatives, neither of which have done the world any positive good. Whatever of worth it receives from them is the result of their negative position.
The Republican party today, though we believe in the minority, being the most intelligent, contains by far the greatest number of these two classes of men, and hence, though with larger professions for humanity, is by far its most dangerous enemy. Under the guise of humanity, they do and say many things — as, for example, they oppose the reopening of the slave trade. They would fain make the world believe it to be a movement of humanity; and yet the world too plainly sees that it is but a stroke of policy to check the spread, growth, and strength of the black masses on this continent. They oppose the progress of slavery in the territories, and would cry humanity to the world; but the world has already seen that it is but the same black masses looming up, huge, grim, and threatening, before this Republican party, and hence their opposition. Their opposition to slavery means opposition to the black man — nothing else. Where it is clearly in their power to do anything for the oppressed colored man, why then they are too nice, too conservative, to do it. They find, too often, a way to slip round it — find a method how not to do it. If too hard pressed or fairly cornered by the opposite party, then it is they go beyond said opposite party in their manifestations of hatred and contempt for the black man and his rights.
Such is the position of the two parties today, and it is yet to be seen whither they will drive in the political storm they are creating, and which is now raging round them. In their desire to "hem in" and crush out the black man, they form a perfect equation. They differ only in the method. We have no hope from either as political parties. We must rely on ourselves, the righteousness of our cause, and the advance of just sentiments among the great masses of the Republican people, be they Republicans or Democrats. These masses we must teach that it will not do for them to believe nor yet act upon the declaration of their party leaders that we are a naturally low and degraded race, and unfit to have or enjoy liberty and the rights of men and citizens, and hence must be crushed out of the land. We must teach these masses that all this is a fabrication, a great political lie, an abominable injustice to an outraged but honest and determined people, who cannot be crushed out — a people outraged by overpowering brute force, and then declared unfit to come within the pale of civilization. All this is our work, and rising by all the forces within our grasp high above the chicanery and vulgar policies of the day, we must perform fully and well our duty in these respects.
New York Weekly Anglo-African, March 17, 1860.
* * *
"every colored man in the community is an anti-slavery speech"
H. Ford Douglas
October 6, 1860
H. Ford Douglas (1831–1865) escaped from slavery in 1846. He fled Virginia for the relative safety of Cleveland, Ohio. He became a barber and provided himself an education, becoming remarkably conversant in the Bible, history, classical literature, and the popular literature of the day. He quickly became a force in the Ohio black community. After the adoption of the Fugitive Slave Law he moved to Chicago, participated in various black state and national conventions, and organized protests against the state's discriminatory laws. During the 1860 political campaign Douglas lectured throughout the North and took the opportunity to voice his hatred of slavery and his willingness to use any means necessary to destroy it.
In his speech before an antislavery gathering in Salem, Ohio, Douglas, like Hamilton, denounced the major American political parties as subservient to the slave power and enemies of blacks. Douglas took a "political purist" position, not caring for parties but insisting that those who vote should be voting only for true antislavery men — not just the best of a bad lot. If American politics had sunk to new depths, Douglas believed that the voters ultimately bore responsibility for it. Nevertheless, he recognized that either Abraham Lincoln or Stephen A. Douglas would become president. Rethinking his previous cynical preference, he now determined that Lincoln's election would at least bring the antislavery element of the party into prominence. Perhaps in time that element would grow. In this, H. Ford Douglas represented many African Americans who clearly saw the shortcomings of the Republican party, but feared the Democrats even more. Douglas's political ambivalence drew him toward John Brown. While Douglas would not directly praise Brown's attack on Harpers Ferry, he saw a purity in Brown's motives that placed him on the same level as the Founding Fathers. "If Washington and his associates of the Revolution were right, so was John Brown." American politics provided men like Douglas with few alternatives and even fewer heroes. Ultimately, Douglas and Hamilton voiced the same sentiment: we must rely on ourselves. One can understand, then, why Douglas became one of the first African Americans to serve in the army, enlisting in 1862 and ironically becoming one of the few blacks to serve in a white regiment. Ripley, et al., The Black Abolitionist Papers, 4:78–79.
Mr. Chairman:
The difference between my distinguished namesake [Stephen A. Douglas], to whom you have referred, and myself, is this. He is seeking his mother; I am not. I feel but little, just now, like making a speech. We have just been listening to the very able report of your Executive Committee, and I fear I can add nothing to the interest of the occasion by any poor words that I may utter.
We have listened to a recital of the imminent dangers which threaten the liberties of the people; and I am sure none of us can go away from this meeting without feeling that we all have much to do — that our mission is not fulfilled till slavery shall cease to exist in every portion of our widely extended country.
Thirty-five years ago, when the abolitionists began their labor, they supposed all that was necessary was to let the people know the true character of slavery — to hold the hateful system up to the scorn and indignation of the world, and the work would be done. But we have lived to learn that slavery is no weak and impotent thing, but a giant power, so fortified by potent influences, social, political and religious, that it can be rooted out only by uncompromising and untiring effort. We have proved it true, as was said by Benjamin Franklin, that "a nation may lose its liberty in a day and be a century in finding it out." When the people of this country consented to a union with slaveholders — when they consented to strike out, at the bidding of South Carolina, from the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, the clause condemning the King of Great Britain for bringing Africans into this land, and dooming them to slavery — at that moment they sold their own liberties. If there was ever any doubt of this, we can doubt it no longer, now that the rights of the white man, as well as the black, are so ruthlessly stricken down.
I do not mean to assert, at present, that the Constitution of the United States is not susceptible of an anti-slavery interpretation. I believe if I was a Supreme judge, and there was in the country a public sentiment that would sustain me in it, I would find no difficulty in construing that instrument in favor of the freedom of all men. But that is not now the question. You have decided upon the character of the Constitution, and I must accept your own interpretation; and with that rendering, I repudiate the instrument, and the government and the institutions which it is made to sustain. I will not stand connected with a government that steals away the black man's liberties, that has corrupted our best political leaders, by leading them to the support of the greatest crimes, the vilest of all institutions. Even William H. Seward has lately declared that this is to be the white man's government. Ten years ago he would have been thought incapable of such a declaration; but such is the influence of slavery. Hence the necessity of attacking the system now, in a deadly warfare; otherwise, our people will be — if they are not now — wholly and hopelessly lost.
Yes! we must do as John Brown did, not necessarily in the way he did it, but we must labor with the sure determination to effect, in some way, the complete overthrow of slavery. I am not an advocate for insurrection; I believe the world must be educated into something better and higher than this before we can have perfect freedom, either for the black man or the white. In the present moral condition of the people, no true liberty can be established, either by fighting slavery down, or by voting it down. Hence our object is not to put anybody into office, as a means of abolishing slavery, or to keep anybody out. I care not for the success or defeat of any party, so far as the interests of freedom are concerned. The failure or success of any of the present political parties can neither injure nor aid us. Our business must be to educate the people to the highest sentiment that shall make them recognize the white man, the black man, the red man, all men, to the rights of manhood. There is not to be, as your noblest statesman seems to imagine, a government for the white man alone. What merit is there in your boasted liberty or the Christianity you profess to adopt, unless they recognize the brotherhood of all men, in all time? Till we have protected the rights of all, we have secured the liberties of none — that government is no government which fails to protect the freedom of its meanest subject. I will put the rights of the meanest slave against the greatest government of the world — for liberty is more than any institution, or any government.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Freedom's Journey by Donald Yacovone. Copyright © 2004 Donald Yacovone. Excerpted by permission of Chicago Review Press Incorporated.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.