This will take some imagining, because of course “you” wouldn’t be “you” living in the 1840s and 1850s, but if you had been alive in that period, would you have devoted your life to abolishing slavery? Would you have felt passionately about the subject, constantly outraged at the immorality being practiced legally around you every day, so much so that you would be glad to violate the existing laws to combat this evil practice?
If you say yes, especially if you say yes too eagerly, I have a hard time believing you, because I know how strongly I feel about the perfectly correct stance taken by the most extreme of pre-Civil War abolitionists, yet that’s only because I hold these views with 150+ years of hindsight. In practice, I suspect that I have too weak a character to devote my life to a cause as demanding and dangerous as abolitionism, am too eager to rationalize and compromise, am too questioning of my own values to willingly taken on the life of a criminal for moral and ethical reasons. Few of us have that kind of strong character.
I am reading Russell Banks’ novel CLOUDSPLITTER right now, which takes the form of the memoirs of John Brown’s surviving son in the 1890s, and I’m surprised by how reasonable Brown’s views seem to me, at his most radical. If people all around you are committing bloody atrocities, or allowing them to be committed against others, isn’t it only reasonable to combat these atrocities, and isn’t it only cowardice to rationalize doing otherwise?
I don’t want to get off on this tangent (honestly) but when I teach abolitionist works in my mid-19th century AmLit courses, I often use the analogy of the anti-abortion movement to explain how abolitionists felt–that they were doing the work of God, they were protecting innocent helpless victims, and those committing immoral acts were perpetrating evil. This is one of the few glimmers of sympathy or understanding I have ever had with anti-abortion extremists.
As you said, I wouldn’t be “me”…I wouldn’t have had the same upbringing or cultural experiences I did, so I have no idea what values I would have developed or what my feelings toward slavery would have been.
I would be anti-slavery, sure*. And if I was face to face with an escaped slave, I’d help them out, give them food or money. But I doubt I’d “devote my life” to the cause. I’m not *that *passionate about the things I’m passionate about today (including abortion rights), why would it be different back then? Not to mention that back then I’d be dead in childbirth and all.
*Assuming I was still born and raised in the North, near Chicago, I see no reason why I wouldn’t have been taught abolitionist ideals from my Yankee parents.
Not every abolitionist was frothing at the mouth like John Brown. I might be one of those Presbyterians who decided that slavery was wrong based on religious convictions. I wouldn’t necessarily be all that radical and I might be siding with those who think peaceful resistance to slavery is best. Or hell, maybe I’m living in the south and I believe that African slaves are inferior to white men, that blacks are closer to primitive apes rather than man, and that it is ordained by God that I care for my slaves.
Well, let’s see, growing up in north Georgia, and given my current tendency to swim against the political current in my state, I imagine I would have been a Unionist, but not necessarily an abolitionist – at least not to the extent of calling for immediate manumission. Probably would have supported a gradual end to slavery to ease economic disruption. (E.g., all persons born after X date shall be free – similar to what Brazil did later.)
I am old and remember the fight for rights and used to march in black rights marches. Many argued that things were improving and blacks should take solace in that. I thought if I were black and told that my children or grandchildren would be better off ,it would not satisfy me. To spend my entire life as a second class citizen because of my color ,would piss me off. You only have one life. How could you expect someone to accept a lesser life?
Alton is literally almost as far from Chicago, geographically, socially and politically, as it is possible to be and still be in Illinois.
I’m not saying it’s a sure thing, mind you. I’m well aware that there were slavery supporters even here. But statistically, I’d have had a better shot at having an abolitionist upbringing than if I were born in Georgia or South Carolina.
I know I’m going to get raised eyebrows for this, but…I think there are a lot of moral parallels between opposing slavery back then and opposing the excesses of industrial farming (chicken, pork) now.
Today, we don’t want to see how chickens and pigs are kept. We just want cheap burgers, chicken nuggets and bacon.
We rationalize it with tales of animals “not knowing any better” and “not experiencing pain like we do” and creating false dichotomies, like: “I think people are more important then animals” when we really mean: “I don’t want to pay 50 cent more for a burger, so the cow can have a good life”.
I don’t see how that is much different from the average Joe or Jane in the 1800 America’s, who wanted to be able to afford cheap cotton, preferred to be shielded from the horrors of slave-keeping, and rationalized about those childish darkies really thriving on stern discipline.
So, as to the OP, yes I would have opposed slavery, and be thought daft for it. I also would have refrained from buying slave-labor stuff.
As for my actual effort; if my opposition to industrial farming is any measure, I would have lobbied for the abolitionist movement, just like I have for the Dutch Animal Rights Party, that now has two seats in Parliament. But I can’t say that it has cost me more time then a hobby would have.
If I were in my present-day form (black woman), I most likely would have been very much against slavery. But given my present-day personality, I probably would have been too much of a wimp to run away or join in a rebellion. I don’t think I would have been a snitch, but I wouldn’t put it pass me. Harriet Tubman would have hated a nigra like me.
Similarly, I don’t think I would have been brave enough to actively participate in the civil rights movement. I probably would have been one of the hankerchief heads worried about people making trouble for us “good” coloreds. I probably wouldn’t have bothered registering to vote. I would have been too afraid of getting arrested to engage in civil disobedience. Martin Luther King would have hated a darkie like me.
If I had been a white person of antebellum America, I would probably find slavery icky and disdainful. I’d probably feel pity for the wretched slave, but still think of myself as superior to him. I’d vote for anti-slavery candidates and talk plenty of shit about slaveowners, but I wouldn’t want to go to war over it. I probably wouldn’t be able to summon up enough passion to approve of violent action, especially guerilla-type stuff… John Brown would have hated a whitey like me.
To the OP, I probably would have found slavery distasteful, but not been particularly politically active about it. I would have cast my vote in favor of anti-slavery legislation, but I wouldn’t have been sneaking around secretly stealing away slaves and leading them to freedom in the north with the underground railroad or anything.
I think that I would probably have been opposed to slavery, and would have done things like vote against it when I had the opportunity, but I probably wouldn’t have devoted my life to ending it. I probably would, though, have respected those who did.
Being anti-slavery means that you think that slavery is wrong. Being an abolitionist means you want to see slavery abolished, or that you’re willing to take actions to try to get slavery abolished.
Given where I grew up, I doubt I’d buy into the idea of slavery as categorically a Bad Thing™ or that the Northern in-everything-but-name wage slavery was better. I might spend my life arguing in favor of slave/worker rights and racial equality., but probably not against slavery itself.
I don’t think you can do the former without doing the latter, really. It’s not particularly internally consistant to say, “The races are equal, except whites have the right to own blacks.”
You can, of course, argue for abolition without arguing for equality or rights.
If you place the treatment of animals on the same moral plane as the treatment of human beings then there are plenty of moral parallels. That’s a mighty big “if” though.
