My great-great grandfather lied about his age to get into the Union Army. I am fourth generation from a Union state. But given my personality, I’d have to say that I would probably be kinda anti-slavery, but not virulently against it and not an abolitionist, sadly.
Considering France didn’t have slave owners (we did pick them up on the shores of Africa and moved them to you of course), and knowing myself, I probably wouldn’t have cared much either way, if I even knew about it. I would have hidden/helped an escaped slave however, but I can’t imagine a scenario in which one would have shown up on my doorstep.
However, the OP immediately reminded me of a lovely song about a similar subject. The title translates as “Born in Leidenstadt, 1917”, and the 3 singers wonders whether one (the Jewish songwriter) would have been a nazi had he been born in post-WWI Germany, whether the other (Irish) would have been caught up in the Protestant/Catholic war in Ireland, whether the last (black woman) would have opposed apartheid had she been born rich and white in South Africa.
The song concludes : “We’ll never know what’s really inside us, hidden behind our appearances - the soul of a just, of an accomplice, of a torturer ; the best or the worst […] Pray you and me are spared, as long as possible, from having to pick a side.”
When I first read your question, I thought my answer would be no. I’m too law-abiding and think that the social pressures to conform would be fierce.
But then again, I’m not much of a conformist. And as I read Letters from an Age of Reason, I could clearly relate to this girl who felt that she didn’t fit in and sort of fell into helping slaves, first by coming into contact with them in her misadventures and then by falling in love with one. I can relate to her, but of course, I can never know whether I would have done some of the things she did.
I often wonder about people who lived their whole lives going against the grain, perhaps because they were born too early for their cause to be accepted. Did they make a conscious choice? Or did circumstances get thrust upon them that they couldn’t reconcile which forced them to take the actions that they did?
I think by 1840s and 50s that it would not have been going against the grain in the North to be an abolitionist in the North. The movement was actually a fairly common cause in many places. So if you were ever prone to work for any cause that you thought was right, it would have been easy to fall into supporting abolition. That is a far cry from dedicating your life, but I don’t believe it would have been all that courageous to actively support movements and groups that were for abolition and doing something about it.
Personally I think everyone should find a cause they believe in and a group that works locally for that cause and get involved. Try to do your small part to change the world for the better. Volunteerism appears to be way done by the non-scientific reports I have heard throughout the non-profit community.
I am a pretty conservative guy. I’m not speaking in the political sense although that is also true. I am not one to be demonstrative in my views. I don’t join clubs, go to rallies, join boycotts. If I were still from New Jersey in the hypothetical I could see me being anti-slavery but not very active in it. I do have a very strong feeling of obligation towards service so I could see me joining the military when the war broke out.
It’s just very hard to embrace radicalism for most people, even when radicalism is (in retrospect) the only right choice. I’m inclined myself to centrism (which is what much northern abolitionism was in the 1850s–talk, and money, and votes, and compromise with enemies) rather than the radical solution (involving action, risk, and making enemies) that is more admirable and more pure. I understand the Browns’ fanaticism now, having read that book, even if I couldn’t join them myself, then or now.
Interesting question.
Taking the same hypothetical tack as others have mentioned in this thread, (that I grew up in the same area I did in the 20th century and under roughly parallel circumstances,) I have to say that I probably wouldn’t be that strongly motivated in changing slavery practices in the American South. It would be sort of a thing like “Oh, isn’t that stuff terrible, but you know, none of the Americans like it when we try to tell them what to do after all. We did our part and outlawed it in the British Empire after all.”
I’d like to think that I might have helped out in some way with the Underground Railroad stuff, either getting escaped slaves the last little way to freedom, or helping establish them here.
[bolding mine]
Be careful with that. Bear in mind that teaching slave children certain things, like reading, was absolutely forbidden in some times and places…for the very specific reason of “keeping them in their place.”
Sailboat
As it happens, I’m a proud graduate of Oberlin College, an abolitionist hotbed, and my family was strongly Republican at the time, so I’m sure I would have voted for, volunteered with and contributed to abolitionist causes. I doubt I would have totally committed my whole life to it, though, or become involved in outright illegality such as throwing in my lot with John Brown. Had there been the opportunity to quietly help the Underground Railroad, I hope I would have done so. Once the Civil War began, I likely would have, as my great-great-grandfather and great-great-uncle did, enlisted in the Union Army to finally defeat the Slave Power.
It wasn’t, really, even in the 1840s and '50s.
I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have been an abolitionist. Today I’m reasonably well off, well educated with a good job. Take that back 150 years and I would almost certainly have had servants. I live in Texas, so there’s a pretty good chance they would be indentured or even actual slaves.
I think Maastricht makes an excellent point with regards to factory farming, but he doesn’t go far enough.
Imagine you’re in the year 2200. In this future, all animals have equal rights with humans, and it’s been this way for 150 years. Imagine this thread wasn’t about John Brown and his friends, but about PETA. 95% of the posters from this future world would be saying “I would have been a leading light in the Animal Rights movement back in 2008. I would have been throwing paint on celebrities fur coats and dynamiting puppy farms. Peace and vegetable rights etc!”
My opinion is that the reality would have been slightly different.
People in 1850’s America had 1850’s American ideals. And for most people, abolishing slavery wasn’t even on the radar.
I disagree, the abolitionist go back at least as far as the Revolution itself. There were as far as I know as many people by percentage involved in support the abolition movement as are actively involved in the environmental movement. There are not the same by any means, but from what I know of active environmentalist, most of us would probably have been part of a similar cause then. I lean much further to the center than most of the environmentalists I work with. At least half of them are also active in various human rights organizations. I think “fairly common” is an adequate term to use. That does not imply widespread but it does imply that those supporting abolition would not have been looked down upon in the more urban areas of the North.
Why do you think 95% of the posters from then would say that when only 2% (Biggirl) of the ones now do?
Because Monday morning quarterbacking is easy.
I’m sure I remember a similar thread to this one where someone asked “If you had been German during the Third Reich would have tried to kill Hitler?” It’s incredibly comforting to think that I would have become a super secret ninja and stopped the Nazis single handedly, but the reality is that 95% of actual Germans either supported him or, more likely just got on with their lives as best they could.
I agree. And before the thread, I would have predicted as you do. So why isn’t that happening here with the slavery question, do you think?
Well, I think part of it is that the OP articulated the issues right out of the gate, so the issues were already on our minds.
A different OP might have gotten very different responses … something more opened ended, like “imagine yourself living in the mid-19th century, what would you have been like”? One theory is that more people might have put themselves in situations that appeal more to what we know of history, such as working for the underground railroad or protesting slavery.
For my part, I’ve very status quo oriented, and like someone else mentioned, I also probably would have been a Tory if I had lived during colonial times. Likewise, I am also a Christian, but if I had lived at the time and heard about Jesus turning over the money changers’ tables, I would have been horrified. What, was he born in a barn? We live in a society with rules for a reason!
To paraphrase another Doper:
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 and point them to the nearest Underground Railroad station. But I doubt I’d “devote my life” to the cause. I’m not *that *passionate about the things I’m passionate about today, why would it be different back then?
Besides, if I were 38 years old as I am now but living in 1840s Cincinnati, I’d probably be a factory worker or something, and have little nor any means to champion the abolitionist movement other than moral support of it.
*Assuming I was still born and raised in the North, near Cincinnati, I see no reason why I wouldn’t have been taught abolitionist ideals from my Yankee parents.
Even many abolitionists favored “colonization,” the return of freed slaves to Africa, for fear of the economic and social impact of millions of freed slaves fanning out across the country. A factory worker like shallora might have fallen into that group. Lincoln himself was a colonization backer for awhile, although by the beginning of the Civil War he wasn’t, IIRC.
Sentiment on slavery in Cincinnati was decidedly mixed (though some abolitionists did set up camp there owing to its location just across the border from Kentucky).
Interesting note on the “morality” of abolitionism in the south.
From Huckelberry Finn
and
http://http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Twa2Huc.html
Huck thought he was being immoral in allowing Jim to escape and going straight to hell for helping.