Another break from the transcriptions, just for a little while… but still related.
I recently came across (again) a quote I thought rather telling. It actually came from another transcription I completed for this blog, with a newspaper article focused on a discussion Lincoln had with representatives from the border states… and, as it so happens, on the topic of colonization.
This is a quote from the response from the representatives to Abraham Lincoln:
The rebellion derives its strength from the union of all classes in the insurgent States; and while that union lasts the war will never end until they are utterly exhausted. We know that at the inception of these troubles Southern society was divided, and that a large portion, perhaps a majority, were opposed to Secession. Now the great mass of Southern people are united. To discover why they are so we must glance at Southern society, and notice the classes into which it has been divided, and which still distinguish it. They are in arms, but not for the same objects; they are moved to a common end, but by different and even inconsistent reasons.
This, I believe, gives a nod to the suggestion that the Confederacy was filled with a rather wide range of interests. Was slavery one of those? Of course it was. This said, however, consider the Southerners who had participated in the activities of the American Colonization Society. With what I’ve transcribed so far, we’ve seen some rather strong statements against slavery.
On July 8, the title of my post was “That slavery is an evil no one can deny”.
On July 9… “we deprecate the horrors of slavery”
On July 11… “To prepare the way of the gradual emancipation and colonization of our slaves.”
And then, last night… (an I use the full quote rather than just the post title) “Although we were originally guiltless of her wrongs, yet by refusing to redress them, when we have the power, we become accomplices in the crime.”
I fully understand that this is from a document that is forty years prior to the secession crisis, but did everyone… more importantly, every Southerner… who signed their name to these statements, as a member of the American Colonization Society, not believe what they signed on to? I can’t imagine that at all to be the case.
Furthermore, yes, a good number of the people who had signed on had died by the time of the secession crisis, yet, there were still several who were still around… Bishop Meade being one of them. I’ll not go into the particulars on him just yet, as I’ve got quite a bit more to discuss about him in a focused post.
The question I leave with you is, how many, despite their belief in those statements shown above (and more), did participate as members, in some capacity or another, of the Confederacy?
Did they all flip on their opinion?
Understand, when I know well the case of Charles James Faulkner, I understand that some may well have done so (though I haven’t seen Faulkner’s name affixed to a branch of the ACS). He spoke strongly against slavery in 1832, but, some 20+ years later, began singing quite another tune. That isn’t lost on me. What I do suggest is that there were those who did not “flip” on the issue, and, feeling an eminent crisis trumped (at least for the time) a great evil they wished to be removed, opted for supporting the Confederacy. As to whether they were hopeful they could later return to the issue… I haven’t yet seen anything that says, one way or the other.
I said it a couple of weeks back, and I’ll ask it again… who among us has witnessed an event whereby an armed body of the US military was to be sent to your backyard, and not on a simple military operation… to suppress people in your own community… and undermine a majority ruling of people (and, yes, I know that gets complicated as well)? Can you possibly put yourself in those shoes and fully grasp the urgency of the situation as they saw it?
Do you see, now, how and why I’m fascinated with this Society of the ACS, and what I think it might suggest?
As we see people, particularly on wide ends of the pendulum swing, make their arguments, is a consideration of other dynamics of those who followed the Confederate flag not worthy of inclusion in the discussion?
Is it that people simply don’t know… or is it that people prefer not to complicate a fight that is otherwise made easy by oversimplification and generalizations?
More transcriptions to come.
Note: Please, please, please… if you have the time, take advantage of the hyperlinks. After all, they serve as support to my hypothesis.
Cenantua's Blog 
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
July 16, 2015
Robert, this post is an example of why I enjoy both writing and reading blogs. It’s very interesting material and goes so much deeper than the generalizations and simplistic approach to history that so many in the media and blogging world take when it comes to the past.
I have never understood why individuals today, living in an extremely nuanced time, are unwilling to accept that the world of 100, 150 or 200 years ago was equally nuanced, rather than cut and dried, with everybody apparently 100 percent for or against different viewpoints. We can’t learn from the past if we don’t understand it, and we can’t understand it if we don’t make a good-faith effort to study and comprehend the issues facing people of long ago.
I sometimes wonder if there is a not inconsequential segment of people who don’t actually want to know what happened in the past, for fear that the facts, at least as far as we can discern them, wouldn’t fit with their preconceived notions.
Robert Moore
July 16, 2015
“I have never understood why individuals today, living in an extremely nuanced time”
You would think being “plugged in”, as we are today, would provide an avenue to more enlightened minds. Google, and you shall be enlightened… and least more informed. In fact, it seems it has proven more a platform for pre-existing “understanding” (read “misunderstanding”). At times, there seems no room for discussion. Minds locked in place.
“I sometimes wonder if there is a not inconsequential segment of people who don’t actually want to know what happened in the past, for fear that the facts, at least as far as we can discern them, wouldn’t fit with their preconceived notions.”
Like you said, cut and dried… or a black and white world (and this is by no means intended as a pun) without any gray. You are or are not, and so to are people in history.
Sad.
I enjoy your writings, as well, CBC. Always good to see another open mind with balance, as we are awash in what seems to be a sea of insanity.
Cotton Boll Conspiracy
July 16, 2015
Thank you, Robert. I suppose the Internet makes is easier to find that which backs up a preconceived notion, if that’s what you need to buttress your “argument.”
Just because it’s written – whether on paper or the Internet – doesn’t make it accurate.
Keep up the good work.
Robert Moore
July 16, 2015
Thanks again. You as well.
Will Hickox
July 16, 2015
Perhaps some historians and others ignore defense against federal invasion as a motive because they’re wary of giving ammunition to those who claim slavery had nothing to do with the war. But it doesn’t actually do that if we examine the events. South Carolina initiated the war out of alarm at “Black Republican” Lincoln’s election. When he called for troops, Lincoln couldn’t leave out the less-fiery slave states still in the Union, and this was the tipping point for many whites in those states. Like you and the original source point out, there were several motives at work, and they were interconnected.
Robert Moore
July 16, 2015
“Perhaps some historians and others ignore defense against federal invasion as a motive because they’re wary of giving ammunition to those who claim slavery had nothing to do with the war.”
I agree, Will. I feel as if the discussion on the extreme ends selectively takes what fits the respective agendas, and ignores that which complicates, or, in fact, nullifies.
“South Carolina initiated the war out of alarm at “Black Republican” Lincoln’s election. When he called for troops, Lincoln couldn’t leave out the less-fiery slave states still in the Union, and this was the tipping point for many whites in those states.”
Indeed. Of course, there is also the intrastate issues that we have, even in the upper South, and I think even this fuels a lot of the spread of misinformation. I said it recently elsewhere, as much as I hate to use the words “complicated” and “complex”, over and over again, they are inescapable when we wish to address that larger audience. So, consider them said… again. 🙂
Thanks for continuing to follow along, and more importantly, provide something from your perspective.
Richard Williams
July 16, 2015
“Now the great mass of Southern people are united.”
The answer is obvious. Because people do not like being told (unjustly – and often, even justly) what to do – especially by “outsiders.” (Yes, I understand “telling people what to do” was the essence of slavery – thus the slave rebellions – I’m stating the obvious here I know, but I have to unless I be wrongly accused of something.)
We’re seeing the same backlash with the CBF. You recall what I told you in the email about a Northern relative who once sported a “You lost. Get over it.” anti-Confederate bumper sticker? Drive by his house today and you’ll see a CBF flying on top of a 28′ flag pole in his front yard. He put it up 2 weeks ago. Now his brother has one up as well.
Not too long ago, I also pointed out how Joseph Waddell cared little for the Confederate government or cause, but so despised the heavy hand of the Federal govt. that he supported the war. It’s a natural reaction, especially to a people (as was the case in 1861-1865) closely bound by the land, the region, a common history and kin. It’s the old, “I’ll insult my sister, but you better not unless you want to tangle with me” attitude.
And, as you so aptly put it in the Lexington book, “conditional Unionists” would only be pushed so far.
And I would agree with Will’s statement: “Perhaps some historians and others ignore defense against federal invasion as a motive because they’re wary of giving ammunition to those who claim slavery had nothing to do with the war.”
I believe that’s absolutely true. Slavery was, of course, central to the cause of the war but uncoupling the “defense against federal invasion” as central (to many) is, in my mind, just as absurd. It’s what largely motivated both Lee and Jackson – both “conditional Unionists”. As an anecdote, my grandmother once told me that when her grandfather was once asked “Why did you fight in the WBTS?” He replied, “Because of them damn invaders.”
As silly as that may sound to some, I believe it was absolutely true in many cases. And that can be easily demonstrated.
Robert Moore
July 16, 2015
“The answer is obvious. Because people do not like being told (unjustly – and often, even justly) what to do – especially by “outsiders.”
I had to laugh at that one… you just tied-in to my post about the Confederate flag, just the other day. Effective tie-in!:)
Richard Williams
July 16, 2015
What did I recently say about great minds? Yes, as my year old granddaughter said to me the other day, “You’re not the boss of me.” The Scots-Irish rising in her I fear.
Richard Williams
July 16, 2015
5 year old. Sorry.
Vince (Lancaster at War)
July 16, 2015
My rough understanding is that wide range of interests regarding slavery one might see in 1820 converged to become much narrower in support of slavery by 1860 for two reasons: (1) Nat Turner’s uprising in 1831 and (2) dramatic increases in profitability of slave-based agriculture spurred by technological advances and changes in international markets. I’d have to think harder about where I might have gained this impression, but it seems that the point about Nat Turner comes from histories of Christianity in the 19th century South.
Anyway, I look forward to see how you trace more of these connections between 1820 and 1860. Assuming most of the members of the American Colonization Society in 1820 died by 1860, did the next generation continue or abandon discussion of solutions to slavery? Were there many non-“flippers”, and who were they in 1860? Did some of the them end up in Pennsylvania? While not the same as your ACS group, here’s an example from the next generation: I recently read the biography of prominent Lutheran pastor Charles Porterfield Krauth, who left Winchester (where he married into a slave-owning family, I believe) for Pittsburgh in 1855 and privately cited “living under the deadly shadow of slavery” as one of the main reasons he was glad to leave, even if it meant having to deal with the trials of “Pennsylvania housekeeping” and the smoke of Pittsburgh. So, if any clergy were among your ACS members, it might be interesting to know their fates as they presumably had more mobility.
I went back and read your very interesting post on Charles James Faulkner. If his case of “flipping” is more frequent than not flipping, then it seems to represent a society’s convergence to a rather dark place based on economic interests and in reaction to fears of slave rebellions and interference from abolitionists, especially in aiding fugitive slaves.
Robert Moore
July 17, 2015
Hi Vince, Good to hear from you again.
You bring up a lot of good points that, for good reason, make people question the sustainability of the type of attitude that we’ve seen so far, from this pamphlet. This said, however, I think we have to consider different regions within the South and how they reacted. I’m, by no means, holding up the Shenandoah Valley as the only bright shining star of hope in the South, but, because my studies concentrate on the Valley, my finger on the pulse of the rest of the South can be a bit limited sometimes. Certainly, Nat Turner made waves, probably more so in the Tidewater than in the Valley, but I suspect it had to have an impact on the success of the Frederick Society. As I make my way through, we’ll see what I can find. I guess what I’m thinking is, if this took place in the Valley, do we see similar activities taking place in other areas of the South?
That behind us, actually, in the early 1840s, the ACS societies in the Shenandoah Valley (there were actually a few) were given a bit of a boost. Furthermore, we have other activities that indicate there continued to be a genuine interest in colonization, well into the 1850s. The Ruffner Pamphlet surfaced in 1847 (covered a little in a post of mine from 2011). This was followed, in 1852, by something from Ruffner’s son, William Henry Ruffner (Africa’s Redemption). Of course, we have to look at these carefully to see how they differ from the rhetoric in the ACS document from 1820. As I noted in my blog post about the Ruffner Pamphlet, I see a few issues that suggest a different mentality than what we see in the Frederick Society’s pamphlet of 1820. Also, while W.H. Ruffner delivered his piece in Philadelphia, he’s still rooted in the upper Shenandoah Valley, and, I suggest his opinion might be a reflection of attitude there. In fact, I’ve read a little about there was a strong movement in Rockbridge County (with which the Ruffner men had very close ties)… if memory serves me, this took place in the 1850s.
One thing worth noting is that the Virginia Colonization Society… not to be confused with the ACS… was actually seen more as a friend to the slaveholder than the emancipated slave or free black. I’m hoping I can get into that a little more in depth, later.
Glad you enjoyed the Faulkner piece. I enjoyed doing the research and writing it. I can’t say to what degree “flipping” existed, in attitudes, but, of course, in Faulkner, we can certainly see that there is potential for more, in others. I highly suspect that part of the reason for his switch was for the large number of slaves he lost before 1850, who had escaped. It seems that, living not too terribly far from Pennsylvania had its downside for slaveholders. When we consider Faulkner under the light of economic interests, I don’t think he winced so much from not being able to become a more successful planter, so much as from the economic loss of what he had invested in up to that point… the slaves he had.
Vince (Lancaster at War)
July 17, 2015
Thanks for the response, Robert. I tried to look into a few studies to understand where I got my impressions, and found:
Chesebrough, David B. Clergy dissent in the Old South, 1830-1865. SIU Press, 1996. He labels the period 1830-1861 as “the winnowing years” — a period in which clergy who criticized slavery were increasingly and forcefully silenced.
Also: Irons, Charles F. The origins of proslavery christianity: White and black evangelicals in colonial and antebellum Virginia. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2008. William Meade and colonization society efforts receive attention in the chapter, “The Spiritual Challenge of Nat Turner.”
Both seem to argue that it’s hard to overstate the effect of Nat Turner on how slavery was discussed in all regions where it was practiced. If you find that public antislavery sentiment in the Valley was not increasingly suffocated between 1830 and 1860 to the point that it was virtually silent or nonexistent (except some fringe religious communities) by the 1850s, that might be actually be a remarkable finding and worth further exploration.
Robert Moore
July 17, 2015
Thanks much for that Meade reference.
“Both seem to argue that it’s hard to overstate the effect of Nat Turner on how slavery was discussed in all regions where it was practiced. If you find that public antislavery sentiment in the Valley was not increasingly suffocated between 1830 and 1860.”
When I made that comment, in response to yours, about the effort to revive interests in the Valley in colonization (1840s), I think the reference I was looking at implied a lull sometime in the 1830s. Seems that lull happened for a reason, and it might be Nat Turner. In other research, I have seen (in the Valley) at least one instance in which a slave or two may have rebelled based on the inspiration of Turner. I need to read it more in depth on that lull in ACS activities in the Valley.
One of the things I have to be careful with, in this analysis, is keeping mindful that I’m looking more for an answer than trying to prove a point. I think I’m a little hung-up on Meade for the fact that I’m getting a general feeling he wasn’t given a fair shake (even in some online biographical sketches). One thing that really strikes me is the thought that, back when the Episcopal Church made an apology for its part in slavery (2006), they seem to have “thrown out the baby with the bath water.” At least that’s my impression. Between Meade and my investigation into the colonization society, with the end point being member decisions to commit or not to the Confederacy, it’s rather like a two-part equation for me.
Vince (Lancaster at War)
July 17, 2015
The Ruffners are interesting, too. Although there might have been other factors at play, it looks like Henry Ruffner resigned as president of Washington College in the midst of controversy in 1848 and would not live in the Shenandoah Valley for the rest of his life?
Also, it might very well have been possible that William Henry Ruffner felt that he could not say what he said in Philadelphia in the Shenandoah Valley; he was only in Philadelphia for two or three years, so he would have had plenty of opportunities to say it before or after his time there. Once he returned to the Valley (due to ill health), he started a farm where he owned six slaves and leased four others (according to his Encyclopedia of VA entry). Anyway, it would be interesting to hear more about what was going on in Rockbridge County in the 1850s.
Robert Moore
July 17, 2015
Yes, I’m very interested in the father-son Ruffners (in addition to the tie to colonization, partly because Henry was born in my home county, and partly for their literary pursuits).
I did run across something in An African Republic which focuses on the increased activity in Rockbridge County, in the 1850s. I hope to be able to share a little more once I mull it over.
Robert Moore
July 17, 2015
Also… thanks for your questions, Vince. Helps me to look at the issues from different angles.
Vince (Lancaster at War)
July 17, 2015
You’re welcome! I really enjoy learning about the history of the Shenandoah Valley given the connections to Pennsylvania. Your case studies are helpful as I try to understand the distribution of opinions (and their predictors) about slavery, secession, and the war as they evolved over time. To be honest, I’m gaining the impression that there was a remarkable lack of diversity of opinion (because dissension had been actively crushed in the decades leading up to the war) and that slavery and secession are highly perfectly correlated, but I’m interested to refine this estimate with more evidence.
Robert Moore
July 23, 2015
Vince, I have now seen Faulkner listed as a member of the American Colonization Society. He is shown as one of the members from Virginia, in the 1853 annual report. I’ll have more on him (hopefully, I can track the duration of his membership) and the names of other members in some upcoming posts.
Richard Williams
July 17, 2015
Ruffner (the son) was Virginia’s first “superintendent of public instruction.”