8 thoughts on “Reading Questions for February 16”

1. I’ll answer the first question. I’m hesitant to describe the relationships between McCune Smith, Smith, Douglass and Brown as a “community”, but I think that Stauffer convincingly displays a level of profound connection and breakdown of barriers that surpasses the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln or the biracial subversive community in DC. While Stauffer extrapolates too much from font changes in newspapers and badly exposed daguerreotypes, other evidence that he presents convincingly shows that the four men really did temporarily break down the fundamental racial assumptions that shaped the thoughts of most other Americans during this time. The comparisons to the condescending Garrisionians that Stauffer makes could probably be extended to the subversive community in DC, and the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln simply didn’t have the level of intimacy or sustained interaction to be comparable to that of the quartet. However, that being said, I don’t think that either Oakes or Harrold strove to portray a community that was as deeply bonded as that of the quartet. The relationships that they explore and the ramifications that they identify are important for other reasons—as we discussed in class, Oakes makes an argument about the nature of American democracy, while Harrold argues for the significance of the actions of the antislavery community in Washington DC. Stauffer’s book is if anything more similar to Walter’s article on the “Erotic South” in that it deeply explores the mentality of a group of abolitionists as is its primary focus. While the climactic moment of Harper’s Ferry is obviously significant, Stauffer does not focus on the way that this incident led to the civil war or emancipation, but instead explores how the heights of radical and fantastical thought that the four cultivated that led to Harper’s Ferry. Thus, I’d argue that while the quartet had much deeper bonds than the groups from the other two books, the immediate ramifications of these bonds were less evident. Instead, what is most interesting about the book is the vision that the four embraced and the way that abolition thus served as the key to a sort of paradise on earth. As Stauffer points out, in many ways the vision proved to be contradictory and unstable, as it attempted to synthesize Christian restraint and the agrarian vision of America with the “noble savagery” of Native Americans and an increasingly convoluted justification for violence. I think Gerrit Smith’s breakdown and descent into insanity is a testament to the incredible strength of the vision and the bonds that the four created and the tremendous shock it produced in him when this vision failed to overturn reality.

2. The four men of Stauffer’s “biracial quartet,” Brown, Smith, Douglass, and McCune Smith, formed a strong community that was unique for the mid-19th century. Their community was not as all-accepting or as cohesive as what we would expect in a community today, but I believe that their version is closer to today’s definition than the relationship between Douglass and Lincoln or the subversive community of Washington.

   First of all, these men seemed to spend more time together than other black and white abolitionists, not only in order to support the antislavery cause but also in a private setting. McCune Smith wrote personal letters to Smith, in which he felt like he could be honest, even if that meant disagreeing with Smith. Smith accepted his opinion, meaning he might have regarded him as an equal. Similarly, Douglass felt a special bond with Smith, whom he considered his mentor. In contrast to his relationship with Garrison, in which Garrison played the paternalistic role to Douglass as a father figure, Smith and Douglass were on more equal footing. Douglass could learn from Smith and then take what he learned and apply it to himself.

   Simply by admitting to have a “black heart,” Smith and Brown were more accepting and open to an interracial relationship than other white abolitionists. Some whites wanted to abolish slavery, but their motives were not as pure as they led on; they were still prejudiced against blacks, but they internalized their racism. Yet Smith and Brown, by not only comparing themselves to black men but also adopting a personal feature of black men as their own, were radical. This revelation of having a black heart reinforced Douglass’s and McCune Smith’s admiration of Brown and Smith.

   Their alliance was also strengthened by their similar positions in society. They were all outsiders: Douglass and McCune Smith because of skin color, Brown and Smith due to financial misfortunes or their own choice. They were outsiders also because of what they believed, about slavery, abolition, and eventually violent means as an acceptable solution. Their encouragement of slave uprisings made these men unique. Besides being outsiders, the four men were also insiders to society, as they wrote articles, gave well-attended speeches, or had wealth, in Smith’s case. This status, as both outsider and insider, was exceptional. The four men were able to handle it well with support from one another.

   Eventually, their collective support of violence eventually led to the disintegration of the community. After Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry, Smith had a mental breakdown, which resulted in a complete turnaround. He no longer identified as a black man, and he began to condemn the use of violence. Violence had been a force that united these four men, but as Smith, Douglass, and McCune Smith realized that violence was not the best way to end slavery, they no longer felt the same connection with one another.

   Stauffer, Oakes, and Harrold are all working with similar definitions for the communities or relationships that they highlight in their books, but Stauffer’s subjects realize this definition most completely and provide the best example. Brown, Smith, Douglass, and McCune Smith fulfill the expectations that Stauffer had of an interracial community, at least while it lasted.

3. The concept of an interracial community seems to be much stronger in Stauffer’s works than in the other works we have read. While Oakes characterizes the relationship between Lincoln and Douglass as one of mutual influence, I don’t think that Lincoln and Douglass could be considered a community in the sense that the four men Stauffer is studying could be considered a community. Lincoln and Douglass were certainly aware of each other. They met in person twice and Oakes seems to describe them as a community in that sense that they both had a vaguely similar objective at the same time and their views were influenced by each other in an indirect way. This seems like too narrow of a case for the term “community” in comparison with the community that Stauffer presents.

   In contrast, the Washington D.C. interracial community seems to be too wide in comparison with Stauffer’s to be as strong of a community as that of the four men that Stauffer profiles. Although Harrold describes the Washington D.C. subversives as an interracial community, he acknowledges the inherent divisions in this community due to the fact that it was interracial and so there existed a variety of different viewpoints and approaches for fighting slavery. The divisions and conflicting opinions in this community caused by vastly differing backgrounds and the sheer magnitude of people prevented it from being as strong as a community as the community amongst the four men described by Stauffer.

   In comparison with the Lincoln-Douglass and Washington subversive multiracial communities, the community that Stauffer presents seems to be much more united. Stauffer attributes this unity to the fact that Gerrit Smith and John Brown were able to identify and empathize with blacks better than virtually all other white men during this time period. In periodicals and correspondence, references are made by both black and white about Smith and Brown being “black.” This racial blurring that Stauffer describes allowed for a true community and collaboration of equals amongst these four men. This was not possible in a community such as the one Harrold describes in Washington because in that community the relationship between whites and blacks was often characterized by condescension and distrust.

   The fact that the interracial community described by Stauffer was one characterized by equality and mutual respect meant that there was a greater possibility for close and direct collaboration than in either of the communities described by Oakes and Harrold. This manifested both through much closer views ideologically as well as much more collaboration through actual physical action. These men were able to have much more direct influence and contact than Lincoln and Douglass and a much stronger unity of belief and purpose than the Washington subversives. Although they primarily communicated through Gerrit Smith, Stauffer suggests that this was enough to unite them as a community because they all did know each other personally and exchange correspondence.

   Ideologically, these men were more united and closely tied together than either Lincoln-Douglass or the Washington subversives. All of these men eventually advocated violent resistance which was a substantial difference with many other abolitionists at the time, such as the Garrisonians. Stauffer attributes the strong ideological ties to Brown and Smith’s “blackness” and to the fact that these four men influenced each others’ views over time. Specifically, Brown and Douglass impacted Smith and McCune Smith in their ultimate acceptance of violence as necessary to affect their desired change.

   On example of direct collaboration is through periodicals. Gerrit Smith was influential in helping Frederick to launch his second abolition newspaper, the Frederick Douglass’ Paper, by helping him finance it. Douglass supported Smith in the newspaper when Smith was running for office and serving in Congress. All four of the men in this community wrote published pieces for the abolitionist cause. Another active collaboration between the four men was the founding of the radical abolition party in 1855, which Stauffer cites as the only time all four men were together in the same place. The ability to unite on a common political platform reflects a deep ideological unity and some measure of agreement as to how best to accomplish their goals.

   My favorite example of direct collaboration is the case of “Timbuktu,” a colony that Gerrit Smith funded to allow slaves to own their own land. This gift shocked everyone. It was used to suggest what Stauffer calls Gerrit Smith’s “blackness,” or his deep empathy. Douglass and McCune Smith both wrote in favor of this colony. John Brown actually physically moved to the colony and lived alongside the black families there. People that saw John Brown interact with the families there recognized in Brown that same deep empathy that Smith had, the “blackness” that allowed these four men to unite as equals in a time when that was unheard of. The interracial community of these four men was stronger than those described by Oakes and Harrold because of this “blackness” which allowed for unprecedented equality amongst an interracial community. This allowed for a unity and collaboration in ideology and action not possible in other communities.

4. While reading John Stauffer’s The Black Hearts of Men: Radical Abolitionists and the Transformation of Race, it quickly became apparent that image – and by extension, representation – would be central to his portrayal and historical interpretation of John Brown, Gerrit Smith, James McCune Smith, and Frederick Douglass. It is this idea of representation that really piqued my interest – however, I am going to address the third prompt, and not the second. Or rather, use the second while answering the third.

   The third reading response question asks if these radical reformers influenced the wider culture in which they lived. To this, I answer yes. I think these men were culturally relevant to their contemporaries, mainly because of the representation (or image) of abolitionism that their actions conjured, rather than simply the results of the actions in and of themselves. McCune-Smith, Douglass, Brown, and Smith all represented a sect of abolitionism that was a physical manifestation of the aggressive, radical abolitionism that the public already feared, to some degree. Their actions, though largely unsuccessful, were provoking and not easily dismissed from the public’s consciousness. Though John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry was not successful, and he was sentenced to death, the fact that such an insurrection even happened was phenomenal, monumental and “publicized” or showed the unrelenting force that the abolitionist movement was capable of. And as the saying goes, “no publicity is bad publicity.” And they were not simply aggressive in a physical way, either, but also in the political arena.

   The Radical Abolitionist Party’s nominations of McCune-Smith and Douglass also imposed an aggressive idea of abolitionism onto the general public, as well as the works that they and Gerrit published, along with Brown’s speeches and anti-slavery violence in the Kansas territory. All of this generated a radical image and forcefully made aggressive, violent abolitionism influence the culture it was situated it.

5. The book we read for class this week The Black Hearts of Men, by John Stauffer outlines the complex relationship of the men involved in the Radical Abolitionist Movement. One main pillar of the movement was the acceptance of violent uprising as a viable and just solution to bring about the immediate abolition of slavery. The always-vocal leaders of this movement undoubtedly shaped the wider culture of the era in which they lived and worked as activists. These men’s words, and sometimes-violent actions, catalyzed the two groups in to Abolitionists and Anti-Abolitionists. This divide would later become amplified as the two groups were split in to the North and the South.

   Stauffer argues that the Gerrit Smith, James McCune Smith, Fredrick Douglas and John Brown, were not representative of men of their day, Stauffer goes on to establish that the men represented what was possible for men of the day to become. (3) To me it does not matter weather these men represented men of their day or not, rather that they affected change during their time as Radical Abolitionists. Stauffer characterizes the “quartet” as highly educated, highly religious, and highly motivated. Often McCune Smith relied on “bible politics” asserting that the basic principles of justice and equality expressed in the bible superseded any scientific claims that blacks were inferior to whites. (11) Douglas and Smith acted in a similar manor to McCune Smith in how they argued and advocated for abolition. On the other hand, John Brown took the ideals of militancy to heart. Brown, the Perpetrator of the attack on the Harper’s ferry arsenal, spoke constantly of violent armed rebellion, stating: “[armed aggression was] the only course left for friends of freedom in Kansas.” (13) The difference between Brown and the rest of the radical abolitionist’s described in Stauffer’s book was that he took militancy to heart and acted on it. While Fredrick Douglas was preaching “Liberty ‘must cut the throat of slavery, or slavery will cut the throat of liberty.” (21) Brown was acting by murdering five Kansas Pro-Slavery settlers. (21) This willingness to be a militant is again shown when Brown organizes and carries out the failed attack at Harper’s Ferry. It is totally reasonable to connect these actions perpetrated by Brown to the growing sentiments of disenfranchisement with the institution of government in the South.

   Smoothers were antagonized by the Militant actions and words of the Quartet and the relationship between the North and the South began to be stressed. Though Stauffer does not explicitly say it, his evidence points to the fact that, the militant movement only antagonized the South in effect giving slave owners the impression that their way of life was being threatened. Threatened by Abolitionists, radicals, and that they were not safe in their home because of the militant actions of men like John Brown. The Harper’s Ferry incident served two purposes- the first was forcing the South to lash out against the Union in declaring secession, and the second signaling an end to the Militant Abolitionist movement and the Quartet.

   The most prominent piece of evidence offered by Stauffer, to the end of the Radical Abolitionist movement was the withdrawal from the movement by Smith. With the news of the failed raid and Brown’s death Smith withdrew from the movement, becoming more and more moderate. Smith began preaching that violence was not an option in the Abolitionist cause. Stauffer writes that even when faced with the prospect of the Southern States seceding, Smith, said: “if he were a slave, he would prefer slavery to killing his master.” (265) Smith’s views of abolition began to align with the more moderate Lincoln, and he advocated only peaceful emancipation. Smith even eventually digressed to the viewpoint that abolition through the war should only be used as a weapon against the South if it helped to preserve the Union.

   The influence of the radical abolitionists on history is undeniable. The actions and words of these men antagonized Southerners and Pro-Slavery activists contributing to their belief that the only way out was secession. As Stauffer points out these men did not represent men of their day, rather they provoked men of their day towards the use of violence. History should remember this Radical Militant Abolitionist movement as just that, radical and militant. I believe that the strong avocation of violence by these men succeeded in contributing to one of the greatest atrocities in American History-the Civil War.

6. Did these radical reformers influence the wider culture in which they lived? If so, how? If not, then how should we measure their significance to historians instead?
   Douglass, Brown, Smith, and Smith were not successful at influencing American culture to the extent that they wanted. They wanted the US to become an interracial sin-free community with universal suffrage, a heaven on earth. Gerrit Smith hoped that others would follow the example of such a community that he set up at Peterboro. However the vast majority of their contemporaries did not support abolition or equal rights. Gerrit Smith was elected to Congress yet had little influence on policy there. Even after the abolition of slavery African Americans did not have equal rights, and racism was still as prevalent as ever.
   Yet arguably these radical reformers did affect American culture to some extent and this effect helped bring about the Civil War. These radicals felt that violence was justified and necessary for the abolition of slavery. Stauffer argues that these reformers did make the culture in which they lived more accepting of violence as a way to deal with slavery. The reformers spoke frequently about the need and acceptability of violence. Non-radical Northerners did not take this radical message to heart. In fact initially the Civil War was fought to maintain the Union, and Lincoln had to very strategically introduce the Emancipation Proclamation in order for it to be acceptable to public opinion. Yet these radicals also partook in violence. John Brown organized people in Kansas to violently resist the proslavery settlers keeping Kansas a free state. John Brown also tried to start a slave insurrection at Harper’s Ferry. Garret Smith provided financial aid to Brown, while Douglass and McCune Smith provided moral support, although none of these men actually physically took part in the raid. Brown was unsuccessful in starting an insurrection, but these violent actions partially desensitized Northerners and Southerners to the use of violence for dealing with slavery and sectional conflict. The raid also emphasized to slaveholders the extent to which some Northerners would go to to free the slaves.

7. John Stauffer utilized photographed and drawn portraits of the four abolitionists his book, The Black Hearts of Men, focused on in order to flesh out his thesis regarding their fluid ethnic identities. Unlike self-portraits of painters, these images had gone through another person’s interpretation of the subject before reaching its final form. Even as the men styled themselves in a way that they desired, the photographer still chose the moment during which to shoot and frame the final image. Despite this, Stauffer treats the images as though they were entirely of the abolitionists’ making, leading to varying degrees of effectiveness of analysis.

   Through analyzing how the men styled themselves and posed in these images, he builds an argument of similarities amongst the four men, and coincidentally their viewpoint. Some of these examples, such as directly looking into the camera and “disregarding portrait conventions of the time,” create a vivid image of how these radical abolitionists wished to portray themselves (58). Other descriptions, however, seem to be subjective and almost superfluous. For instance, comparisons of how both Douglass and Brown looked “younger than” their actual age neither indicate anything about the abolitionists and their goals nor about the photographic technology of the period (58).

   Unfortunately, these images rarely had direct text related to them, and with the exception of Douglass, it seems as though there was little actual documentation about how they felt about their own images and portraiture in general (50-54). At least for Douglass, he does succeed in connecting popular ideas of race that existed at the time with a self-created identity. Although they may be difficult to faithfully analyze, photographs of the abolitionists allow for a concrete visual connection to the past. With these images, Stauffer was able to create a full portrait of these abolitionists and their ideals by providing a framework for the reader to analyze their photographs.

8. Contrary to my initial preconceptions about visual historical evidences, I found many of the daguerreotypes and other visual material that Stauffer presented convincing.

   At first, I expected that his analyses of the visual evidences would make rather grandiose conclusions from a small visual detail that could be inferred otherwise. In fact, Stauffer does commit himself to this: in describing McCune Smith’s carte-de-visite, he says that McCune Smith has a “visionary gaze,” and concludes that it fits McCune Smith’s intellectual upbringing. He also argues that an engraving of Frederick Douglass, which depicts his complexion light and his hair neither wooly nor straight, sends “a message of physical aggression and defiance by a black man that is softened” (p.46).

   However, he uses these inferences from the visual sources as an introduction to the historical characters, and backs up the claims from the inferences with other historical sources. Most notably, in describing Douglass’s images, he brings in Douglass’s opinions of his engravings and photography in general. It was fascinating to read that Douglass gave so much meaning to the visual media, and made Stauffer’s claims and inferences more credible.

   For the cases of McCune Smith, Gerrit Smith, and Brown, in which there were no specific accounts of the historical characters referring to their depiction in visual media, Stauffer makes sure to provide ample historical context for his inferences and avoids making sweeping generalization from the visual evidences.

   In other areas of the book, in which he uses visual evidences, Stauffer incorporates them along with other textual historical evidences, and does not use visual evidences alone to prove a historical point.

   It may be the case that it was effective to use evidences from visual materials for characters like Frederick Douglass. He was obsessed with visual details to the smallest detail—he published a whole editorial to explain the change of the font on the masthead of his paper. But in cases where the artist or the author’s intent is not “crystal clear,” the visual historical evidences seems to be as powerful of a source as in the cases of Frederick Douglass, if it accompanies other textual sources to supplement it.