Americans argue passionately about all kinds of things. But few of those cut through the static like race.
Of course, the news isn’t all bad. America elected its first black president and people can argue over and disagree with his policies without — usually — being labeled racists. Even so, it remains a touchy subject that doesn’t always bring out the best in people. Contributing positively to the discussion requires some understanding of the history that’s produced the raw feelings.
No institution had greater influence on race relations than slavery. We can’t understand race in America today without understanding slavery.
And that means knowing Frederick Douglass and Harriet Beecher Stowe. They were two very different authors of classic works that were milestones in this story: Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass and Uncle Tom’s Cabin are must-reads for anyone who wants a grasp of its meaning on a more visceral level.
Douglass escaped bondage to become the most influential black abolitionist. Stowe wrote the novel that, without a doubt, was the most influential in American history — attested to by the constant citation of Lincoln’s apocryphal remark “So you’re the little lady who started this great war.”
Slavery’s Big Picture
An excellent backdrop to their works can be found in David Brion Davis’ Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World. The prosperity of the hemisphere was largely built on the backs of slaves. By 1820, 8.7 million African slaves had been transported to the Americas and the Caribbean as opposed to only 2.6 million whites. While the African slave trade was banned for the United States in 1808, the natural growth in American slave population had actually eliminated the need for their continued importation.
From a purely economic point of view, slavery in the U.S. was a success. The pre-Civil War economy of the South grew rapidly thanks to the huge international market for its agricultural exports. The mills of Great Britain in particular needed American cotton to meet the exploding demand for its textile products.
Profits may have rolled in, but at what a cost! Slavery was an unqualified disaster from every other point of view beyond the economic. The institution could only thrive where a dehumanized, animalistic view of the slave held sway and which in turn served, in a perverse way, to reinforce the collective sense of superiority of those who were not on the bottom of the social heap. A northern visitor to the South, Frederick Law Olmsted, recounted the laconic reply of one particular overseer. Did he find his trade disagreeable? “Why, sir, I wouldn’t mind killing a n——- anymore than I would a dog.”
Douglass’ Insider’s View
As a former slave, Douglass knew this subject well. In his short but extremely powerful autobiography, the great abolitionist brilliantly brings out slavery’s corrupting influence — its brutalization of both the owner and the owned. Douglass describes heart-wrenching scenes of beatings and whippings and of the most basic failures in decency, like the one in which the small slave children, separated from their mothers and raised by their owner like a litter of puppies, eat from bowls of food slopped on the floor indiscriminately among them for their meals.
The system was harsh, and had to be, for the South lived in fear of slave rebellion. Keeping the chattel oppressed and producing was imperative. Douglass relates how as a boy he experienced no love or affection — until his owner lent him out to Baltimore relatives who had never had slaves. The wife was the soul of kindness. “Here I saw what I had never seen before; it was a white face beaming with the most kindly emotions. … I wish I could describe the rapture that flashed through my soul as I beheld it.”
But over time, the corrupting leaven had taken hold: “But alas! This kind heart had but a short time to remain such. The fatal poison of irresponsible power was already in her hands, and soon commenced its infernal work. That cheerful eye, under the influence of slavery, soon became red with rage; that voice, made all of sweet accord, changed to one of harsh and horrid discord; and that angelic face gave place to that of a demon.”
With heroic efforts, Douglass learns to read. Yearnings begin to stir that were uncongenial to absolute servitude. So his owner lent him out to another overseer, specialized in the art of bringing to heel the problematic slave.
I was somewhat unmanageable when I first went there, but a few months of this discipline tamed me. Mr. Covey succeeded in breaking me. I was broken in body, soul, and spirit. My natural elasticity was crushed, my intellect languished, the disposition to read departed, the cheerful spark that lingered about my eye died; the dark night of slavery closed in upon me; and behold a man transformed into a brute!
Years after the publication of his biography, Douglass and Lincoln would meet on several occasions during the war. Lincoln said of him, “considering the conditions from which Douglass rose, and the position to which he had attained … he was one of the most meritorious men in America.”
Harriet Beecher Stowe
In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe has one goal: to convince her northern audience that slavery was evil and could no longer be tolerated. Perhaps from our vantage point, that seems like an easy target. But in the 1850s it wasn’t. In the North, even though slavery was illegal, racism was pervasive and abolitionists were often viewed as fringe radicals who threatened the Union through their implacable criticism of the South.
Her novel hit the country like a bombshell. It was a huge best-seller in the North; in the South, there was outrage. Rarely has a novel generated such widespread and diametrically opposed reaction. And never has its social impact been duplicated.
The Preacher’s Daughter
Stowe was the daughter of Lyman Beecher, one of the most famous preachers of the religious revival that swept the country known as the Second Great Awakening. Her writing churns with the fervor of one who can no longer abide the sight of fellow children of God being bought and sold like cattle. Uncle Tom’s Cabin succeeded in generating sympathy for the slave’s plight at a time when many people were annoyed at the agitation of radical abolitionists like William Lloyd Garrison.
Stowe paints a vivid picture of the total vulnerability of the slave’s existence. Tom was the loyal slave of Arthur Shelby, having served him from when Shelby was but a child. Shelby’s creditors had him against the wall, and the only way not to lose everything was to sell Tom and the little child Harry, son of Eliza, who served Mrs. Shelby. It was painful for Shelby — a “good master.” But a slave was a piece of property, an asset, and, in the end, no emotional bond was too sacred that it could not be broken and fall victim to the bottom line. Thus, Tom is sold “down river” and Eliza attempts escape. And so the story begins.
Uncle Tom?
Uncle Tom’s Cabin’s place in the canon of American literature is not without controversy. As a novelist, Stowe certainly isn’t the same caliber as her cranky next-door neighbor in Hartford, Conn.: Mark Twain. She can sound preachy and a little too intent on sentimental story resolutions. But worse, some literary critics and social commentators have charged her with racial insensitivity through her use of black stereotypes. Among these questions, which have generated much back-and-forth dispute, perhaps the most interesting regards Tom himself: Is he to be despised as an “Uncle Tom”?
Certainly Tom’s deference to his masters is in strong contrast to the defiance of George Harris, another main character, the slave husband of Eliza. But the caricature of the “Uncle Tom” has been traced to the minstrel black-faced shows that depicted or satirized scenes from the novel. The impression is a lot different when one goes right to the book.
Tom is to be admired, not despised. His profound Christian faith gives him an unbreakable spirit that enables him to both see the hand of God in all that happens and, in the critical moment, to stand up to the malicious plantation owner, Simon Legree. Tom would obey all orders, except the one to do wrong. He refuses to beat another slave (“If you mean to kill me, kill me; but as to my raising my hand against anyone here, I never shall — I’ll die first!”). His Christian faith gives him the power to refuse to collaborate in the violence that was the essential underpinning of the system.
Their Challenge and the Catholic Record
Both authors challenge us: Douglass, through stinging indictment (“the [slave] dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity”); Stowe with an appeal to Christian empathy (“I beseech you, pity those mothers that are constantly made childless by the American slave trade”). They help us keep in perspective where we have come from as a nation and the struggles that are still with us.
We Catholics would do well to thoughtfully consider this history. Unfortunately, our own track record at that time was mixed. Certainly Pope Gregory XVI condemned slavery in 1839, but many Catholics in the U.S., immigrants themselves, were not anxious to see an end to slavery. They feared that freed slaves would flood the job market, both making work scarcer and driving down wages.
As Archbishop Timothy Dolan wrote last year, “I’d give anything if I could claim that Catholics in America prior to the Civil War were ‘passionate, stubborn, almost obsessed’ with protecting the human rights of the slave. To claim such would be a fib.”
Perhaps the nadir of Catholic laxity regarding slavery was the 1857 Dred Scott decision, penned by the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney. Notwithstanding his own personal kindness and decency — he freed slaves received in an inheritance — it was Taney, a Catholic, who wrote those now infamous words: Blacks, whether slave or free, “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” Personally opposed to slavery for himself, he felt bound to support it in the public square. Sound familiar?
Pope John Paul on his trip to Senegal in 1992 recalled the many people who departed from that site, ripped from their homeland to go to the new world as slaves: “From this African sanctuary of sorrow, we beg heaven for forgiveness. We pray that in the future the disciples of Christ may show themselves completely faithful in following the commandment of brotherly love left them by their Master!”
Racism lingers. Human trafficking is growing. And with abortion, human lives are still radically subject to the will of another. Making this prayer our own, may we never find ourselves fighting on the wrong side of such basic issues of good and evil.
Father Steven Reilly writes from New York.
SDG: In 60 Seconds: Skyfall! Wreck-It Ralph! Flight! More!
Amy Smith: A Catholic Girl's Guide to Jane Austen
Comments
Post a Comment
Without dismissing the real horror of slavery, I think we have to be very careful in considering either of these texts as real representative histories. Stowe’s tale, especially, is a work of contrived fiction. She never spent any time nor did any thing that modern historians would describe as research… There’s very real reason to question - based on subtle details - if she ever crossed the Mason-Dixon line.
Of course, this doesn’t change the principle truth that slavery was evil, but it hopefully causes us to be a little more critical of what we consider authentic history. After all, in the real deep south of Louisiana, racism was a product less of slavery and more of reconstruction which served as a proto-Great-Depression. It was reconstruction and not slavery that gave birth to both white & black supremacist organizations. Before and during the Civil War, there were plenty of black slaveholders and white abolition societies south of the Mason-Dixon far outnumbered those in the north.
While Stowe’s work is interesting and perhaps representative of some plantations, it grossly misrepresents the actual historical circumstance of the south.
I’m of Sicilian descent. My family on both sides came to this country after the civil war was already over. While we weren’t hauled over here against our will, we were far from welcome. In New Orleans Italians were lynched. That was then and those people are gone.
I am an American.
Black people need to get over it unless they want to continue their self imposed slavery of grievance politics. Either that or leave. Give me something that I haven’t earned because I’m a victim. I, personally, am tired of the whining.
And obama isn’t a black president. He’s a half white half black president. Why is that not stated as it is the truth? We can’t be bothered with the truth.
Fr.Humphries, If Fr. Reilly were claiming that either novel were a history of slavery, I would readily understand the point of your comment. However, Fr. Reilly introduces the section on Stowe with this line: “In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Harriet Beecher Stowe has one goal: to convince her northern audience that slavery was evil and could no longer be tolerated.”
Clearly she was not writing a history - she was deliberately attempting to change a people’s perception of the institution of slavery via a compelling narrative. Whether or not Stowe crossed the Mason-Dixon line is hardly relevant. Even so,to her credit, not having crossed the Mason-Dixon line merely demonstrates that you needn’t have experienced slavery to find it reprehensible. It does not make her unqualified to speak out against slavery.
I wonder at your contention that reconstruction and not slavery caused racism. Is slavery even possible in a sensitive society if everyone is seen as equal? Merriam Webster defines racism as follows:
RACISM 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
To feel entitled to enslave another would require a sense of superiority to that person. Racism would be antecedent to slavery, not subsequent to either slavery or reconstruction.
You close by saying that “While Stowe’s work is interesting and perhaps representative of some plantations, it grossly misrepresents the actual historical circumstance of the south.” Perhaps you can fill in the historical gaps in the recollection of those halcyon days of slavery?
FB
Please be aware of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s hatred of and intolerance toward the Irish. One cannot be a great antislavery maven and so hostile to another ethnicity, and still be revered.
@Bovious
Please beware of the strawman argument. None of us is arguing that slavery is a positive thing. I said as much by beginning my notes with a description of slavery as a horror. There were no halcyon days. To describe my comments in that way is false and deceptive.
Second, to your first point, the author in his closing paragraphs (5th from the bottom) describes these texts as histories: “We Catholics would do well to thoughtfully consider this history.”
Third, the historical matter that I and other commenters cite is not hidden. Black slave holders were abundant, the vast majority of anti-slavery societies were in the south and race riots were quite rare down here. The civil war wasn’t fought over slavery or racism - it was fought over money. Anti-slave-trade laws were supported by southern congressmen and repudiated by northerners. Even the oft-sainted Lincoln had no intention of stopping slavery during the war. The Emancipation Proclamation was carefully worded to only free slaves in territories where other laws had already emancipated them. He was a politician and slavery was the rhetoric of the day.
The era of reconstruction bankrupted the south and left the vast majority of Americans white & black out of work, out of food and out of opportunity. While the fat cats in the north dined on the wealth they took from the south, everyone down here was forced to make due… Everyone blamed everyone else. Most freedman stayed in the same houses as before and worked for the same people as before but without the guarantee of food. Everyone starved and everyone hated everyone else for it.
Even after the post-reconstruction era economy began to recover the hated and blame remained… It wasn’t as much the slavery as it was the reconstruction.
Further, to your final point, racism is not antecedent to slavery. All the way back to the Egyptians, slavery was simply an economic necessity. The Egyptians enslaved whoever was weaker than they were. The slavers of the 18th and 19th centuries didn’t care if their slaves were black or white or other, they cared that they were enslavable.
Slavery is a matter of power, not of race. “Might makes right” is the credo. Racism can only occur when one entire race is seen by another entire race to have slighted them… This is the fruit of reconstruction not of slavery itself. Also, your argument falls by the simple fact that freedmen and black slave owners were part of normal society in the south until the Civil War… Freed blacks were not seen as targets for enslavement. They were happily employed and paid wages the same as whites.
Slavery is evil. Unquestionably. It’s still important to separate the history from the propaganda.
Thank you Fr. Humphries for your response.
Your closing sentence in your first comment seemed to suggest that “things weren’t all that bad.” Hence my halcyon comment which, while perhaps over the top, still addressed in my mind a question, which I will return to momentarily. First let me say that I did not view it as the strawman argument that you saw, as I never thought for a moment that you were implying that there were positives to slavery.
My question, though, is this - are you not saying after all that things weren’t all that bad? If so, and I await correction, I am having a bit of a hard time understanding your point - which could be viewed as, “Slavery is bad. Stowe made it sound worse than it was. So, let’s not get carried away with Stowe’s novel.” A revised understanding of your thoughts, after your second post, could be: “The narrative of slavery in this country is quite divorced from reality in many respects.” I agree, but this position seems to lack some kind of follow up. I am left with the question, “And?”
Regarding history, while I cannot argue the sense of this statement on its face: “We Catholics would do well to thoughtfully consider this history”, I do argue that in the context of the entire article it can be more correctly viewed as a general statement regarding the historical fact of slavery and its horrors, then an attempt to categorize Stowe’s book as an actual history of slavery. It would fail, as you provide evidence for, to even qualify as historical fiction.
I did not get the same impression from the article as did you, so your focusing on not considering these texts as “representative histories” came out of the blue for me. I viewed the article as pointing out two influential books that impacted the history of slavery in this country, not as pointing out two influential history books on the topic of slavery in this country.
If your point is that even regarding the issue of slavery, we must take care and deal with facts and not just run on emotion, or emotional fiction, then I agree again, but still wonder at your overall point.
Regarding racism and its role in slavery, I cannot argue regarding the economic underpinnings of slavery. I don’t know that you have proved that slavery in the US was not race based. Perhaps it was not in Egypt, but it would appear to have been race based on its face here in the United States. This sentence from the article supports my position: “A northern visitor to the South, Frederick Law Olmsted, recounted the laconic reply of one particular overseer. Did he find his trade disagreeable? ‘Why, sir, I wouldn’t mind killing a n——- anymore than I would a dog.’” The overseer clearly sees himself as superior to both man and dog given that he presumes power of life and death.
You state that 18th and 19th century slavers did not care about the race of their slaves. If so, I would think white slaves in the United States would have been somewhat common. My argument would be that in this country slavery was race based, on its face, and black slave owners notwithstanding. Or, were there black slave owners in this country with white slaves? Of course, history books in this country being what they are, I admit of the possibility that there were white slaves in this country and I was simply not exposed to it in my general education.
It would be interesting to know if there was an Egyptian version of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” ever written. My guess would be no. My point would be that sensibilities had changed - people knew it was wrong, but they also felt they needed slaves, and so had to have some kind of moral out. Since I have heard arguments as varied as “being black is the mark placed on Cain” and some tortured variations on the white man’s duty to convert the primitives, I cannot but conclude that slave owners found some solace in the belief that blacks were inferior - and so I cling to a modified and narrowed position that here in the United States racism is antecedent to slavery.
You comment that slavery is about power and not about race - and you add that “Racism can only occur when one entire race is seen by another entire race to have slighted them…” Your second point fails simply in the face of today’s reality. There is racism in this country today, yet the entire race of white people do not feel slighted by the entire race of black people. If anything your statement would suggest that racism on the part of blacks against whites should be the case. And while there may be good reason to hate white people, hatred does not meet the definition of racism. This is where your point about power comes in. Blacks, who should be racist today by your definition, are functionally not in any institutionalized sense because they lack the power.
Power is an enabler, not a root cause.
I will concede that reconstruction is the root cause of our race relation difficulties today. The hatred that was created and set alight by reconstruction still reverberates today. But, again, hatred is not racism.
@Frater
I’m truly thankful for your correcting regarding your first concern. Perhaps I should more accurately state that my central thesis of blaming Reconstruction over slavery itself depends largely upon the historical situation in the ante-bellum period. Those years just prior to the war were a time of transitions which - on the face of the statement - excludes generalizations. (As such, I have to concede that only a thorough study of each and every significant slave holder in the slave states could justly prove or disprove my point.)
With that caveat, I still argue - albeit from generalizations - that the south was in the process of slowly replacing its slave economy. The slave trade had been shut down - against the protest of northern businessmen. The lack of supply for slaves meant that - even in common knowledge - slavery was doomed as an economic system. The moral aspects had been argued (Christians, Catholics, even Bishops had taken sides for and against). This slow transition would probably have taken three generations and lasted until the 20th century. There is even a labored parallel to be made between the Civil War and the abrupt change in the southern economy and the Atomic Bombs in World War II. Both abruptly shattered a slow, inevitable program.
I think we’d have to consult the author as to his intent, but I think we can agree that He was not arguing that the texts were formal histories. We can also agree that both texts had a profound impact on the popular understanding of slavery (a fact which I consider tragic because it reframed the civil war into an ideological and even moralistic war rather than an anti-constitutional invasion of states sovereignty).
As regards the question of slavery and race, I think the demographics of the 18th and 19th centuries tell the tale. Slavers were basically pirate mercenaries. They went to the easiest closest means of supply. Certainly enslaving colonies of European colonists would have been disastrous, the orient was too far away. Africa was reasonably close. The work of capturing the slaves was done by other African tribes. There was no repercussion. Any other source of slaves at the time was simply more trouble than it was worth. 18th and 19th century African was a slavers honey pot. Certainly derogatory terms were used to describe the slaves. They were also freely used to describe other foreigners.
Again, I have to recall that we’re operating in generalities. Were there some particularly vile slaveholders just as there were some particularly gentle ones? Absolutely. Was slavery good? no. But did some slaveholders treat their slaves very well in a world that had they been freed would have probably led to their deaths? I think the only fair answer is yes. The slavers are ubiquitously vile people. I don’t think that can fairly be said of slave owners. Without condoning or praising the mores of the time, it’s only fair to remember that most plantation owners spent enormous amounts of money in purchasing slaves and it only made good financial sense to treat them well and see to their health and well-being.
In regards to your final point about the racism of today and the racism of the past, I think there is very little honest scholarship for us to rely on. The roots of racism in Reconstruction is a matter of easy fact. Modern racism is a difficult mishmash of political correctness, propaganda, unfair\unjust legislation (against whites, blacks, etc), the marxist message of Malcolm X, retained aggression and frustration from the civil rights era and mixed promises from politicians from then to now. As Flannery O’Connor said - and I paraphrase - racism can only end on the other side of a lot of funerals. There are people still living today who remember the marches and the segregated schools and the U of Alabama incident. The level of emotional connection to that history can never allow for a true freedom from prejudice. It is only when that generation has gone and perhaps the one after them that any real sense of historical and emotional distance will allow for the work of eradicating racism. This doesn’t excuse us from working for it here and now, but reality is reality.
I know this has strayed from our primary discussion, but I believe there is hope in the truth. I may not see it in my lifetime, but the Truth and it alone will set us free.
Thanks for the stimulating discussion!
FrR
“Modern racism is a difficult mishmash of political correctness, propaganda, unfair\unjust legislation (against whites, blacks, etc), the marxist message of Malcolm X, retained aggression and frustration from the civil rights era and mixed promises from politicians from then to now.”
That is about as succinct and lucid a description of our current racial situation as I have ever read!
I have a friend who is very interested in “calling things what they are.” I think then, the response to the “And?” question I have may be, “As we move forward in addressing racism, a factual and historical understanding of what happened and how we got here will be useful. However, there is not much to be gained from revisiting the evils of slavery; that argument has been won. Slavery is not the issue.”
Thank you!
FB
That was a very interesting discussion between Fr.Humphries and Fr. Bovius. I do feel that predjudice in today’s world comes from the “home” and how one is brought up and from the powers that be. My parents were immigrants (coming in 1895&1901;). All the people coming here thru Ellis Island encountered much ethnic prejudices, which continued on through my childhood (I am now 83yrs old)—There is very little ethnic prejudice today between the Ellis Island immigrants but now it is against the Mexicans and Muslims. So the world goes round and round, as the saying goes. As to racial prejudice it was more evident in the South when I was young. I was fortunate to be brought up by parents who were not prejudice & we were taught not to be against race or ethnicity. (even tho when I was young there were black neighborhoods) It all begins in the home. Today most people live in mixed neighborhoods and on the whole, average people—black and white get along well. I have noticed that much racial prejudices come from black leaders who have ‘power’. These things in life are very complicated, but we all have to remember that much of it “comes from the home” and how one is raised. Yes, the North benefited from Southern slavery, the factories were roaring, but remember there were no unions then and these factory workers were ‘somewhat’ slaves also, my mother being one of them. (so I have heard stories first hand) They worked under terrible conditions & were not treated well. Mexicans today are sneaking over the border to get jobs, jobs that pay little, they are being ‘used’, another form of slavery. (Our Government still does not have it under control) Many get killed crossing the border, and so it goes on and on. I was thinking about all this last night when I awakened in the middle of the night and it all goes back to the parable of Adam and Eve. God gave us ‘free will’ and it is all about how we use that ‘free will’. Sadly some allow Satan to take over.
@ Sue - I wish to clear up something about my name - it is simply a pen name, or combox name, and I am not a priest, as I assume Fr. Humphries to be. The name is kind of an inside joke among my family and friends - Brother Cow, more or less, with Bovious being a misspelling of Obvious. I just didn’t want anyone thinking I was a priest when I am not.
@Frater Bovious: Oh, Oh, my cateracts took over and I thought it said “Father, instead of Frater. ;o) So now I see that Frater comes from Fraternity (brother)—so you are not a ‘holy cow’ but a ‘brother cow’. ;o) You must have a fun family—-Good to laugh, isn’t it.
It’s more a question than a comment… I saw in the article that “Pope Gregory XVI condemned slavery in 1839”,and I am tempted to make a comparison with some things I read from Catholics nowadays that puzzle me because I am a Canadian who has been brought up within a totally different culture. A while ago, as I was researching something in my Bible, I happen to come across several statements in the various Letters of Paul about the way slaves were expected to behave towards their masters. I did not see much along the lines of condemnation of slavery itself. Considering that I have read many comments on other blogs by Catholics who appear to be mostly from the US, I wonder if it could have been said that Gregory XVI was making claims that were not in line with Tradition as expressed by Paul, therefore these were only “prudential judgements” that could easily be ignored?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.