What do you think?
Rate this book
The Antislavery Impulse: 1830-1844
Book by Barnes, Gilbert Hobbs
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1933
6 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 17, 2018
In 1933, Barnes wrote a revisionist account of the abolitionist movement - and William Lloyd Garrison's role in it. He offered two main claims. First, the Civil War was prompted by moral causes, rather than economic; those moral causes had their roots not in the 1850s or even 1840s, but in the abolitionist movement of the 1830s. That the Civil War was fought for moral purposes is no longer controversial. Second, Barnes argued that within the abolitionist movement, the highly publicized, and in some cases notorious, William Lloyd Garrison, was overestimated as a leader. Following a massive and acclaimed biography by Henry Mayer, and the adaptation by several major American historians of Garrison's interpretation of the Constitution as a "pro-slavery" document, the argument that Garrison was overrated is clearly once again controversial.
Barnes traces American antislavery back to two sources. One was the mid-1820s revivalism of what would become known as New York's "burned over district". This revivalism, led by Charles Grandson Finney, reached a young man named Theodore Weld who was destined for a career in abolition. Finney continued on to New York City, where he would meet the wealthy Tappan brothers, who were moved to follow him and support him financially. This support included the establishment of Lane Seminary in the Western Reserve where Weld would go for theological training.
The second was the example of British antislavery. Debate about ending slavery in the British colonies went on through the 1820s and culminated in an abolition as of August 1834. The debate was followed closely by opponents of slavery in America, influenced, according to Barnes, by a Jamaican who had been converted in America by Finney.
Barnes argued that Weld and the Tappans were at the lead of an American abolition movement that was calling for "immediate emancipation gradually accomplished." He suggests that such a movement could have successfully led to the implementation of a British style solution in the United States, if not for the agitation of William Lloyd Garrison. By the 1833 passage of Britain's Slavery Abolition Act, Barns concluded, "the Northern public identified the New York movement, not as an extension to America of the glorious triumph of British abolition, but as an agitation at one with that of the fanatic Garrison."
At every point in the evolution of the abolitionist movement, Barnes claimed, Garrison pushed the argument too far, and hindered the cause of the abolition of slavery. Where Weld was too humble to take credit for the intellectual and moral leadership of the movement, Barnes argued, Garrison was ego-driven, not a leader but "a figurehead of fanaticism." He left schism in his wake not just due to his self-assertion, but also because of his insistence of identifying several other radical doctrines along with the emancipation of slaves under the broader banner of human freedom and equality.
Barnes did not well-define Garrison's doctrines, or their roots. His is a negative portrait of Garrison, painted more by the challenges he posed to others than by his own ideas or actions. And this points to two questions about Barnes's conclusions. First, his portrait of the abolitionist movement just ends in 1844, with the question-begging conclusion that in "the later agitation, from the 'forties to the 'sixties, the doctrine of the antislavery host thus continued in the moral tenets of the original antislavery creed. In this crusading spirit their support of men and measures was consistently maintained until 1860, when, county by county, the antislavery areas gave Abraham Lincoln the votes which made him President." So much occurred from 1844 to 1861 that it asks too much of the reader to assume that all of it was superficial to a pre-determined cause. (The introduction points out that Barnes worked most closely with Weld's papers, which ended at 1844, which may partly explain the abrupt ending.)
The second point is even intensified by the first. If the die was cast by 1844, and a moral conflict about slavery was irrepressible, how is it that the more moderate, conciliatory, humble Weld was more influential than Garrison? Barnes seems ambivalent about his thesis. He approves of the moral campaign to end slavery, but not of its outcome in Civil War. He supports the abolitionist movement, but only in its more moderate phase exemplified by Weld and the Tappans, not in its more radical incarnation in Garrisonianism. Both of these are perfectly tenable theses, but he does not make an explicit, concerted case that the cause of peaceful abolition of slavery could have been effected by moderate abolitionism. Further, from the point of view of 1933, he could not have seen the renascence of Garrison amongst academics, and of Garrisonianism amongst a broader public today. Garrison tapped into a much deeper strain of religious and political dissent than did the moderate abolitionists. Chattel slavery in America has long since been abolished, and more moderate abolitionists like Weld are thus relegated to the past. The broader questions about human freedom and equality that Garrison opened up in the 1830s have not gone away, but are debated today with ever more heat and passion, not to mention violence. Garrisonianism is America's past and its future.
Barnes traces American antislavery back to two sources. One was the mid-1820s revivalism of what would become known as New York's "burned over district". This revivalism, led by Charles Grandson Finney, reached a young man named Theodore Weld who was destined for a career in abolition. Finney continued on to New York City, where he would meet the wealthy Tappan brothers, who were moved to follow him and support him financially. This support included the establishment of Lane Seminary in the Western Reserve where Weld would go for theological training.
The second was the example of British antislavery. Debate about ending slavery in the British colonies went on through the 1820s and culminated in an abolition as of August 1834. The debate was followed closely by opponents of slavery in America, influenced, according to Barnes, by a Jamaican who had been converted in America by Finney.
Barnes argued that Weld and the Tappans were at the lead of an American abolition movement that was calling for "immediate emancipation gradually accomplished." He suggests that such a movement could have successfully led to the implementation of a British style solution in the United States, if not for the agitation of William Lloyd Garrison. By the 1833 passage of Britain's Slavery Abolition Act, Barns concluded, "the Northern public identified the New York movement, not as an extension to America of the glorious triumph of British abolition, but as an agitation at one with that of the fanatic Garrison."
At every point in the evolution of the abolitionist movement, Barnes claimed, Garrison pushed the argument too far, and hindered the cause of the abolition of slavery. Where Weld was too humble to take credit for the intellectual and moral leadership of the movement, Barnes argued, Garrison was ego-driven, not a leader but "a figurehead of fanaticism." He left schism in his wake not just due to his self-assertion, but also because of his insistence of identifying several other radical doctrines along with the emancipation of slaves under the broader banner of human freedom and equality.
Barnes did not well-define Garrison's doctrines, or their roots. His is a negative portrait of Garrison, painted more by the challenges he posed to others than by his own ideas or actions. And this points to two questions about Barnes's conclusions. First, his portrait of the abolitionist movement just ends in 1844, with the question-begging conclusion that in "the later agitation, from the 'forties to the 'sixties, the doctrine of the antislavery host thus continued in the moral tenets of the original antislavery creed. In this crusading spirit their support of men and measures was consistently maintained until 1860, when, county by county, the antislavery areas gave Abraham Lincoln the votes which made him President." So much occurred from 1844 to 1861 that it asks too much of the reader to assume that all of it was superficial to a pre-determined cause. (The introduction points out that Barnes worked most closely with Weld's papers, which ended at 1844, which may partly explain the abrupt ending.)
The second point is even intensified by the first. If the die was cast by 1844, and a moral conflict about slavery was irrepressible, how is it that the more moderate, conciliatory, humble Weld was more influential than Garrison? Barnes seems ambivalent about his thesis. He approves of the moral campaign to end slavery, but not of its outcome in Civil War. He supports the abolitionist movement, but only in its more moderate phase exemplified by Weld and the Tappans, not in its more radical incarnation in Garrisonianism. Both of these are perfectly tenable theses, but he does not make an explicit, concerted case that the cause of peaceful abolition of slavery could have been effected by moderate abolitionism. Further, from the point of view of 1933, he could not have seen the renascence of Garrison amongst academics, and of Garrisonianism amongst a broader public today. Garrison tapped into a much deeper strain of religious and political dissent than did the moderate abolitionists. Chattel slavery in America has long since been abolished, and more moderate abolitionists like Weld are thus relegated to the past. The broader questions about human freedom and equality that Garrison opened up in the 1830s have not gone away, but are debated today with ever more heat and passion, not to mention violence. Garrisonianism is America's past and its future.
June 8, 2020
You can't make this stuff up.
I am over 70 years old and have read very little fiction. Barnes' book is a great example of why I find non-fiction so attractive. Barnes found bold, passionate, creative moral reformers and followed their journey. His book shows how Bobby Kennedy's 'ripples of hope' tear down the mightiest walls of oppression.
Barnes' book survives as an essential resource. Leon Litwack's North of Slavery is an attack on the American anti-slavery movement. Benjamin Quarles' Black Abolitionists is a groundbreaking work but does not entirely appreciate the fact that the center point of the American antislavery movement moved to Ohio in the 1850s. Barnes book's sets the stage upon which the anti-slavery movement was acted out starting in 1830 (which was not the beginning of the anti-slavery movement, but of a phase of the movement).
One star is withheld because Barnes made so little effort to include the contributions of black abolitionists or even the significance of black students at Oberlin College in Ohio.
I am over 70 years old and have read very little fiction. Barnes' book is a great example of why I find non-fiction so attractive. Barnes found bold, passionate, creative moral reformers and followed their journey. His book shows how Bobby Kennedy's 'ripples of hope' tear down the mightiest walls of oppression.
Barnes' book survives as an essential resource. Leon Litwack's North of Slavery is an attack on the American anti-slavery movement. Benjamin Quarles' Black Abolitionists is a groundbreaking work but does not entirely appreciate the fact that the center point of the American antislavery movement moved to Ohio in the 1850s. Barnes book's sets the stage upon which the anti-slavery movement was acted out starting in 1830 (which was not the beginning of the anti-slavery movement, but of a phase of the movement).
One star is withheld because Barnes made so little effort to include the contributions of black abolitionists or even the significance of black students at Oberlin College in Ohio.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews