Fanatical Schemes: Proslavery Rhetoric and the Tragedy of Consensus

by Patricia Roberts-Miller

What was the relationship between rhetoric and slavery, and how did rhetoric fail as an alternative to violence, becoming instead its precursor?  Fanatical Schemes is a study of proslavery rhetoric in the 1830s. A common understanding of the antebellum slavery debate is that the increased stridency of abolitionists in the 1830s, particularly the abolitionist pamphlet campaign of 1835, provoked proslavery politicians into greater intransigence and inflammatory rhetoric. Patricia Roberts-Miller argues that, on the contrary, inflammatory rhetoric was inherent to proslavery ideology and predated any shift in abolitionist practices. She examines novels, speeches, and defenses of slavery written after the pamphlet controversy to underscore the tenets of proslavery ideology and the qualities that made proslavery rhetoric effective. She also examines anti-abolitionist rhetoric in newspapers from the spring of 1835 and the history of slave codes (especially anti-literacy laws) to show that anti-abolitionism and extremist rhetoric long preceded more strident abolitionist activity in the 1830s. The consensus that was achieved by proslavery advocates, argues Roberts-Miller, was not just about slavery, nor even simply about race. It was also about manhood, honor, authority, education, and political action. In the end, proslavery activists worked to keep the realm of public discourse from being a place in which dominant points of view could be criticized--an achievement that was, paradoxically, both a rhetorical success and a tragedy.

296 pages, Hardcover

First published February 8, 2009

Reviews

[Christopher Saunders · Rating 3 out of 5]

Patricia Roberts-Miller's Fanatical Schemes charts the rise of proslavery rhetoric in antebellum America. Roberts-Miller writes in a dense style emphasizing rhetoric and language over politics, and it can be difficult to acclimate if you're looking for a straightforward history book. Still, there's a lot of interest to be mined here, as she zeroes in on common themes in proslavery discussions. There is, of course, the "positive good" argument that bondage is (somehow) good for both master and slave; appeals to economic security and claims that slavery is no worse than working in a factory; and, most interestingly, a 19th Century tone policing that is depressingly familiar. It's not that slavery is a good thing, such writers aver, but that the inflammatory, "intolerant" rhetoric of abolitionists is unfathomably rude. Roberts-Miller puts a lie to this argument, absorbed unconsciously even by resolutely anti-slavery historians, showing that even mild criticism of slavery was enough to send the Calhouns and Hammonds of the Deep South into conniptions, averting that their rights are violated by mere expressions of dissent. This sense of bottomless grievance, inspired not be real slights or actual oppression but an underclass demanding change, animates proslavery rhetoric. And the contemporary reader won't be amiss noting its similarities with similar strands of thought today.