Up to this point in our analysis of a letter from Austin to Sardis Birchard, we have uncovered a number of important moments in American history in relation to the question of abolitionism. Many Americans viewed this movement, which called not just for the end of slavery but for integration of blacks into American society as equals, with open derision. Sardis Birchard was one of those Americans. Austin, however, embraced the movement and used this letter to preach to Sardis on the virtues of abolitionism and abolitionists. In this final installment of our series on the Birchard brothers, I want to focus on how the social environment of these two men helped mold their thinking. Image: Austin Birchard
Austin is clearly the hero of this story. His steadfast defense of the tenets of abolition and those who support the movement should resonate well with us today. But individuals are often products of their environments. It is probable that if Sardis had not moved with his older sister to Ohio, he would have been in one accord with Austin on the issue of slavery. But as it turned out, Sardis removed himself from a prominent anti-slavery environment of the Northeast. Looking into the ways that these two locations developed in the Early Republic era of American history provides a probable reasoning for why Sardis and Austin ended up on opposite sides of abolitionism.
New England had a long tradition for being a bastion for anti-slavery thought. The previous post provides some evidence on this. Only with the backing of a constituency in accord with his thinking could Congressman William Slade even make such a stance on the House floor without worrying about losing his political support. In fact, Vermont had outlawed slavery in its constitution upon becoming a state in 1777. Deep within Vermont’s Christian ideological heritage was a strongly held view that slavery was immoral. By the time that Austin and Sardis were discussing this question in late-1830s, Vermont was undergoing a strong divide. On one side were colonizationists who believed in removing freed blacks to Liberia, and on the other abolitionists who believed in immediate emancipation without colonization. There was no substantial argument, in Vermont, for the continuation of slavery.
Ohio, however, had a different trajectory towards becoming a state that largely supported the end of slavery. In the 1830s, there continued to be strong calls for “Black Laws” that curtailed the rights of African Americans in Ohio. In that decade, Ohio moved to codify further “black laws” that provided a legal basis to deny blacks an equal footing, and hopefully, to those who crafted these laws, prevent blacks from desiring to remain or move into Ohio. Up to the 1830s, these laws were enacted with little opposition. Compared to Austin’s experience in Vermont, it is not surprising that Sardis would have a different viewpoint on slavery and civil rights.
Ohio witnessed an uprising against these racist laws in the 1830s. Race riots occurred in major cities, including Toledo. And, similar events to what we learned about in Alton, Illinois were also occurring in Ohio. James Birney, publisher of an abolitionist publication, the Philanthropist, was the recipient of a number of attacks to prevent the dissemination of his newsletter.
In this 1838 letter between brothers we see how their opinions were flavored with this geographical divide. In fact, as Ohio moved closer toward a more “northern view” while the nation inched toward the tumultuous 1860s, we witness a change in view of Rutherford B. Hayes and, somewhat surprisingly, with Sardis as well. But, for the moment, Sardis maintained the opinion of many Ohioans. And, if we hoped that Sardis would change his mind with this thorough response from his brother Austin, we are left wanting. Three months later, the Whig party nominated Sardis to a state senator position. Upon the nomination he received a “communication” from the Anti-Slavery Society of Seneca County. He wrote to Austin, “I shall treat [the communication] with that silent contempt that such documents always deserve.”
But, we should again give Austin Birchard credit for his progressive understanding of the slavery issue at the time. There is no better way to memorialize this uncle of the 19th president than as is depicted in his obituary, in which is concluded, “The freedmen (free African Americans) had a most sincere friend in Hon. Austin Birchard, and his worldly treasure has been freely shared with them.”
The freedmen (free African Americans) had a most sincere friend in Hon. Austin Birchard, and his worldly treasure has been freely shared with them.
For Rutherford, he grew up in Ohio and with the direct influence of his Uncle Sardis. His views, in a lot of ways, echoed national developments as the North and South began to solidify into sectional blocks on the issue of slavery. As Ohio began to further develop into a Republican state, Hayes also showed a similar conversion. Please stay tuned to these bi-weekly posts as we delve deeper into Rutherford B. Hayes and the way he was shaped by issues of slavery and civil rights.