How often have you read a news article that speaks so clearly to your beliefs that you want to send it to your friend, or post it on your social media account? Of course, we often do this to show off our "correct beliefs," corroborated by this published article. You might have even had the thought, “this will show them!” Or, “they can’t ignore this unquestionable logic.” Yet, it most likely was unsuccessful in swaying your friend into thinking like you. Unsurprisingly, this is not a modern phenomenon in human tendency. In our study of a letter between the Ohio-based anti-abolitionist Sardis and his abolitionist brother Austin in Vermont, we find Austin attempted this very thing by sending Sardis a speech from Congressman William Slade.
[For a refresher on the definition of abolitionism, check out the first post]
This speech did not have the intended consequences that Austin planned, just like our social media posts today. Sardis continued down his anti-abolitionist path at least into the 1850s. In fact, Slade’s speech didn’t have any positive effect in Congress either. They reinstituted a “gag rule” on the topic of slavery, which meant that they decided to simply ignore it! Representative Hugh Legaré of South Carolina even warned Slade before he proceeded forward with his speech on December 20, 1837. He pleaded, “for the sake of the country … pause and reflect before [you take] another step.” Slade might have paused, but that was all. He moved forward, laying out in religious
and nationalist terms the problems with slavery. Image: Congressman William Slade of Vermont
On the topic of religion, Slade announced that “the claim of property in man is not only without grant, and in defiance of Heaven’s prerogative of ownership, but it strikes directly, at man’s accountability to the Creator.” In other words, slavery was not in alignment with morality from God. This religious argument struck deeply at the South’s justification of slavery based in their Biblical interpretation.
Slade explained that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery’s end as well—even those who owned slaves. He relayed how Benjamin Franklin signed a memorial that laid out the inconsistency of slavery with the creed of “equal liberty.” Slade even called upon Thomas Jefferson’s legacy, despite his notoriety as a slave owner, since Jefferson argued that slavery was a conflict of “justice with avarice and oppression.” Austin particularly enjoyed Slade’s interpretation of the Founding Fathers; he connected his beliefs to theirs: “This abolitionism is my abolitionism.”
Austin must have thought that such a denunciation by a sitting Congressman would sway his brother. But winning Sardis to his side would require penetrating a belief system that probably equated abolitionists as “ignorant fanatics,” or “murderers and incendiaries," using Slade's words from a December 1835 speech.
Sardis’s hostility ran deep. It comes through clearly when he tells his brother that he was afraid Austin was “in danger of becoming” an abolitionist. He even comes across paternal and condescending, despite being the younger brother, when he commented, “I hope better things of you.”
“Now brother,” Austin patiently responded, “I hardly know what to think of this sweeping denunciation against a whole class of citizens who so far as I am acquainted with them (and it is not a few) are highly respectable.” This was a wonderfully measured response since he felt Sardis “bur[ied him] in with” his characterization of the movement’s members.
If Austin wanted to win Sardis over to his cause, he might have been better served sending one of Slade’s speeches from 1835. In this earlier speech, Slade showed both a committed stance that slavery needed to end, yet a racism that resonated with the white population. He supported a “gradual abolition” of slavery since “immediate and unqualified abolition [was] inconsistent with a just regard, both to the interests of the community, and the highest welfare of the slave.” This curious phrase, “the highest welfare of the slave” received clarification later when he stated, “I would not confer upon [a freed slave] the same rights which are possessed by his master; and for the obvious reason that he is not fitted to enjoy them.”
I would not confer upon [a freed slave] the same rights which are possessed by his master; and for the obvious reason that he is not fitted to enjoy them. - William Slade
We cannot know if these were Slade’s true feelings or his attempt to provide a common ground with voters and other congressional representatives who were predisposed toward a racist outlook. But, the simple fact that he uses such language explains the racial thinking of elected officials in the 1830s.
Austin, nonetheless, was happy to provide Sardis with a counterpoint to his beliefs using Slade as his medium. While we can certainly sympathize with Austin’s just cause, this episode from nearly 200 years ago teaches us that we may never get past our desire to read speeches and news stories to confirm our predisposed beliefs. Also, we may never stop using them as ammunition to convince others!