Review of Alice D. Adams' The Neglected Period of Anti-Slavery (1908)
An Oldie but a Goodie
Alice D. Adams, The Neglected Period of Anti-slavery in America (1808-1831) (Boston: Ginn and Company Publishers, 1908), pgs. 307.
Rarely do works from the turn of the twentieth century continue to have a voice in the current historiographical debates among historians. With the exception of a precious few, most historians of the turn of the century have faired rather poorly in the estimation of modern historians. Particularly in American history, this era is seen as one dominated by the “Lost Cause” narrative and imperialistic tones. To be frank, there is much truth to this. However, I have long held that while previous histories can be problematic, perhaps there is still something to be gleaned from them. Finding truth and light ought to be one of the essential roles of the scholar, particularly as they engage with fraught historical issues whose repercussions can be still seen in the present.
In light of this, Alice D. Adams The Neglected Period of Antislavery (1908) was a delight to read as it not only had much of value, but also was not as outdated in its arguments as others produced in this era. This work has continued to be cited and referred to by Early Americanists both in and outside the field of American abolitionism. Adam’s arguments still have a potent force that in my estimation have not been completely grappled with by historians of American abolition. This review will highlight some of the strengths of Adams arguments and ways her scholarship has not fared as well after a century of scholarship. Finally, I will address several key ideas that could be helpful in current scholarly debates surrounding abolitionism.
Adams is clear from the beginning that she aims to show that the period from 1801 through 1831 was one of generative and effective abolitionism within the United States. Arguing against historians who saw the pre-Garrisonian era as lax in fighting slavery (something scholars still suggest today), Adams argues that it was robust, growing, and complex. This argument is backed by twenty-two small chapters of research and discussion. Working mostly with primary sources, Adams suggests that in the early 19th century the locus of abolitionism was not in the North, as is argued today, but was instead in the upper South. Pointing to dozens of organizations and individuals, Adams takes readers through the various fights that both Northern and Southern antislavery activists participated in, including enforcing the ban on the slave trade, attacking domestic slave trading, keeping slavery out of the West, removing slavery from Washington D.C., and undermining the fugitive slave law.
Adams is exceptionally affective at showing how persistent antislavery was, despite growing divides between the North and the South (particularly in the wake of the Missouri Compromise of 1820). Another strength of Adams’ work is pulling out the antislavery sentiment in the South prior to Nat Turners Rebellion in 1831. I was surprised at how many societies and antislavery statements were made during the period, particularly in the wake of Gabriel’s Rebellion in 1800. Furthermore, Adams shows more nuance than many modern historians in navigating the complexities of the abolition societies. Rather than force label members “radical or conservative” Adams quietly demonstrates that these organizations were a “big tent” of numerous viewpoints and ways of approaching abolitionism. Rather than privilege one group over the other, Adams illustrates how they worked with and against each other. In many regards, her arguments reflect a shift I have made in my own work towards a more careful and less anachronistic view of the abolition societies as either hegemonically radical or conservative. However, her work does have flaws that are apparent throughout.
One area that scholars building upon Adams will need to exercise great caution in is distinguishing between abolition and antislavery. While at times these distinctions can become more of a reflection of modern hyper-partisanship than of historical realities, I am fully persuaded there was in fact a distinction between abolitionism and antislavery. In my current working definition (one which many will disagree with me on), abolitionism requires action of some sort against slavery, regardless of how radical an action. Antislavery on the other hand could reflect a dislike of slavery, but little or no action against the institution itself. Adams rarely distinguishes between the two. This is an important distinction because some of whom Adams sees as antislavery in fact did much to strengthen the system of slavery throughout their lives and worked to undermine abolitionism as a whole, despite their professions to antislavery sentiment.
Another focus that needs caution is Adams depiction of the North. Adams frequently suggests that the death of slavery in the North came as a result of free labor, rather than protracted efforts of abolitionists. I strongly disagree. Slavery, a tenacious cancer on the mind and soul of the American Republic, was not only sustainable with capitalism, but exceptionally profitable. Economic arguments after a decade of scholarship focused on “Slavery’s Capitalism” has left little room to argue that slavery and capitalism were ever at odds.1 This suggests to me the extreme importance of religious and ideological arguments that could cause many white Northerners to act against their own economic interests in banning and fighting against slavery. Adams’ book is not the place to understand this, but provides useful lists to help scholars trace individual abolitionists and societies in the North that exponentially grew in the wake of the Missouri Compromise.
Finally, Adams’ narrative lacks strong engagement with African American activists. While noting their presence occasionally, much of the recent historiography has shown how important people of African descent were to the abolition movement and its expansion. However, Adams’ argument that the period is a neglected field of study has been further demonstrated by scholars such as Manisha Sinha who notes that this period has even more activism when including the efforts of African Americans more fully into the narrative.2
Ultimately, I was pleasantly surprised and deeply excited about Adams’ work. Over a hundred and ten years old, this work still is exceptionally relevant to modern discussions about American abolitionism. I know for myself that Adams’ work will loom large. Having read the book and compared it to current trends in the field, I feel that some areas can be exceptionally helpful for future pursuit, as illustrated by a series of questions. First, how did the War of 1812 disrupt abolitionism in the United States and Atlantic World? Second, how was antislavery in the West influenced by the arrival of antislavery Southerners? Three, to what extent did Missouri revitalize the movement? All of these questions and numerous others came from reading The Neglected Period, a testament to the ability of Adams to write in a way that encourages, rather than stifles future discussion on the subject. Scholars will be benefited by revisiting this classic, though understudied work.
Robert Swanson
This is not to say slavery does not function in other systems. In fact, slavery has existed in almost every form of government. Capitalism, with its ability to provide maximum agency to the people inherently allows exploitation of some groups over the other. This stems, in my opinion, not from the practice of capitalism but rather from the inherent natural man that is within each human being. Vice is a choice, but one that all too many humans choose. Capitalism makes it so effective because it allows humans the most agency to do what they will.
See Manisha Sinha, The Slave’s Cause: A History of Abolition (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016)