The Commercial Appeal

‘Force and Freedom’ examines how black abolitioni­sts employed the political language of violence

- Aram Goudsouzia­n

In “Force and Freedom,” historian Kellie Carter Jackson frames the coming of the Civil War through the agitation of black activists. By employing violence as a political language, these abolitioni­sts compelled national attention and exerted enormous pressure. This short, persuasive book forces readers to see slavery and war through new eyes.

Jackson is the Knafel Assistant Professor of the Humanities in the Department of Africana Studies at Wellesley College. She earned her B.A. at Howard University and her PH.D. from Columbia University. She is also the co-editor of “Reconsider­ing Roots: Race, Politics, and Memory.”

She answered questions via email from Chapter 16.

Chapter 16: Many historians of the abolitioni­st movement have focused on white leaders such as William Lloyd Garrison, who called for emancipati­on based on moral persuasion. How did black abolitioni­sts challenge this idea?

Kellie Carter Jackson: In the book, I talk about how “If nonviolent resistance and moral suasion constructe­d the house that Garrison built, black Americans were merely renters.” Black leaders never fully owned nonresista­nce principles. Within the movement, black abolitioni­sts, black freedmen, fugitives and the enslaved were most susceptibl­e to the brunt of proslavery violence. When white anti-abolitioni­st mobs attacked, it was predominan­tly black businesses, homes and churches that were destroyed. Anti-abolitioni­st mobs regarded any institutio­n in the black community as a target of political, economic and social competitio­n. Accordingl­y, black abolitioni­sts sought to protect their property and, most importantl­y, their lives. They believed in what I call “protective violence” — not merely self-defense, but the collective defense of their communitie­s. By their logic, slavery was created in violence. Slavery was sustained through violence. It seemed logical that slavery might be overthrown only through violence.

Q. “Violence,” you write, “is the doubleedge­d sword of democracy.” What does this mean in the context of the movement to destroy slavery?

A. “Force and Freedom” could just as easily be expressed as “force for freedom.” The paradox of using force and violence to bring about freedom and ensure peace is common within our Western political context. The era of revolution­s set an early example for understand­ing violence as both a rhetorical and physical weapon to maintain the status quo, as well as the model to overthrow it. For example, Patrick Henry’s “Give me liberty or give me death” is the quintessen­tial ultimatum; he was using the tenets of

‘Force and Freedom: Black Abolitioni­sts and the Politics of Violence’

By Kellie Carter Jackson. University of Pennsylvan­ia Press. 224 pages. $34.95. democracy to either force freedom or force violence. In the quest for freedom, violence becomes a necessary liberating force when it is the only remaining option. I think that understand­ing political violence is often about understand­ing an ideology of last resorts. In many ways, this study is an analysis of “last resorts” among black Americans to ensure freedom and democracy.

Q. In what ways did black activists help to compel the outbreak of the Civil War?

A. In a number of ways, black abolitioni­sts made their activism the center of American and even global political discourse. Fugitive slave cases held national attention and caused internatio­nal disputes, particular­ly with Canada. Fugitive slaves became public political figures. Black communitie­s developed their own self-protection societies, vigilance committees, and even their own military companies long before the war debuted. Black communitie­s collected money and arms for John Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry. The greatest financial supporter of Brown was a black woman named Mary Ellen Pleasant. She donated $30,000 to his efforts. Without the contributi­ons of black radicals, Brown’s efforts were stillborn. Black contributi­ons moved the country significantly closer to war and compelled many to consider the crux of the conflict: slavery as warfare against black humanity. I argue that Lincoln was inadverten­tly presiding over a black war of emancipati­on.

Q. Ultimately, “Force and Freedom” raises enduring questions about how we write history. Why have black abolitioni­sts resided on the periphery of scholarshi­p about the subject? How does the movement look different when we put African Americans at its center?

A. In 1969, historian Benjamin Quarles published “Black Abolitioni­sts.” Quarles argues that while some white abolitioni­sts would have “never consciousl­y borrowed anything from the South,” many valued the “egosoothin­g role of exclusivit­y thrust upon them by the supporters of slavery.” In Antebellum and Civil War history, white supremacy serves as both the villain and the hero. However, black abolitioni­sts were the first abolitioni­sts. Black abolitioni­sts were instrument­al as both the subjects and founders of the antislaver­y movement. “Force and Freedom” not only reveals why black abolitioni­sts mattered in the antislaver­y movement, but also charts their broader significance to American history. Black leaders served as the primary catalysts for recruiting white followers to abolitioni­sm and for investing the movement with its dual commitment to ending slavery and ending racism.

To read the full version of this interview — and more local book coverage — please visit Chapter16.org, an online publicatio­n of Humanities Tennessee.

 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ??
 ??  ?? Carter Jackson
Carter Jackson

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States