Fanatical Schemes: Proslavery Rhetoric and the Tragedy of Consensus (review)

In Fanatical Schemes, Patricia Roberts-Miller challenges the scholarly view that proslavery rhetoric spiked with the advent of abolitionist mailings to the South in the mid-1830s. Instead, Roberts-Miller argues that heated proslavery rhetoric predated 1835, the year Northern abolitionists launched a concerted postal campaign of antislavery literature to the South. Because of insurrections, Southern proslavers agitated against abolitionism as early as 1802, calling for the silencing of debate altogether. Roberts-Miller finds this suppression problematic because strident proslavery rhetoric created the illusion of Southern consensus on slavery, alienated Northern support for the Southern cause, and prompted secessionists ultimately to overreact to Lincoln's presidential election.

Central to Roberts-Miller's argument is the idea of "cunning projection," the strategy of scapegoating an opponent to allay anxiety by transferring one's shame onto another. In this way, proslavers exonerated themselves by attacking abolitionists as the true threat to Southern society. Roberts-Miller finds the rhetorical value of cunning projection in the underlying testing for group loyalty: if people disagreed with the proslavers' characterization of abolitionism, they stood exposed as traitors to the South. Thus, intimidating hyperbole (demonizing abolitionists as state enemies) and illogical conflation (equating slavery with the South) browbeat dissenters into silence.

The "rhetoric of doom," otherwise known as the Lost Cause mythology, further buttressed cunning projection. Under this scenario, white Southerners heroically resisted abolitionism, even though the tide was turning against them. Despite the economic burden of maintaining slavery, the distaste of disciplining "lazy" slaves, and the threat of abolitionist-inspired slave insurrections, planters persevered in defending the South against overwhelming odds. As Roberts-Miller argues, the rhetoric of doom inverted the power equation: abolitionists were the projected aggressors, planters were the purported victims. Such righteous fatalism bolstered unity while promoting epideictic rhetoric, in which proslavery protagonists were both unbowed and absolved.

For Roberts-Miller, white Southerners' practice of "manly politics" exacerbated the disagreement. Built on an honor culture of dueling, "manly" politicians expressed themselves in such polarities as good/evil, domination/ submission, or manliness/broadmindedness. To permit abolitionists' criticism or entertain the validity of their arguments was both unmanly and acquiescent. Emotive language ensued, wherein offended Southerners were emotionally hurt and physically enraged, thereby confirming their simultaneous victimhood and manliness. Roberts-Miller observes that such rhetoric ends up being exculpatory because presumably seething whites could instigate retaliation on the justifiable grounds of being wronged. In an honor society, there was no room for middle ground.

In light of contradictory depictions of the proslavery Southerner—being the passive victim yet the proactive man—Roberts-Miller avers that proslavery rhetors were less interested in building sound arguments than in reinforcing authoritarianism through crisis thinking. However inconsistent their arguments for antiabolitionism, such arguments became a unification device to marshal support in the face of grave danger, as well as grounds for outing and shaming critics. Roberts-Miller views the peril posed by abolitionist mailings, most of which proslavery postmasters confiscated, as little more than a discursive menace devised by rhetors seeking to achieve consensus. She points to slave codes to show that the real targets were insurrection "propagandists" like David Walker. But because "manly" slavers could not publicly admit fearing a black man (and hence potentially incur dishonor), the author contends that they performed a rhetorical substitution, blaming meddling abolitionist outsiders for plotting societal instability. By shifting the focus away from rebellious slaves, planters could perpetuate the paternalist fantasy of an internally unified South.

Although realizing success regionally, proslavery rhetors failed ultimately to persuade at the national level because of their reliance on strong-arm tactics. In Roberts-Miller's judgment, proslavery congressmen were unable to build an effective national coalition because their rhetoric of loyalty, manliness, and projection—which largely worked in the South—hindered compromise with the North. Southern congressmen's bid to quash abolitionist petitions during the 1835 gag rule controversy, though demonstrating their antiabolitionist credentials, provoked a Northern backlash and kept slavery...