The Gerrit Smith Circle: Abolitionism in the Burned-Over District

THE GERRIT SMITH CIRCLE: ABOLITIONISM IN THE BURNEDOVER DISTRICT Lawrence ]. Friedman Since the publication of Gilbert Hobbs Barnes' The Antishvery Impube in 1933, historians intent on classifying types of abolitionists have generally settled upon a two-camp schema—"radical" Garrisonians and "conservative" or "moderate" Tappanites. Some historians have maintained that these two camps emerged through both "radical" and "moderate reformist" abolitionist responses to the antiabolitionist mobs of the mid-1830's. Odiers have dated the factional formation to 1837 when Garrison embraced the perfectionist ideas of John Humphrey Noyes. "Radical" abolitionists purportedly approved of this embrace while "moderate" abolitionists did not. But all historians who have accepted Barnes' two-camp approach have agreed that the Garrisonian-Tappanite division of die abolitionist movement was fully apparent by 1840, the year of the schism within die American AntiSlavery Society. All abolitionists presumably had to make a decision. They could stick with the Boston based Garrisonians who came to dominate the A.A.S.S. with a "radical" view of antislavery that subsumed women's rights and non-resistance. On the other hand, they could side with the New York City centered Tappanites in the rival American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, who were intent on limiting antislavery efforts to eliminating black bondage.1 Gerrit Smith is one abolitionist who does not fit die traditional Garrisonian-Tappanite schema. During the late 1830's, he persistendy tried to blunt the increasing tensions between the two camps. When the 1840 schism occurred, he refused to serve as an officer in either the Garrisonian American Anti-Slavery Society or the Tappanite American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Rather, Smith remained cordial 1 For the most developed version of this two-camp schema, see James Brewer Stewart, Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Shvery (New York, 1976); Aileen S. Kraditor, Means and Ends in American Abolitionism: GarrisonandHis Criticson Strategy and Tactics, 1834-1850 (New York, 1967); Merton L. Dülon, The Abolitionists: The Growth of a Dissenting Minority (DeKaIb, 1974). Civil War History, Vol. XXVI, No. 1 Copyright © 1980 by The Kent State University- Press 0009-8078/80/2601-0002 $01.05/0 THE GERRIT SMITH CIRCLE19 towards leaders of both groups. At the same time, he urged them to reconcile their differences and he pointed to "faults" in both groups.2 Historians committed to the two-camp schema have not allowed Gerrit Smith's neutrality before, during, and after the 1840 schism to restructure their classification. By noting that Smith and several Tappanites soon became associates in the Liberty party, most have placed him in their camp. But Henry C. Wright, the staunch Garrisonian, felt otherwise. While on a lecture tour in 1839 through New York's BurnedOver District—the center of Charles G. Finney's revivals during the 1820's and early 1830's—Wright became friendly with Smith. As die friendship intensified, Wright learned that Smith worked very closely in all of his reform endeavors with William L. Chaplin, William Goodell, Beriah Green, Alvan Stewart, and Myron Holley. Several of the issues that most vitally concerned these central New Yorkers and many of the tactics they chose to employ differed fundamentally from both Wright's own Boston Clique of Garrisonians and from the rival Tappanites. Consequendy, Wright feared that Smidi and his small circle "will get between two fires—& get riddled both ways if he don't take care."3 The purpose here is to pick up where Henry Wright's perceptive analysis left off—to comprehend the forces that bound Smith, Chaplin, Goodell, Green, Stewart, Holley, and eventually James Caleb Jackson into a group with goals and activities distinguishable from Garrisonians, from Tappanites, and even from most Liberty party abolitionists. In doing so, we must keep in mind that Smith, Goodell, Green, Stewart, and Chaplin did not consciously see themselves as a group until late 1841. By that point, Holley had died, Jackson had gained only grudging acceptance within the group, and forces were already undermining collective endeavor. Cognizant, then, that we are dealing with a small, fragile, and temporary if exceedingly significant abolitionist group, let us delineate its characteristics, trace its origins and evolution, and account for its demise. II Information is skimpy...