In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

87 Chapter Four “The Silver Tongued Orator of the West” The institution of slavery . . . never had, has not now, and never can have, any foundation in justice, but is only the result of force and fraud, differing in no respect of principle from the early bondage of Western Europe, or from the serfdom of Russia, which are condemned by the voice of history as crimes against human nature. Resolutions of the Cincinnati John Brown Rally, December 1859 On May 28, 1856, Frederick Douglass did the honors of introducing Clark as a speaker at the Radical Abolition Party’s nominating convention in Syracuse, New York; it was only the second national meeting of the new party. Clark’s relatively short speech on the first day of the convention largely focused on America’s failure to honor the concept of “universal brotherhood.” According to him, the obligation to one’s fellow human had been mandated by God and the Founding Fathers. Emphasizing the relationship between universal brotherhood and antislavery efforts, he concluded , “To this great doctrine underlies the anti-slavery movement, and whatever triumphs have been achieved, have been achieved because the friends of this movement have been faithful to this doctrine; and whatever remains to be achieved will be achieved by fidelity to this principle.” Clark accused Americans of betraying the principle of universal brotherhood by failing to extend freedom or equal rights to African Americans. Moreover, he also blamed them for failing to honor the ideals laid out in the Constitution —a failure, he argued, that had further entrenched slavery: “Instead of forbidding Slavery to exist anywhere, we consented to let the African slave trade continue until 1808 and Slavery to live under the Constitution till [sic] the people by the Constitution should see fit to abolish it.” For the last third of his speech, Clark highlighted how unfree African Americans 88 America’s First Black Socialist were in the so-called free states. Explaining why they were effectively powerless to liberate enslaved people, he ended by saying: “Had not we of the North been as much slaves as the blacks of the South, we should, ere this, have taken up the gauntlet the South has thrown down, and driven the slave power from the land.”1 In short, Clark’s speech before the twohundred -person assembly reiterated many of the Radical Abolition Party’s positions. Disappointingly, he offered neither fiery condemnation of the Slave Power nor outraged indignation about what slavery had done to enslaved African Americans. Regardless, the important point is that he now publicly identified himself as a Radical Abolitionist. Peter Humphries Clark walked into that Syracuse Radical Abolition Party convention at a critical juncture in American history. His address there—at the behest of Frederick Douglass—placed him in the vanguard of the most militant political abolitionists in the nation, including Douglass, Dr. James McCune Smith, J. W. Loguen, Gerrit Smith, John Brown, and Lewis Tappan. The RadicalAbolition Party had been formed in 1855 in response to the Kansas-NebraskaAct. Passed in May 1854, the act not only repealed the Missouri Compromise, but decided that the question of slavery in Kansas and Nebraska territories should be settled through popular sovereignty. It radicalized antislavery activists and led to the birth of several new political parties, including the Republican and Radical Abolition Parties. Not merely an abolitionist organization, the RadicalAbolition Party was, first and foremost, a political party. As such, Radical Abolitionists believed politics was the best and most effective means to end slavery. They vowed to elect only those who would take the necessary steps to end slavery immediately . Radical Abolitionists can be distinguished from other abolitionists and political parties. First, their party’s singular goal was ending slavery everywhere immediately. Not content with merely opposing the extension of slavery into new territories, Radical Abolitionists vowed to interfere with slavery in established slave states, as well. In this vein, they differed from the Free Soilers and Republicans who simply opposed the extension of slavery in new territories but did not believe the federal government had the authority to interfere with slavery where it already existed. Radical Abolitionists also refused to compromise with the Slave Power on any level. The final position that distinguished this party from others is that it advocated the extension of citizenship rights to African Americans.2 Radical Abolitionists believed the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were based on antislavery principles. They reasoned that the Founding Fathers—who used phrases like “all men are...

Share