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

The Gerrit Smith Circle Abolitionism in the Burned-Over District lawrence J. Friedman Since the publication of Gilbert Hobbs barnes’ The Antislavery Impulse in 1933, historians intent onclassifying types of abolitionists have generallysettled 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. others have dated the factional formation to 1837when 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 the abolitionist movementwas fullyapparent by1840, theyearof the schismwithin the American Anti-Slavery Society. All abolitionists presumably had to make a decision. They could stick with the boston based Garrisonians who came to dominate theA.A.S.S.with a“radical”viewof antislaverythatsubsumedwomen’s rights and non-resistance. on the other hand, theycould sidewith the Newyork CitycenteredTappanites in the rivalAmerican and ForeignAnti-SlaverySociety, who were intent on limiting antislavery efforts to eliminating black bondage.1 23 E 1. For the most developed version of this two-camp schema, see James brewer Stewart, Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Slavery (New york, 1976); Aileen S. kraditor, Means and Civil War History, vol. XXvi No. 1 © 1980 by The kent State university Press 24 lawrence j. friedman Ends in American Abolitionism: Garrison and His Critics on Strategy and Tactics, 1834–1850 (New york, 1967); merton l. Dillon, The Abolitionists: The Growth of a Dissenting Minority (Dekalb, 1974). 2. Gerrit Smith to Amos A. Phelps, Dec. 28, 1838, Elizur Wright, Jr. Papers, library of Congress ; Gerrit Smith to William lloyd Garrison, Feb. 9, 1839, in The liberator, Feb. 22, 1839; Gerrit Smith to Amos A. Phelps, Apr. 20, 1839, boston Public library (b.P.l.);Gerrit Smith to Theodore Dwight Weld, July 11, 1840, in Gilbert H. barnes and Dwight l. Dumond (eds.), letters of Theodore Dwight Weld, Angelina Grimké Weld and Sarah Grimké (New york and london, 1934), ii, 849–50; Gerrit Smith to lewis Tappan, June 19, 1840, to oliver Johnson, July 6, 1840, both in 1827–43 letterbook, Gerrit Smith Papers, Syracuse university; Gerrit Smith to Elizur Wright, Jr., Apr. 20, 1840, Elizur Wright, Jr. Papers, l.C. 3. HenryC. Wright to W. l. Garrison, Sept. 8, 1840, b.P.l.;H. Wright to Gerrit Smith, June 28, 1846, Smith Papers, Syracuse; H. Wright in The Non-Resistant (boston), Apr. 20, 1839; H. Wright to George W. benson, Feb. 20, 1840, b.P.l. Gerrit Smith is one abolitionist who does not fit the traditional GarrisonianTappanite schema. During the late 1830’s, he persistently 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 SocietyortheTappaniteAmericanandForeignAnti-SlaverySociety.rather,Smith remainedcordial towards leadersof bothgroups.Atthesametime, heurged them to reconcile their differences and he pointed to “faults” in both groups.2 Historianscommitted tothetwo-campschema havenotallowedGerritSmith’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 burned-over District—the center of Charles G. Finney’s revivals during the 1820’s and early 1830’s—Wright became friendly with Smith. As the friendship intensified, Wright learned that Smith worked very closely in all of his reform endeavors with William l. Chaplin, William Goodell, beriah Green, AlvanStewart,and myronHolley.Severalof theissuesthatmostvitallyconcerned 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 rivalTappanites.Consequently,Wright feared that Smith 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 groupwith 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, [3.19.31.73] Project MUSE (2024-04-20 06:28 GMT...

Share