The Antislavery Argument (review)

BOOK REVIEWS371 was a goad even to reformers and a scourge to persons of standpat or retrograde social views. He left unturned few of the dark regions of midnineteenth century America, and he forced awareness of lower depths into the upper crust. Words were Phillips' weapons, and he wielded them effectively, rarely failing to draw blood. Professor Filler has performed a service in assembling this sampling of Phillips' outpouring, and in enhancing its utility with a headnote for each selection. To be sure, had this been my volume, greater attention would have gone to reconstruction issues. Certainly I would have included Phillips' speeches of April, 1866, and December, 1869, on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, respectively. But agreement is rare on which selections of a man's product should represent him. Quibbles must move aside. Anyone who is interested in widening his Civil War horizons, and m coming to grips witli a talented, vital, thrusting personality who was a major figure in the history of American libertarianism , has here an excellent means with which to begin. Harold M. Hyman University of Illinois The Antislavery Argument. Edited by William H. Pease and Jane H. Pease. (New York: Bobbs-MerriU, 1965. Pp. xcvi, 491. $2.75.) Publication of this volume of American antislavery writings coincides with a resurgence of interest in the origins and character of the movement to abolish slavery in the United States. The Peases offer the first really comprehensive collection of writings showing the great variety of antislavery thought in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. A brief chronology and a "selected bibliography" of the antislavery movement are also included. The writings may be divided into two different kinds of antislavery arguments: arguments about the proper method of emancipation (gradualism , colonization, irnmediatism, political action, direct action); and arguments revealing the various motives or reasons for antislavery thought (sentiment, religion, economics, the natural rights philosophy, civil liberties , constitutionalism) . There are several writings dealing with the question of racial equality, to many abolitionists the ultimate end for which emancipation was simply the means. Taken together, the various selections reveal the diversity of methods and personalities that shaped the American antislavery crusade as well as the broad spectrum of literary modes employed by the reformers. Unfortunately, the general introduction offers litde more than a synthesis of current and past research on the American antislavery movement. At best, it is a helpful overview and digest of such material, at worst a disappointing rehash of old misconceptions and current confusions regarding the motives and purposes of the antebellum reformers. For ex- 372CIVIL WAR HISTORY ample, the Peases have accepted the view shared by many historians of the movement that the central problem of the abolitionists was their failure to devise "a practical program" to liberate the slaves. In their opinion, the abolitionists "were so concerned with sin and morality that they failed to grapple with the physical reality of the slave who was presumably their first concern." Accepting the notion of an antithesis between action and idealism, politics and morality, the Peases define "the perennial issue of the abolitionist crusade" as the question of "limited practical action or general pious exhortation." It is difficult to understand the precise meaning of the charge that the abolitionists failed to devise "a practical program." As the Peases show in this volume, the abolitionist movement included a broad variety of personnel and organizations from which came speakers, newspapers, publications, petitions to Congress, and aid to northern Negroes and fugitive slaves. The "program" which all of these embraced was that of changing public opinion with regard to slavery and the Negro. In accepting such a method of change abolitionists not only testified to their adherence to the democratic process, but also worked to lay the foundation which would be necessary before any kind of decisive and long-lasting political action, such as legislation, would be possible. In charging that the abolitionists never devised a "practical" program, the Peases seem to be saying simply that they never devised a successful program. Yet even this charge is open to question. In distinguishing between "limited practical action" (particularly political action) and "general pious exhortation" the Peases indicate a preference for the...