No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Political Culture of Emancipation: Morality, Politics, and the State in Garrisonian Abolitionism, 1854–1863
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 January 2009
Extract
Historians have long recognized the unprecedented expansion of federal power during the Civil War. Moreover most scholars agree that the expansion of federal power manifested itself most immediately and profoundly in the abolition of slavery. In a sense, through the Emancipation Proclamation, the Republican administration injected the national government into the domain of civil rights, and by doing so imbued federal power with a distinct moral purpose. The passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments codified this expression of federal authority, rejecting the bedrock tenet in American republican thought that centralized power constituted the primary threat to individual liberty.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995
References
1 On the revolutionary implications that emancipation held for American politics and jurisprudence, see Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution (New York: Harper Row 1988), 1–34Google Scholar; Kaczorowski, Robert J., “To Begin the Nation Anew: Congress, Citizenship, and Civil Rights after the Civil War,” American Historical Review [hereafter, AHR], 92 (02 1987), 45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McCrary, Peyton, “The Party of Revolution: Republican Ideas About Politics and Social Change, 1862–1867,” Civil War History [hereafter, CWH], 30 (12 1984), 330–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For concise analyses of the legislation passed by the northern congress during the war, sees McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (New York: Oxford University Press 1988), 428–53Google Scholar; Keller, Morton, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America (Cambridge: Belknap Press 1977), 13–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 Discussions of emancipation during the war include Foner, Reconstruction; Gerteis, Louis S., From Contraband to Freedman: Federal Policy Toward Southern Blacks, 1861–1865 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press 1973)Google Scholar; Harding, Vincent, There Is A River (New York: Harcourt Brace 1981)Google Scholar; Litwack, Leon, Been in the Storm So Long (New York: Knopf 1979)Google Scholar; McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom; Trefousse, Hans L., The Radical Republicans: Lincoln's Vanguard for Racial Justice (New York: Knopf 1969)Google Scholar.
3 Quote from Stewart, James Brewer, Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Slavery (New York: Hill and Wang 1976), 149Google Scholar. See also Fellman, Michael, “Theodore Parker and the Abolitionist Role in the 1850s,” Journal of American History [hereafter, JAH], 61 (12 1974), 666–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Friedman, Lawrence J., Gregarious Saints: Self and Community in American Abolitionism, 1830–1870 (New York: Cambridge University Press 1982)Google Scholar, and his essay, “‘Pious Fellowship’ and Modernity: A Psychological Interpretation,” in Kraut, Alan M. (ed.), Crusaders and Compromisers (Westport: Greenwood Press 1983)Google Scholar; Sewell, Richard H., Ballots For Freedom: Antislavery Politics in the United States, 1837–1860 (New York: Oxford University Press 1976)Google Scholar. There have been some studies that have attempted to gauge the political impact of Garrisonianism. See especially McPherson, , The Struggle for Equality (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1964)Google Scholar; Stewart, , “The Aims and Impacts of Garrisonian Abolitionism, 1840–1860,” CWH, 15 (09 1969), 197–209Google Scholar. McKivigan, John R., The War Against Proslavery Religion: Abolitionism and the Northern Churches, 1830–1865 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1984)Google Scholar.
4 The literature on evangelical revivalism and its philosophical contributions to nineteenth-century social and benevolent reform is vast. My thoughts have been shaped by Carwardine, Richard J., Evangelicals and Politics in Antebellum America (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993), passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cross, Whitney R., The Burned-Over District: A Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800–1850 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1950), passimGoogle Scholar; Ginzberg, Lori D., Women and the Work of Benevolence: Morality, Politics, and Class in the 19th-Century United States (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 11–97Google Scholar; Howe, Daniel Walker, “The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture in the North during the Second Party System,” JAH, 78 (03 1991), 1216–1239CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem., The Political Culture of the American Whigs (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), esp. 150–80; Mathews, Donald G., “The Second Great Awakening as an Organizing Process, 1780–1830,” American Quarterly, 21 (Spring 1969), 23–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarMoorhead, James H., “Social Reform and the Divided Conscience of Antebellum Protestantism,” Church History, 48 (12 1979), 416–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ryan, Mary P., The Cradle of the Middle Class: The Family in Oneida County, New York, 1790–1865 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 105–44Google Scholar.
5 On the relationship between abolitionist and evangelical thought, see Davis, David Brion, “The Emergence of Immediatism in British and American Antislavery Thought,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review, 49 (09 1962), 209–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Essig, James, “The Lord's Free Man: Charles G. Finney and His Abolitionism,” CWH, 24 (03 1978), 25–45Google Scholar; Friedman, Gregarious Saints; Loveland, Anne C., “Evangelicalism and Immediate Emancipation in American Anti-Slavery Thought,” Journal of Southern History, 32 (05 1966), 172–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Perry, Lewis, Radical Abolitionism: Anarchy and the Government of God in Antislavery Thought (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1973)Google Scholar; Walters, Ronald G., The Antislavery Appeal: American Abolitionism after 1830 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press 1976)Google Scholar; Wyatt-Brown, Bertram, Lewis Tappan and the Evangelical War against Slavery (Cleveland: Press of the Case Western Reserve University 1969)Google Scholar.
6 Carwardine, Evangelicals and Politics, passim; Howe, “The Evangelical Movement and Political Culture.”
7 Perry, Anarchy and the Government of God, passim. See also Friedman, , Gregarious Saints, 43–67Google Scholar; Kraditor, Aileen S., Means and Ends in American Abolitionism: Garrison and his Critics on Strategy and Tactics, 1834–1850 (New York: Pantheon, 1967), 78–140Google Scholar; Turley, David, “Moral Suasion, Community Action and the Problem of Power: Reflections on American Abolitionists and Government, 1830–1861,” in Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri and Collins, Bruce (eds.), The Growth of Federal Power in American History (DeKalb, Il: Northern Illinois University Press, 1983), 25–35Google Scholar.
8 On Garrisonian tactics as compared to other abolitionists see Kraditor, Means and Ends in American Abolitionism, passim; Sewell, , Ballots for Freedom, 3–42Google Scholar; Stewart, Holy Warriors, passim; Wyatt-Brown, , Lewis Tappan and the Evangelical War Against Slavery, 185–204 and 269–86Google Scholar.
9 Good accounts of the rise of partisanship and electoral mobilization from the 1830s through the Civil War include Gienapp, William E., “Politics Seems To Enter into Everything: Political Culture in the North, 1840–1860,” in Maizlish, Stephen E. and Kushma, John J. (eds.), Essays on Antebellum American Politics, 1840–1860 (College Station: Texas A&M Press 1982), 15–69Google Scholar; McCormick, Richard P., “Political Development and the Second Party System,” in Chambers, William N. and Burnham, Walter Dean (eds.), The American Party Systems: Stages of Political Development (New York: Oxford 1975), 2nd edition, 90–116Google ScholarShade, William G., “Political Pluralism and Party Development: The Creation of a Modern Party System: 1815–1852,” in Formisano, Ronald P., et al. , The Evolution of American Electoral Systems (Westport: Greenwood 1981), 77–111Google Scholar.
10 Historians continue to debate the sources of mid nineteenth-century political conflict. Some find ethnoreligious affiliation to be the primary determinants of voting behavior. See Benson, Lee, The Concept of Jacksonian Democracy: New York as a Test Case (New York: Atheneum 1961)Google Scholar; Formisano, Ronald P., The Birth of Mass Political Parties: Michigan, 1827–1861 (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1970)Google Scholar; Holt, Michael F., Forging a Majority: The Formation of the Republican Party in Pittsburgh, 1848–1860 (New Haven: Yale University Press 1969)Google Scholar; Kleppner, Paul, The Cross of Culture: A Social Analysis of Midwestern Politics, 1850–1900 (New York: Free Press 1970)Google Scholar. Others stress regional divisions, and differences over economic policy issues at the local and state level. See McCormick, Richard L., The Party Period and Public Policy: American Politics from the Age of Jackson to the Progressive Era (New York: Oxford 1986)Google Scholar; Watson, Harry L., Jacksonian Politics and Community Conflict: The Emergence of the Second Party System in Cumberland County, North Carolina (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press 1981)Google Scholar. Still others argue that class antagonisms bulked large in antebellum politics. See Bridges, Amy, A City in the Republic: Antebellum New York and the Origins of Machine Politics (Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fogel, Robert William, Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery (New York: Norton 1989), esp. pp. 281–387Google Scholar; Wilentz, Sean, “On Class and Politics in Jacksonian America,” Reviews in American History, 10 (12 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For attempts to synthesize all or some of these divergent themes, see Formisano, , The Transformation of Political Culture: Massachusetts Parties, 1790–1840S (New York: Oxford 1983)Google Scholar; Holt, , The Political Crisis of the 1850s (New York: Wiley & Sons 1978)Google Scholar.
11 Peoria, Transcript, 13 07 1860, quoted in Gienapp, “Politics Seem to Enter into Everything,” 66Google Scholar.
12 Accounts of the rise of the Republican party include Baum, Dale, The Civil War Party System: The Case of Massachusetts (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1984), 24–54Google Scholar; Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (New York: Oxford 1970)Google Scholar; Formisano, , Birth of Mass Political Parties, esp. 215–324Google Scholar; Gienapp, , The Origins of the Republican Party, 1852–1856 (New York: Oxford 1987)Google Scholar; Holt, , Forging a Majority, and Political Crisis of the 1850s; esp. 139–217Google Scholar. Also see Gara, Larry, “Slavery and the Slave Power: A Crucial Distinction,” CWH, 15 (03 1969), 5–18Google Scholar, on the impact of the Slave Power construct on northern politics.
13 Annual Reports of the American Anti-Slavery Society… years ending May 1, 1857, and May 1, 1858 (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1859), 11Google Scholar; Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society… year ending May 1, 1861 (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1861), 33Google Scholar; Lydia Maria Child to Horace Greeley, 18 December 1859, Collected Correspondence of Lydia Maria Child, Boston Public Library [hereafter, BPL]. See also Annual Report Presented to the American Anti-Slavery Society… at the Annual Meeting, Held in New York, May 7, 1856 (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1856), 69–70Google Scholar.
14 Lydia Maria Child to Henrietta Sargent, 15 July 1860; Child to Charles Sumner, 26 December 1859, Collected Correspondence, BPL; Samuel May Jr. to Richard Webb, 1; November i860, Samuel May Jr. Papers, BPL. James McPherson found that several Garrisonians did in fact vote for Lincoln. See McPherson, , Struggle for Equality, 7Google Scholar.
15 Annual Report Presented to the American Anti-Slavery Society …May 7, 1856, 64–5, 70–1. See also Abby Kelley Foster to Stephen Foster, 4 December; 14 December 1857[?]. Abigail Kelley Foster Papers, American Antiquarian Society [hereafter, AAS]; “Proceedings of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society at the Annual Meetings held in 1854, 1855 & 1856,” in Annual Reports of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society for the years 1850 to 1856 (Boston: 1856), 56–67Google Scholar; Liberator, 4 February 1858.
16 Both Foster, and Burleigh, are quoted in Liberator, 3 06 1859Google Scholar.
17 Wendell Phillips to Abby Foster, [?] June 1859; Abby Foster to Phillips, 24 June 1859, Foster Papers, AAS. The wounds created over this issue were opened wide when Garrison charged Abby Foster with hypocrisy for her criticisms of the Republican party even while she went on soliciting funds from many of its prominent members. Foster, of course, denied any hypocrisy, and demanded a public apology, which Garrison refused to grant. See Garrison to Abby Foster, 22 July 1859; 25 July 1859; 8 September 1859; Foster to Garrison, 24 July 1859, Foster Papers, AAS. Discussions of Stephen Foster's support for the Radical Abolition Party can be found in Liberator: 31 August 1860; 28 September 1860; October 1860. For more on this schism, see Sewell, , Ballots for Freedom, 339–42Google Scholar; Stewart, , Wendell Phillips: Liberty's Hero (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press 1986), 196–7Google Scholar.
18 Garrison, quoted in Liberator, 4 02 1859Google Scholar. Scholars who have suggested that the Garrisonians saw potential for the development of a more militant antislavery politics in the radical arm of the Republican party include Dillon, Merton, The Abolitionists: Growth of a Dissenting Minority (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press 1974), 211–2, 239–40Google Scholar; Foner, , Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men, 139–41Google Scholar; Sewell, ibid., 285–88, 339–42 Gara, Larry, “Who Was an Abolitionist?,” in Martin Duberman (ed.), The Anti-Slavery Vanguard: New Essays on the Abolitionists (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1965), 32–51Google Scholar.
19 Annual Reports of the American Anti-Slavery Society… years ending May 1, 1857, and May 1, 1858, 37, 10; Liberator, 14 January 1859; Garrison to Oliver Johnson, 26 October 1858, in Ruchames, Louis and Merrill, Walter M. (eds.), The Letters of William Lloyd Garrison, Vols. I–VI (Cambridge: Belknap Press 1971–1981), Vol. IV: 591Google Scholar; Samuel May Jr. to Richard D. Webb, 6 November i860, Samuel May Jr. Papers, BPL; Garrison to Garrison II, 26 October 1858, Garrison Family Papers, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College [SC]. See also Garrison to J. Miller McKim, 21 October i860, Letters IV: 698; Susan B. Anthony to Abby Kelley Foster, 20 April 1857, Foster Papers, AAS; Samuel May Jr. to Richard D. Webb, 8 February 1859; Samuel May Jr. to Webb, 9 November i860, May Jr. Papers, BPL; Liberator, 7 May 1858.
20 Annual Reports of the American Anti-Slavery Society… years ending May 1, 1857, and May 1, 1858, 35; Wendell Phillips quoted in Liberator, 5 February 1858.
21 As Phillips, continued: “The Republican party has undertaken a problem, the solution of which will force them to our position.” Phillips quoted in Liberator, 16 11 1860Google Scholar.
22 Sallie Holley to Abby Kelley Foster, 15 May 1857, Foster Papers, AAS; Lydia Maria Child to Sarah Blake Shaw, 20 February 1857, Collected Correspondence, BPL. Stephen Foster's quote and the response of several Garrisonians at the 1858 meeting of the MASS can be found in Liberator, 5 February 1858. Also see Liberator, 5 March 1858 for an elaborate defense by Foster of this turn toward electoral politics.
23 William, and Pease, Jane, “Confrontation and Abolition in the 1850s,” JAH, 58 (03 1972), 923–37Google Scholar. Other historians (including Pease and Pease above) have pointed to the acceptance of violence in abolitionist and pacifist thought as evidence that traditional tactics were in eclipse by the 1850s and 1860s. See for example, Brown, Bertram Wyatt, “William Lloyd Garrison and Antislavery Unity: A Reappraisal,” CWH, 13 (03 1967), 5–24Google Scholar; Fellman, “Theodore Parker and the Abolitionist Role in the 1850s”; Dillon, , The Abolitionists, 219–46Google Scholar; Fredrickson, George M., The Inner Civil War: Northern Intellectuals and the Crisis of the Union (New York: Harper Row 1965), 36–44Google ScholarPerry, , Radical Abolitionism, 231–67 Stewart, Liberty's Hero, 198–208Google Scholar, and “Garrison, Again, And Again, And Again, And Again…,” Reviews in American History, 4 (12 1976), 539–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Samuel May Jr. to Richard Webb, ; October 1856, Samuel May Jr. Papers, BPL; Call for Disunion petition, dated 8 July 1857, Slavery in the U.S. Collection, AAS.
25 On this point see in particular Ginzberg, , Women and the Work of Benevolence, 98–132Google Scholar.
26 Carwardine, , Evangelicals and Politics, 278Google Scholar. On the Sabbatarian movement see Wyatt-Brown, , “Prelude to Abolitionism: Sabbatarian Politics and the Rise of the Second Party System,” JAH, 58 (09 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
27 There were, of course, personal liberty laws enacted by northern states well before the 1850s. Indeed, every northern state except Illinois, and the western states organized after 1850, experimented with personal liberty laws at one time or another. Earlier statutes, however, sought only to ensure that free persons would not be remanded to slavery. On earlier personal liberty laws, see Fehrenbacher, Don E., The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics (New York: Oxford 1978), 40–7Google Scholar; Morris, Thomas D., Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North 1780–1861 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press 1974), 1–165Google Scholar.
28 Morris, ibid., 166–71 quote from 172; Liberator, 1 June 1855. For the 185; personal liberty law see Mass. Acts and Resolves, 1855, 506, 941, 946–7.
29 Gardner's veto message can be found in Liberator, 25 May 1855. On the 1858 law, see Mass. Acts and Resolves, 1858, 151; Mass. Senate Document No. 86, 1858; Liberator, 2 April 1858.
30 Quote from “Letter to the Joint Special Committee of the Legislature,” read by W. L. Garrison, 5 March 1858, reported in Liberator, 5 March 1858. Garrison introduced the petitions gathered for the 1858 session by reading this letter. Garrison's address is also reprinted in Letters IV: 513–5. See also Liberator: 27 October 1854; 2 February 1858; 26 February 1858; Phillips, Wendell, “Removal of Judge Loring,” in Speeches, Lectures, and Letters (Boston: Lee and Shepard Publishers, 1863), 154–212Google Scholar.
31 Baum, , Civil War Party System, 40–5Google Scholar; Mulkern, John R., The Know-Nothing Party in Massachusetts: The Rise and Fall of a People's Movement (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), 105, 158–63, 172Google Scholar. See also Mass. House Document No. 107, 1858, wherein the Joint Special Committee reported their agreement with the petitions for Loring's removal.
32 Colburn, George F., secretary of the Worcester Co. North Anti-Slavery Society quoted in Liberator, 7 05 1858Google Scholar; Wright, H. C. quoted in Liberator, 9 04 1858Google Scholar. See also Liberator: April 2 3; May 14; J une 6; 1858; Samuel May J r. to C. C. Burleigh, 15 August 1858, Samuel May Jr. Papers, BPL.
34 Mass. House Document No. 173, 1859, 1; Child, Lydia Maria, “The Duty of Disobedience to the Fugitive Slave Act: An Appeal to the Legislators of Massachusetts,” Anti-Slavery Tracts No. 9: New Series (Boston: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1860), 23Google Scholar; C. C. Burleigh quoted in Liberator, 11 February 1859; Wendell Phillips, quoted in ibid., 25 February 1859.
35 New York Times, 24 November 1858. The federal courts as impediments to abolitionist reform is a theme that runs through much of the Garrisonians' writing on personal liberty laws. See for example “No Slave Hunting in the Old Bay State: An Appeal to the People and Legislature of Massachusetts,” Anti-Slavery Tracts No. 13: New Series (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1860).
36 Mass. House Document No. 173, 1859, 2; “Minority Report,” ibid., 5; see also Liberator, 18 March 1859, which reprints both the majority bill and the minority dissent; Mass. House Document No. 220, 1859; Mass. House Document No. 256, 1859; Liberator: 2, 8, 15 April 1859, in which the House debates are extracted; Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society… year ending May 1, 1859 (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1860), 109–10.
37 Phillips to H.C. Wright, 8 April 1860, Garrison Family Papers, SC; Liberator, 30 March 1860. See also Mass. Senate Document No. 126, 1860; William Lloyd Garrison to Wendell Phillips Garrison, 22 March i860, Letters IV: 671; Annual Report of the American Anti-Slavery Society… year ending May 1, 1860 (New York: American Anti-Slavery Society, 1861), 260. For a different interpretation that views the agitation as an effort to assert a radical formulation of state sovereignty through law, see Morris, Free Men All, 188–90.
38 Wendell Phillips quoted in Liberator, 16 November 1860, and ibid., 5 February 1858.
39 On the importance of these Whig theorists for understanding the political economy of orthodox evangelicals, see Howe, , Political Culture of the American Whigs, esp. 43–68, 210–37Google Scholar.
40 Garrison, William Lloyd, The Abolitionists and Their Relations to the War, a Lecture by William Lloyd Garrison Delivered at the Cooper Institute, January, 14, 1862 (New York: E. D. Barker, 1862), 46Google Scholar; Phillips, Wendell, “Under the Flag,” in Speeches, Lectures, and Letters, 396Google Scholar. See also Garrison to Oliver Johnson, 19 April 1861 in Letters, V: 16–18; J. Miller McKim to Garrison, 20 April 1861; Garrison to Johnson, 23 April 1861, William Lloyd Garrison Papers, BPL.
41 James M. Stone to John Andrew, 9 January 1862, John Andrew Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society. The information contained in this paragraph is more thoroughly discussed in McPherson, , Struggle for Equality, 75–86Google Scholar; and McKivigan, , The War Against Proslavery Religion, 183–201Google Scholar.
42 American Anti-Slavery Society, “The War and Slavery: or Victory only through Emancipation,” Anti-Slavery Tracts, new series No. 20 (Boston: R. F. Wallcut, 1861), 8Google Scholar; American Anti-Slavery Society, “ Southern Hatred of the American Government, the People of the North, and Free Institutions,” American Anti-Slavery Tracts, new series No. 23 (Boston: R. F. Wallcut, 1862)Google Scholar.
43 Garrison, 's quote from The Abolitionists and their Relations to the war, 50Google Scholar.
44 National Anti-Slavery Standard, 7 December 1861; Phillips, Wendell, letter to the New York Tribune, 16 08 1862Google Scholar. See also American Anti-Slavery Society, “The Spirit of the South toward Northern Freemen and Soldiers defending the American Flag against Traitors of the Deepest Dye,” Anti-Slavery Tracts, new series No. 22 (Boston: R. F. Wallcut, 1861)Google Scholar.
46 Phillips, , “The War for the Union,” Speeches, Lectures, and Letters, 415Google Scholar; Garrison, , The Abolitionists and Their Relations to the War, 50Google Scholar; Turley, “Moral Suasion, Community Action, and the Problems of Power,” 35.
46 Scholars who have stressed the revolutionary nature of the Emancipation Proclamation and radical Reconstruction include Foner, Reconstruction; Kaczorowski, “To Begin the Nation Anew” McCrary, “The Party of Revolution.” Scholars who have examined the impact of radicalism specifically in the northern states include Montgomery, David, Beyond Equality: Labor and the Radical Republicans, 1862–1872 (New York: Knopf 1967)Google Scholar; Mohr, James C., (ed.), Radical Republicans in the North: State Politics During Reconstruction (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976)Google Scholar. See also Stewart, , Liberty's Hero, 241–2Google Scholar, for more on how Phillips specifically, the Garrisonians generally, adopted this new conception of the state.
47 National Anti-Slavery Standard, 3 January 1863.
48 Accounts of the post-war resurgence of the Democratic party include Iver Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford 1990)Google Scholar; Kleppner, Paul, The Third Electoral System, 1853–1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1979), 97–237Google ScholarBaum, , Civil War Party System, 164–210Google Scholar; Keller, Affairs of State, 122–283.
49 Montgomery, Beyond Equality. The rather disconcerting fact that most American and British antislavery advocates coupled their zeal for abolition with conservative views on economic and social relations is an irony that has generated much scholarship on both sides of the Atlantic. Good introductions to the American dimension are David Brion Davis, “Reflections on Abolitionism and Ideological Hegemony,” and Ashworth, John, “The Relationship Between Capitalism and Humanitarianism,” in AHR [Forum], 92 (10 1987), 797–828Google Scholar; Foner, Eric, “Abolitionism and the Labor Movement in Antebellum America,” in Foner, Eric, Politics and Ideology in the Age of the Civil War (New York: Oxford 1980), 57–76Google Scholar; Glickstein, Jonathan A., “‘Poverty Is Not Slavery’: American Abolitionists and the Competitive Labor Market,” in Perry, Lewis and Fellman, Michael (eds.), Antislavery Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Abolitionists (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University 1979), 195–218Google Scholar.