From Slavery to Freedom: The African-American Pamphlet Collection, 1822-1909

In a hurry? Save or print these Collection Connections as a single file.

Go directly to the collection, From Slavery to Freedom: The African-American Pamphlet Collection, 1822-1909, in American Memory, or view a Summary of Resources related to the collection.

From Slavery to Freedom: The African-American Pamphlet Collection, 1822-1909, offers primary source materials relating to a variety of historic events from the nineteenth century. Speeches, essays, letters, and other correspondence provide different perspectives on slavery, African colonization, Reconstruction, and the education of African Americans. Additional materials provide information about the political debates of legislation relating to slavery in the United States and its territories, such as the Wilmot Proviso and the Compromise of 1850.

1. Abolitionism

William Lloyd Garrison was considered a radical in the abolitionist movement. Publisher of the anti-slavery newspaper, The Liberator, and co-founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society, Garrison called for the immediate end to slavery, believing in the equality of the races and in the ability of free African Americans to successfully assimilate into white society. This philosophy put him at odds with abolitionists who doubted the notion of racial equality and who sought to gradually end slavery.

Illustration from "Facts for the People of the Free States," ca. 1847.

Although he called for a peaceful approach to abolishing slavery, Garrison’s criticism of the Constitution as a pro-slavery document and his inclusion of women in the abolitionist movement prompted some members of the American Anti-Slavery Society to leave in 1839 and form the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Pamphlets from this male-only organization offer a more moderate approach to abolitionism with pieces such as “Shall We Give Bibles to Three Millions of American Slaves?” and “Facts for the People of the Free States,” an 1846 pamphlet that chronicles the murder of slaves in the South, describes the relationship between politicians and slavery, and offers “Presidential Testimonies” on the values of liberty.

Contrast the tone of this new group and its publications with the original American Anti-Slavery Society by searching on American Anti-Slavery Society for publications including Wendell Phillips’s “The Philosophy of the Abolition Movement.” This 1853 speech describes the abolitionists fighting against desperate odds: “The press, the pulpit, the wealth, the literature, the prejudices, the political arrangements, the present self-interest of the country, are all against us.” (page 9). Garrison’s own rhetoric is available in speeches such as his 1860 “The ‘Infidelity’ of Abolitionism,” which proclaims:

The one great . . . all-conquering sin in America is its system of chattel slavery . . . at first, tolerated as a necessary evil . . . now, defended in every slave State as a most beneficent institution . . . controlling . . . courts and legislative assemblies, the army and navy, Congress, the National Executive, the Supreme Court--and having at its disposal all the offices, . . . to extend its dominion indefinitely.

page 5

• How do the ideas and tone of the American Anti-Slavery Society pamphlets differ from those of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society?
• What are Garrison's objections to slavery? What problems does he attribute to it?
• What steps do you think Garrison would have considered necessary to end slavery?

In addition to providing a chronology of slavery laws throughout United States history, the collection of New York Herald articles reprinted in “History of American Abolitionism,” distinguishes between two types of abolitionists:

[T]hose who are actuated by sentiments of philanthropy and humanity, but are at the same time no less opposed to any disturbance of the peace or tranquility of the Union…. [and those] who, in the language of Henry Clay, are ‘resolved to persevere at all hazards, and without regard to any consequences, however calamitous they may be.’”

page 4

The Religious Society of Friends began working against slavery within their organization in the late-seventeenth century. A search on Society of Friends, offers materials such as “A Brief Statement of the Rise and Progress of the Testimony of the Religious Society of Friends, Against Slavery and the Slave Trade” and “The Appeal of the Religious Society of Friends…on Behalf of the Coloured Races.” Both pamphlets chronicle the group’s efforts “to plead with their fellow-citizens who yet held slaves, and to labour in a meek and gentle spirit, to bring others to that sense of mercy and of justice, to which the Lord in his goodness had brought them,” (page 8).

• What are the similarities and differences between the Religious Society of Friends, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and the American Anti-Slavery Society?

Additional pamphlets from female abolitionists are represented in the “Women Authors” section of the special presentation, Collection Highlights, while searches on abolition and anti-slavery yield other materials from abolitionist groups using a variety of techniques to end slavery.

What is the background of each abolitionist group? What were each group's various objections to slavery? How did each group define its goal and the steps it considered necessary to end slavery? Were these goals based on economic, political, social, moral, or philosophical reasons? Did each group distinguish between the interests of the slaves and the interests of the nation? Which groups were willing to abolish slavery at the cost of “any disturbance of the peace or tranquility of the Union”? Which groups were unwilling to do so? How are these attitudes reflected in the subject matter and tone of their pamphlets? Which methods do you think were the most effective? Which methods do you think were the most realistic?

Illustration from Authentic Anecdotes of American Slavery by Mrs. L. M. Child, 1838.

2. American Colonization Society

The effort to colonize free African Americans began gaining momentum in 1816 with the formation of the American Colonization Society. Pamphlets such as “A Few Facts Respecting the American Colonization Society” describe the objective of the group: “[T]o colonize . . . on the Coast of Africa, or such other place as Congress shall deem expedient, the people of colour in our country, already free--and those others, who may hereafter be liberated by the humanity of individuals, or the laws of the States,” (page 3).

The majority of members, however, were not interested in liberating additional slaves. In fact, they felt that free African Americans “exhibit few characteristics to encourage hopes of their improvement in this country. Loosed from the restraints of slavery, they utterly neglect, or miserably abuse the blessings which liberty would confer,” (page 12). Liberty in Liberia, however, meant that colonists would have a new chance at improving their status. In the words of the organization’s 1832 pamphlet, “Reflections on the Causes that Led to the Formation of the Colonization Society,” repatriated African Americans could enjoy “all the advantages of society, self-government, eligibility to office, and freedom from the degradation arising from an inferiority of caste,” (page 8).

Proponents of colonization were also aware of the advantages white Americans stood to gain from the effort. The pamphlet, “Reflections on the Causes that Led to the Formation of the Colonization Society” contains the section, “Increase of the Coloured Population,” which reflects whites' fears about "the dangers from the great number of slaves . . ." fueled by ". . . the increasing discussions that take place on the subject in our papers and among themselves--and by the inflammatory publications that are clandestinely spreading among them in spite of all the vigilance of their masters," (page 9). Indeed, slave rebellions, such as Nat Turner's 1831 insurrection that killed fifty-seven whites fueled southern fears of slave revolts caused by large slave populations and inflamatory abolitionist tracts.

From the Cover of "The Confessions of Nat Turner," 1832. African American Odyssey.

Such descriptions as that found in "Increase of the Coloured Population" prompted some abolitionists to challenge the motives of the American Colonization Society. In the pamphlet, “Colonization,” the American Anti-Slavery Society charged that colonization “widens the breach between the two races; exposes the colored people to great practical persecution . . . and . . . is calculated to swallow up and divert that feeling . . . that slavery is alike incompatible with the law of God and with the well being of man,” (page 7).

• How might colonization have provided African Americans with the “advantages of society” and “self-government”?
• How would the exodus of free African Americans to another country have affected the situation of slaves who remained behind?
• How would it have contributed to the “great practical persecution” of colored people in America?
• Why might colonization have reduced the threat of slave insurrections?

A search on colonization results in a number of pamphlets debating the benefits and dangers of the American Colonization Society. For example, Thomas Hodgkins’s “An Inquiry into the Merits of the American Colonization Society” defends the group. Hodgkins reasons that even though some of the original members were slaveholders, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the group was dedicated to preserving slavery (page 4).

• Do you think that the American Colonization Society endorsed, condemned, or ignored the institution of slavery? Why?
• Do you think that colonization was a viable option for free African Americans? Why?
• How does the American Colonization Society compare to subsequent “back-to-Africa” movements such as Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association colonization plans?
• What were these groups trying to achieve in their own era?

3. Slavery and the Territories: The Missouri Compromise and The Wilmot Proviso

In 1817, Missouri applied for admission into the Union as a slave state. This effort threatened the political balance of power in Congress, which consisted of twenty-two states evenly split between the slave and free factions. After years of deliberation, Congressmen Henry Clay and Daniel Webster drafted the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This bill admitted both Maine and Missouri into the Union (as a free and slave state, respectively) and prohibited slavery north of the southern boundary of Missouri, extending across the nation to Mexican territory.

The question of allowing slavery in United States territories was revisited when the Mexican-American War raged from 1846 to 1848 and the Union acquired territories stretching from Texas to the Pacific Northwest. Pennsylvania Congressman David Wilmot called for the prohibition of slavery in these new territories with an attachment to an appropriations bill for establishing the border with Mexico .

Arguments against the Wilmot Proviso came from across the nation. Michigan senator and 1848 presidential candidate, Lewis Cass, called for votes against the attachment in “General Cass on the Wilmot Proviso” with the first of many reasons being: “The present is no proper time for the introduction into the country, and into Congress, of an exciting topic, tending to divide us, when our united exertions are necessary to prosecute the existing war.” An article from the Charleston, South Carolina Mercury echoed Cass’s claim with the assertion that the Wilmot Proviso threatened to subvert the Constitution and is “splitting the Union into sectional parties; it is virtually the first step to a dissolution,” (page 65).

From the Cover of "A Voice from the South," 1847.

Why do you think that Wilmot sought to ban slavery in the western territories? Why did his opposition believe that it was important to defer the question of slavery? Why did the Wilmot Proviso threaten to fuel sectional tensions in Congress? How might such a bill have either caused or created an imbalance of power in Congress? On what basis did General Cass argue that the Wilmot Proviso subverted the Constitution?

4. The Mexican-American War and Accusations Against the South

The Wilmot Proviso ultimately died in Congress and the debate over the slavery in the territories continued. The term, Slavery—United States—Extension to the Territories in the Subject Index produces a number of arguments against the Mexican War and the introduction of slavery into new territories, including “Horace Mann's Letters on the Extension of Slavery into California and New Mexico.” Mann criticized the war with Mexico and claimed that it was merely a means for the South to add slave territories and states to the Union: Hence the refusal to accept propositions of peace, unless territory south of . . . the Missouri Compromise line . . . should be ceded to us . . . And hence . . . the determination of a portion of the Southern members of Congress, to stop the whole machinery of the Government . . . and assail even the Union itself, unless slavery shall be permitted to cross the Rio Grande, and enter the vast regions of the West . . . . page 2

Horace Mann, between 1844 and 1859. America's First Look into the Camera: Daguerreotypes, 1839-1864.

The opportunity to open the territories to slavery was debated when Democrat Lewis Cass, and Whig Zachary Taylor faced off in the 1848 presidential election. While Cass wanted the territories to decide on the slavery issue, Taylor, who was a slaveholder himself, failed to commit himself on the issue. Outrage surrounding both men’s handling of the slavery issue prompted the formation of the Free Soil Party and the nomination of Martin Van Buren in the race.

In “The Great American Question, Democracy vs. Doulocracy,” William Wilson characterized the 1848 presidential election as a contest between democracy and doulocracy, “the government of servants or slaves,--the 250,000 slaveholders being governed, through the medium of their fears . . . by their slaves, and they controlling the Republic . . . by threats of secession from the Union if they should not be allowed to rule,” (page 6).

• What percent of the total U.S. population were slaveholders? Was their influence in propotion to their numbers?
• What does Wilson mean by saying that the slaveholders were “being governed . . . by their slaves”?
• Do you think Wilson would include Taylor among “the 250,000 slaveholders”?
• How do Mann and Wilson characterize the South? Do you think that these are fair assessments?
• How does knowing that Mann viewed the Mexican War as he did impact your understanding and evaluation of Wilmot's proviso? How does it impact your view of arguments made against Wilmot?

5. Slavery and the Territories: The Compromise of 1850 and The Fugitive Slave Law

The territorial debate was ultimately resolved when Congressmen Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Stephen Douglas introduced a series of bills known as the Compromise of 1850. This legislation admitted California as a free state in the Union and abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia. On the other hand, it also organized the territories of New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah without any reference to slavery, thereby leaving the territories open to the possibility of sanctioned slavery at a later date. Furthermore, the Compromise included the Fugitive Slave Act, designed to assist in the recovery of runaway slaves by increasing the number of federal officers and by denying fugitive slaves the right to a jury trial.

Illustration of Fugitive Slave from "Facts for the People of the Free States," ca. 1847.

• What is the role of a jury trial in a democracy?
• On what basis did the Fugitive Slave Law deny slaves the right to a jury trial? (Search on Dred Scott to learn more).
• What did this law imply about the value of slaves’ lives in the eyes of the courts?
• Besides ensuring the return of fugitive slaves, what did slaveholders gain in terms of federal and political support from the Fugitive Slave Act?
• Do you think that the Fugitive Slave Law was constitutional?

From the Cover of "Slavery in its Relation to God. A Review of Rev. Dr. Lord's Sermon . . ."1851.

The term, “Fugitive Slave Law of 1850,” in the Subject Index yields a number of pamphlets debating the merits of the legislation. Horace Mann's Letters challenge the constitutionality of eliminating the possibility of a jury trial. On the other hand, Reverend John Lord’s sermon, “‘The Higher Law,’ in its Application to the Fugitive Slave Bill,” notes that slavery was a fact of life in the Old Testament and early American history: “The people of the North . . . bound themselves to respect the institution of slavery as it then existed . . . [S]uch an arrangement was not void as being against a higher law, and . . . is constitutional and lawful, and cannot be resisted upon any moral grounds,” (page 11).

A refutation of Lord’s argument appears in the pamphlet, “Slavery in its Relation to God” while Ichabod Spencer’s sermon, “Fugitive Slave Law, The Religious Duty of Obedience to Law,” reinforces the social and ethical value of accepting a federal law:

The question is not, whether slavery is right, or the Fugitive Slave Law right . . . The question is, shall Law be put in force, and the government of the country stand; or shall Law be resisted, and the government of the country disobeyed, and the nation plunged into all the horrors of civil war? If Law cannot be executed, it is time to write the epitaph of your country!

page 29

• Do you think that the Fugitive Slave Law should have been obeyed?
• How do Lord and Spencer define and prioritize the obligations of civil law and moral law?
• Which, if any, of the abolitionist groups do you think would have called for adherence to the Fugitive Slave Law?
• Abolitionists created the Underground Railroad to transport slaves to freedom, which became even more important with the passing of the Fugitive Slave Law. How would you characterize movements such as the Underground Railroad in terms of their relation to civil and moral laws?
• How do Lord and Spencer’s arguments hold up when examining other times when civil disobedience became a tool for social change (e.g., the civil rights movement of the 1960s)? Did their arguments hold more relevance in the 1850s because of the state of the nation at that time?
• What is the moral value of obeying civil law? Do you think that there are situations when breaking civil law is moral? When? What are the benefits and risks of doing so?

6. The Emancipation Proclamation and the Conscription Act of 1863

A dwindling number of volunteers to fight in the Union Army prompted two very different measures in 1863 that seemed to create a double standard regarding race and military service. In January, the Emancipation Proclamation abolished the institution of slavery and permitted African Americans to join the military. A search on troops yields pamphlets such as “General Washington and General Jackson, on Negro Soldiers,” which offers a history of African Americans fighting for America since the Revolutionary War. It also locates“First Organization of Colored Troops in the State of New York,” which describes African-American soldiers responding to the government’s call by “sweeping forward in steady, solid legions . . . destined to wield the sword of just retribution,--to teach their former masters, on many a bloody battle-field . . . which of them is ‘of the superior race,’” (page 6).

While the Emancipation Proclamation allowed blacks to join the fight, the Conscription Act of 1863 made all white men between the ages of twenty and forty-five eligible for a draft. The wealthy could, however, avoid military service for a price. They could illegally bribe doctors for medical exemptions or legally hire a substitute or pay for a commutation of a draft. This ability to purchase a deferment heightened the resentment of many in the lower class who felt that they were being forced to fight for the freedom of African Americans.

From the Cover of "Report of the Committee of Merchants for the Relief of Colored People, Suffering from the Late Riots in the City of New York," 1863.

Enrollment officers and blacks were occasionally attacked in retribution for the draft in several cities but the largest incident of its kind began on June 11, 1863, in New York City in which more than 100 people were murdered. After burning down a draft office and attacking police officers and well-dressed whites, a mob of lower-class whites focused its energy on killing African Americans. The “Report of the Committee of Merchants for the Relief of Colored People, Suffering from the Late Riots in the City of New York” documents “Incidents of the Riot” with accounts of murder and other violent acts perpetrated by this mob of lower-class whites. Please note: These descriptions are often graphic and may not be suitable for some readers.

One example of violence comes in the events surrounding the death of William Jones, a black member of the community who walked into the mob while returning home from a bakery. Jones was hung from a lamppost where his body was mutilated for several hours after his death:

[S]o great was the fear inspired by the mob that no white person had dared to manifest sufficient interest in the mutilated body of the murdered man while it remained in the neighborhood to be able to testify as to who it was . . . The principal evidence which the widow . . . has to identify the murdered man as her husband is the fact of his having a loaf of bread under his arm.

page 16

• What were people’s expectations of the Emancipation Proclamation and the Conscription Act?
• Why did some people feel it was important to present a history of the African-American soldier in the U.S. military? Who is the intended audience of such a pamphlet?
• How were the Emancipation Proclamation and the Conscription Act meant to provide more Union soldiers?
• Did this legislation set a double standard for black and white soldiers?
• Was the lower class justified in feeling that they were being obligated to fight on behalf of African Americans?
• Why do you think that the mob was still influential after the riot?

7. Reconstruction

In the decade following the Civil War, the United States was charged with the task of rebuilding the literal and political landscape of the South. Federal troops who had once attacked the rebel states were now ruling over them until local governments could be established. How and when those local governments would be established, however, was a matter of debate.

Speeches by Wendell Phillips and Frederick Douglass from the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society provide evidence of the debate over Reconstruction policies including the conditions under which southern states would be readmitted to the Union. Abolitionists such as Phillips and Douglass called for nothing less than the full citizenship and enfranchisement of African Americans. Phillips, in his speech, criticizes an Executive branch, overeager to make peace, for being willing to readmit southern states under terms that leave room for "white men of the reconstructed States [to] keep inside the Constitution, be free from any legal criticism, and yet put the negro where no Abolitionist would be willing to see him," (page 31).

Douglass similarly criticizes an early Reconstruction policy, claiming that it "practically enslaves the negro, and makes the Proclamation of 1863 a mockery and delusion," (page 36). Douglass also feared the South would treat the Federal Government as a conquering force under Reconstruction and proffered the enfranchisement of African Americans as a safeguard against probable insurrection:

There will be . . . this rank undergrowth of treason . . . growing up there, and interfering with, and thwarting the quiet operation of the Federal Government in those states. You will see those traitors handing down, from sire to son, the same malignant spirit which they have manifested, and which they are now exhibiting, with mailicious hearts, broad blades, and bloody hands in the field, against our sons and brothers . . . Now, where will you find the strength to counterbalance this spirit, if you do not find it in the negroes of the South? page 37

Illustration of Frederick Douglass. African-American Experience in Ohio, 1850-1920.

From the Cover of "Is the South Ready for Restoration?" ca. 1866.

A search on suffrage produces pamphlets debating voting rights for men in the South. “Is the South Ready for Restoration?” points out the inconsistency of claiming political representation of African Americans in determining the Southern states’ power in Congress and in the Electoral College while “absolutely refusing the privilege of voting to those whom they thus claim as fully worthy of representation,” (page 10).

This point was taken into consideration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution provided citizenship to African Americans. “Negro Suffrage and Social Equality” explains that if African-American males were not allowed to vote in a state, Congressional representation would be reduced so that only the white male population was counted (page 1). Along with this incentive, Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment in order to re-enter the Union. Despite this stipulation, black men were not always represented at the polls and a year later, the Fifteenth Amendment more overtly established suffrage by guaranteeing African-American men the right to vote. In theory, this amendment eliminated a state’s ability to deny suffrage to black voters.

There was, however, a difference between providing laws protecting African Americans and enforcing those laws. The 1873 pamphlet, “The Struggle Between the Civilization of Slavery and That of Freedom,” explains, “You have abolished slavery; but you have not destroyed the civilization--the moral and social ideas, born of slavery,” (page 4). The term, “Reconstruction,” in the Subject Index yields additional pamphlets such as “The Massacre of Six Colored Citizens of the United States at Hamburgh, S. C., on July 4, 1876,” which documents the slaughter of a black militia at the hands of a white mob.

• Why did Phillips and Douglass consider some early Reconstruction policies a mockery of the Union victory and the Emancipation Proclamation?
• How did Reconstruction policies and their relation to African Americans change over time?
• How had the role of abolitionists changed in the wake of the Civil War?
• How did Reconstruction policies establish a new order in the South?
• What did the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment imply about southern states reentering the Union?
• Why do you think that it was easier to change laws instead of attitudes in the South?
• Do you think that racial attitudes can be changed by legislation?
• Could the Federal Government have gained control in the South without appearing to be a conquering force? If so, how?

8. The Education of African Americans

The education system in America was one facet of life in need of attention after the Civil War. As A.D. Mayo explains in “The New Education in the New South,” educators didn’t have much to work with in the South in 1865:

Their endowments were gone; their teachers dead or dispersed; the foremost people too poor to send their children from home to school; and five millions emancipated slaves, wholly untaught, and several millions of poor white people, deplorably ignorant of letters, were flung upon society.

page 2

From the Cover of "A Brief Historical Sketch of Negro Education in Georgia," 1894.

To educate people in the South in the late-nineteenth century, the government was now obligated to teach both races. A search on education provides an overview of the American education system as it developed in the late-nineteenth century. Pieces such as Richard R. Wright’s “A Brief Historical Sketch of Negro Education in Georgia,” which describe the state’s efforts in educating African Americans from 1865 to 1895.

As late as 1904, however, some people questioned the need to educate African Americans at all. Booker T. Washington’s 1904 address, “Negro Education Not a Failure,” challenges claims from politicians “that it does not pay, from any point of view, to educate the Negro; and that all attempts at his education have so far failed to accomplish any good results,” (page 5). Washington notes that almost all of the schools educating African-American students have been filled to capacity since the end of the Civil War. With this thirst for education, Washington explains, “the Negro, according to official records, has blotted out 55.5 per cent of his illiteracy since he became a free man,” (page 6). This progress, however, is only one step in the right direction:

[T]he fact that with all the Negro is doing for himself, with all the white people in the South are doing for themselves, and despite all that one race is doing to help the other, the present opportunities for education are woefully inadequate for both races. In the year 1877-8 the total expenditure for education in the ex-slave states was a beggarly $2.61 per capita for whites and only $1.09 for blacks; on the same basis the U. S. Commissioner of Education reasons that for the year 1900--1, $35,400,000 were spent for the education of both races in the South, of which $6,000,000 went to Negroes, or $4.92 per capita for whites and $2.21 for blacks; on the same basis, each child in Massachusetts has spent upon his education $22.35 and each one in New York $20.53, yearly.

page 7

• What financial and social obstacles faced education in the South?
• Why do you think that more education money was allocated for whites than blacks?
• Why do you think that more money for education was available for Northern states? Was additional money being spent on something else in the South or do you think there just weren’t as many funds for education?
• Do you think that the disparity between economic conditions in the North and South was a result of Reconstruction policies?
• How does the education system in the North and South compare to other aspects of life in the late nineteenth century?