Female
Freedom Fighters
On December 31, 1832, William Lloyd Garrison’s
groundbreaking abolitionist newspaper The
Liberator ran an article
about the formation of the very first female antislavery society in New
England. The editorial, which was
written by an anonymous female author, vigorously put forth the idea that women
living in the United States had been too complacent in allowing the practice of
slavery to continue unchecked:
It appears
to us that the females of this land are without excuse for their heartless
indifference to the miserable condition of so many of their countrymen… They
behold thousands of their sisters degraded, and terribly wretched, exposed to
all the cruelties of capricious tyranny…yet still so many of them remain
passive and indolent spectators, and, painful as it is, we fear we must add
abettors, of this cruel oppression. (“Another Female Anti-Slavery Society” 189)
Like many of the Liberator’s articles, this
piece of writing was not simply meant to inform people about developments in
the antislavery movement. Rather, it was
a rallying call to readers, specifically women, to band together and work to end slavery.
The female element of the abolitionist movement is an intriguing subject
due to the fact that it revolved around a disenfranchised group of people
working to help an even more oppressed faction of Americans. In her article on the contributions made by
the Concord Female Anti-Slavery Society, Sandra Petrulionis
writes that Garrison himself believed “the destiny of the slaves is in the
hands of the American women” (1). It was
doubtlessly heartening for the publisher to learn that within five years of the
aforementioned issue’s printing, there were literally hundreds of female
antislavery societies in the United States.
Though the numerous female abolitionist organizations
in the United States varied in size, they all had a significant impact on the
movement as a whole. Today, a great deal
of research is being done on the specific contributions made by these
societies. Surprisingly, very little
work has been done on the Concord Female Anti-Slavery Society, despite the fact
that Concord, Massachusetts was one of the centers of abolitionist activity in
the North. What makes this deficiency
all the more surprising is the fact that certain members of the Society played
a role in inspiring some of the town’s most famous citizens to take up the
abolitionist cause. Ralph Waldo Emerson
and Henry David Thoreau, two of Concord’s greatest thinkers, eventually became
committed abolitionists. Nevertheless,
each one was somehow motivated and encouraged in this regard by the women in
their lives. Emerson, who made the
dramatic transition from a passive critic of the slave system to an assertive
abolitionist, was urged to become more involved in the movement by his wife Lidian, his brother’s fiancée Elizabeth Hoar, his friend
and neighbor Mary Merrick Brooks, and his devoted aunt Mary Moody Emerson. Each of these women did what they could to
speed along the lecturer’s abolitionist evolution.
Thoreau did not undergo the exact same transition that
his mentor did, as he was open to the more radical ideas of abolitionism early
on in his life. Nevertheless, there was
a certain progression in Thoreau’s passionate views regarding the slavery
question, as can be seen in his antislavery writings. Like Emerson, Thoreau was inspired in this
line of thinking by the women to whom he was closest. His mother, Cynthia Dunbar Thoreau, along
with his sisters, Sophia and Helen, were founding members of the Concord Female
Anti-Slavery Society. They exposed him
to a fairly extreme side of the movement while he was still a student. This laid the foundations for Henry’s radical
views on the subject.
Though the women in the lives of Emerson and Thoreau
doubtlessly helped shape their roles as antislavery activists, it seems rather
fitting that the essayists’ fellow Concord writer Nathaniel Hawthorne did not
fall into the same line of thinking.
Like Emerson and Thoreau, there were several pro-abolitionist women in
Hawthorne’s life, most notably his wife Sophia’s two sisters: Elizabeth Peabody
and Mary Mann. Hawthorne never became an
abolitionist, however. Instead, he
viewed the antislavery activists as rabble-rousers intent on destroying the
country. Though Peabody and Mann
repeatedly tried to change his opinion, Hawthorne wanted nothing to do with the
abolitionists and eventually grew fed up with his sisters-in-law. In addition, Sophia maintained the same views
as her husband regarding the antislavery movement, thus creating a rupture in
the relationship with her sisters. In
spite of Hawthorne’s contradictory position on the subject, it is interesting
to assess how the women in the lives of these three writers helped shape their
views on the abolitionist movement.
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s involvement in the abolitionist
movement has repeatedly been seen as an enigmatic component of the
transcendentalist’s life. This is in
part due to the fact that Emerson underwent a significant alteration regarding
his views on the subject. Though he had
always been turned off by the slave system, he was similarly disturbed by the
blind fervor of the abolitionist movement.
In The Emerson Dilemma, Michael Strysick
assesses several of the factors that contribute to the conundrum of Emerson’s
social activism. Strysick
claims that many academics have labeled the great lecturer’s involvement with
the abolitionists as “an anomaly inconsistent with his larger transcendental
project” (139). To some, it is strange
that Emerson became devoted to a cause advocating social change through group
activism when the central part of his transcendental philosophy revolved around
individual transformation via personal reflection and action. Emerson himself always seemed concerned about
getting too involved with the abolitionists.
Strysick claims that Emerson feared “becoming
a single-issue thinker; he wanted to be no one’s ideologue for it would
transgress his emphasis upon self-reliance and…place too much emphasis upon the
group” (160). The fact that several of
the significant women in his life were devoted abolitionists doubtlessly played
a part in his eventual loyalty to the cause, however. These zealous ladies kept Emerson exposed to
the antislavery position even when he had doubts about the cause. Among these ladies was Emerson’s aunt Mary
Moody Emerson, the woman many scholars view as his philosophical mentor.
In Robert D. Richardson’s exceptional biography
Emerson: The Mind on Fire, the author states that Mary Moody Emerson
provided Ralph Waldo with “the single most important part of his education”
(23). According to Richardson, Mary set
the intellectual standards for her nephew, and the biographer asserts that,
“Her correspondence with him is the single best indicator of his inner growth
and development” (23). The fact that she
held such an important place in Emerson’s life is critical to the subject of
his abolitionist development due to the fact that she was an ardent abolitionist
herself.
It is somewhat ironic how committed Mary Emerson was
to encouraging her nephew’s participation in the abolitionist movement. Initially, she had an unfavorable view of the
Garrisonian abolitionists as incendiary firebrands, a
view that Ralph Waldo himself held with for many years. A fateful meeting with antislavery lecturer
Charles Burleigh in 1835 drastically changed her opinion on the subject,
however. In her engrossing biography on
Mary Moody Emerson, Phyllis Cole recounts the meeting between the two, which
revolved mainly around the subject of Garrison himself. While Mary labeled the antislavery publisher
as a dangerous radical, Burleigh vigorously defended his fellow abolitionist. Intrigued, Mary opened herself up to a new
perspective on the founder of the Liberator, and her opinion of him
changed almost instantly. The shift was
remarkable; Cole states that a few years earlier, Mary “had written to her
friends in Maine to have nothing to do with Garrison’s paper” (234), but she
quickly decided to write them again and inform them of her conversion to his
side. It was a true turning point for
Miss Emerson. According to Cole, Mary
“was taking on a public and communal cause for the first time in her life”
(234). She became devoted to drawing
others to the antislavery movement. The
conversion of her nephew Ralph Waldo thus turned into an important undertaking
for the eccentric Miss Emerson.
In Len Gougeon’s book Virtue’s
Hero, the author recounts an amusing story of how Emerson’s aunt subtly
tried to transform Ralph Waldo into an abolitionist sympathizer by organizing
“a breakfast for George Thompson at the home of her nephew” (26). Thompson, a famous British abolitionist, had
been speaking at various antislavery society meetings in the area, and Miss
Emerson hoped that the meeting between him and her nephew would help stimulate
a conversion in Ralph Waldo.
Unfortunately, the plan backfired, as Waldo found his guest to be
“unbearably egocentric and closed minded” (Gougeon
26). Emerson viewed many abolitionists
in the same way, claiming that they were so consumed with changing society they
failed to see the need to change their own hearts and minds first.
In spite of the Thompson debacle, Mary Emerson refused
to give up on trying to sway her nephew to the
abolitionist side. One of the more
effective techniques she employed was to encourage her nephew’s wife Lidian, who became a passionate abolitionist long before
her husband did. Cole states that
although Thompson had no effect on Ralph Waldo, his visit to the Emerson
household did not go wholly unnoticed.
Rather, the abolitionist’s words resonated deeply with Lidian Emerson. This
was a victory in itself for Mary. Miss
Emerson knew that by strengthening Lidian’s
abolitionist resolve, her nephew would be continually exposed to the views and
actions of the antislavery movement.
Cole writes that thanks to Mary’s encouragement, the abolitionist
movement became “central to her [Lidian’s] life in
Concord, guaranteeing that this reform would continue to cross her husband’s
reform over the breakfast table” (236).
Emerson
had married Lydia Jackson in 1835, though according to Gougeon,
Ralph Waldo’s beloved wife, whom he affectionately nicknamed “Lidian,” “had been an abolitionist and civil rights
activist all her life” (13). She thus
remained several years ahead of her husband on the subject of ending
slavery. In 1837, two years after the
Thompson breakfast, provided lodgings for visiting abolitionists Sarah and
Angelina Grimke.
Their week in Concord was a momentous time in Lidian’s life, as the sisters
left her resolved not to “turn away my attention from the abolitionist cause
till I have found whether there is something for me personally to do and bear
to forward it” (Richardson 270). Lidian
disagreed with Ralph Waldo’s silent condemnation of slavery, and saw it as her
duty to actively participate in various antislavery activities. Later that same year, she became a founding
member of the Concord Female Anti-Slavery Society. In her article, Petrulionis
labels Lidian
as one of the leading females in the movement, and describes how she hosted
various anti-slavery meetings and entertained visiting abolitionists (10).
Even more striking than her various activities was her
passionate devotion to the cause.
Richardson captures this enthusiasm by documenting how disgusted Lidian became with the United States in the decades leading
up to the war. In the early 1840s, “the
proslavery tone of newspapers ‘made her hate her country,’ her daughter
recalled” (396). A decade later, after
the Kansas-Nebraska Act was passed, she went so far as to protest the
celebration of the Fourth of July, decorating the outside of her house in black
crepe instead of red, white, and blue (Gougeon
202). It was impossible for Ralph Waldo
to ignore his wife’s zealous views of the antislavery movement, and he
doubtlessly felt her influence in the latter years of the ante-bellum
period. Petrulionis
claims that Lidian’s stimulus was essential to
Emerson’s conversion, and goes so far as to state that her persuading Ralph
Waldo to join the movement was “her most vital contribution to antislavery”
(10). While this may seem like
hyperbole, Emerson’s position as America’s foremost intellectual was undeniably
helpful to bringing an air of legitimacy to the abolitionist movement. Had Lidian been
less passionate on the subject, it is likely that Waldo would never have
allowed himself to get so involved with the abolitionists.
Another critical female influence in Emerson’s conversion
was Elizabeth Hoar, his younger brother Charles’ fiancée. Ralph Waldo and Charles had shared a close
bond growing up, and his tragic death in 1836 left the great lecturer in
anguish. In the period of mourning that
followed, Emerson and Elizabeth turned to one another for comfort. Before his death, Charles had been the most
vocal member of the Emerson family regarding abolitionism. In 1835, he delivered a stirring lecture on
the subject, and voiced his support for immediate emancipation, the most
radical abolitionist ideal of the time period (Gougeon
27). Like her fiancée, Elizabeth was
committed to Garrisonian Abolitionism, and became a
leading female abolitionist in Massachusetts.
It was an injustice committed against Elizabeth and
her father, Judge Samuel Hoar, that helped to further
Emerson’s abolitionist sympathies. In
1844, Judge Hoar and his daughter journeyed to South Carolina to probe
complaints regarding the abduction of free black sailors who were being
kidnapped and sold into slavery. Gougeon recounts that before Hoar could begin his
investigation, “both he and his daughter were driven from Charleston by the
threats of an angry mob, apparently acting with the implicit approval of the
governor and legislature” (92). Petrulionis further examines the details of this scandal,
claiming that, “Governor Hammond refused to meet with the Hoars
and demanded that they leave the state on the grounds that he could not
guarantee their safety” (11). Emerson
was furious that one of his dearest friends had almost fallen victim to the
violence of an angry mob. The incident
turned him completely against the state of South Carolina, and this negative
view of the people living there simultaneously evoked a greater sympathy for
the plight of the marginalized abolitionists.
Given how influential his wife, aunt, and
sister-in-law were in bringing about Emerson’s conversion, it is somewhat
surprising that the most significant female figure in the lecturer’s
transformation was someone outside his family: his friend and neighbor, Mary
Merrick Brooks. Interestingly, Mary
Moody Emerson loved Brooks so dearly that she considered her to be a part of
the Emerson family. In letters to her
family members in Concord, Miss Emerson always requested that her relatives
give her regards to the fiery Mrs. Brooks, Concord’s leading female
abolitionist. According to Phyllis Cole,
Mary expressed her esteem for Brooks “in the same breath with family
salutations. The abolitionist principle
created its own family” (Cole 237).
Family member or not, the fact remains that Mary Brooks “carried more
weight with Ralph Waldo Emerson than any other [woman]” and thus “pursued
Emerson with a vengeance” (Petrulionis 11) in hopes of
bringing him into the abolitionist fold.
As the first secretary of the Concord Female
Anti-Slavery Society, Brooks was a dominant leader in the abolitionist
movement. She was also a close friend of
Lidian’s and felt just as strongly about abolitionism
as Mrs. Emerson (Gougeon 28). Their efforts to get Ralph Waldo more
personally involved with the cause crystallized in August of 1844 when Brooks
invited him to speak to the Concord Female Anti-Slavery Society. Lidian urged him to
go through with this endeavor, as the organization was celebrating the recent end
of slavery in the West Indies. Gary Collison claims that the summer of 1844 marked a decisive
moment for Emerson. Though six years had
passed since the controversial “Divinity School Address,” Ralph Waldo was still
feeling the sting of censure from the speech’s fallout. This had created a bond between him and the
abolitionists whom he had once rejected.
Collison claims that Emerson “was now linked
with the abolitionists by the experience of being denounced and shunned by the
same reactionary voices in American society that had been condemning
abolitionism” (189). On August 1, 1844,
Ralph Waldo gave his first truly successful abolitionist speech “An Address…on…
the Emancipation of the Negroes in the British West Indies.” Though the conservative lyceum sexton refused
to ring the bell announcing the lecture, Henry David Thoreau took matters into
his own hands and rang the bell himself (Wagenknecht
112). The oration went over well with
Concord’s abolitionists who finally began to view Emerson as one of them. It was a personal success for Brooks, Lidian, and Aunt Mary.
Their beloved Waldo was seemingly making the decisive transition from
silent protestor to vocal abolitionist.
Mary Moody was particularly proud, and “wrote a warm letter of praise to
her famous nephew on the day of the oration” (Gougeon
87).
Brooks was just as delighted, but still felt that
there was work to be done regarding Emerson’s involvement. A year later, she convinced Waldo not to
lecture at the New Bedford Lyceum by informing him that the lecture hall
excluded free blacks. Gougeon writes that “on the basis of such information as he
had received from Mrs. Brooks…Emerson made his decision, and was, for the first
time in his career, prepared to refuse to lecture before a willing audience as
a protest against their racial prejudice” (105). It was yet another milestone in Emerson’s
progression. Most scholars agree that
the ultimate turning point was the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in
1850. Sam Worley claims that the law was
a double-blow for Emerson: it not only reduced his faith in his country, it
completely damaged his admiration for leading politician Daniel Webster, a man
whom Emerson had always admired (50). In
the years that followed the Fugitive Slave Act, Brooks continued to get Lidian (and through her, Ralph Waldo) more involved in the
movement. Together, they supported the
Underground Railroad, protested the Anthony Burns trial, and donated money to
back the anti-slavery forces fighting against the Border Ruffians in “Bleeding
Kansas.” The change in Emerson was
apparent, and just before the Civil War broke out, Ralph Waldo began supporting
the most dangerous abolitionist in the United States, John Brown. Brown, who had organized the Pottawatomie
Massacre and butchered five Kansas slaveholders in cold blood, was labeled by
Emerson as “a romantic character absolutely without any vulgar trait” (Emerson
122). While Emerson was most likely
unaware of Brown’s murderous actions, he was definitely conscious of the fact that
the radical abolitionist was willing and able to use violence in the fight
against slavery. The lecturer’s
transformation from an antislavery critic to a confrontational abolitionist was
thus complete. Nevertheless, Emerson
would probably not have gotten involved with the abolitionists if his aunt,
wife, and female friends had not set such a positive example of what organized
opposition to slavery could do. Thus,
the women in his life played a significant role in his abolitionist evolution.
Whereas Emerson underwent a gradual and sweeping
evolution from voiceless critic to vociferous abolitionist, Henry David
Thoreau’s development was rather different, for Thoreau had always held to
fairly extreme views regarding abolitionism.
Nevertheless, there was a definite progression that took place, as can
be seen by comparing his three major antislavery pieces: “Civil Disobedience,”
“Slavery in Massachusetts,” and “A Plea for Captain John Brown.” “Civil Disobedience” is a warning against the
injustices of the American government, and encourages reform through passive
resistance. “Slavery in Massachusetts”
is more extreme in its message, advocating that each citizen sever his or her
ties to both state and country until slavery is eliminated. The most extreme essay is “A Plea for Captain
John Brown” in which Thoreau praises Brown’s raid on Harper’s Ferry and
condones the use of violent force in order to end slavery. Each one of these papers puts forth a fairly
radical position, which is fitting as Thoreau was exposed to the most radical
elements of the abolitionist movement at a young age. The women in his family were among the
leading abolitionists in Concord and this gave the young Henry David a window
into the most extreme side of the movement.
Thus, just as Emerson was encouraged to take a more active role in the
antislavery movement by his wife and aunt, Thoreau was motivated by the actions
of the female members of his family. It
was his mother and sisters who set the abolitionist standard so high for him.
In his
biographical sketch of Thoreau, William Cain hints that Henry David had a great
deal of his mother Cynthia Dunbar Thoreau in him. The biographer describes her as being “known
for her firm opinions, sharp personality, and blunt tone” (12). She was a committed reformer as well, and her
influence extended beyond her immediate family. In a biography on Thoreau,
Edward Wagenknecht claims that it was actually
Cynthia who inspired Emerson to write a “stinging letter to President Van
Buren, protesting the removal of the Cherokee Indians” (10). Years before abolitionism gained popularity,
Cynthia “was aligned with the radical Boston abolitionist William Lloyd
Garrison” (Cain 12), and, like Lidian Emerson and
Mary Merrick Brooks, she became one of the founding members of the Concord
Female Anti-Slavery Society. In fact,
the Thoreau home quickly became a headquarters for the organization. Various speakers sponsored by the organization
including Garrison, Henry Wright, and even John Brown himself dined with the Thoreaus while in Concord (Petrulionis
7). Thus, Petrulionis’ claim that “abolitionist
sentiment…overshadowed all other activities in the household” (6) seems
plausible.
Cynthia was not the only member of the Concord Female
Anti-Slavery Society living in the house: Throeau’s
sisters Helen and Sophia were also committed abolitionists. All three often found themselves appalled
with the current status of the United States, which remained largely
anti-abolitionist until the 1850s. In
1844, the three Throeau women attended the New
England Anti-Slavery convention in Boston “where they voted to approve a
resolution calling for signers to ‘agitate for a dissolution
of the Union’” (Petrulionis 7). Whereas moderate abolitionists believed in
using the right to vote to try to end slavery, Garrison’s faction refused to do
anything that would acknowledge the legitimacy of the United States
government. For Thoreau’s mother and
sisters, so long as slavery remained legal the United States government could
never be recognized as a lawful governing body.
Henry David himself espoused the same position in “Civil Disobedience,”
where he describes voting as an oftentimes ineffective, almost frivolous
practice. From 1838 onward, no one in
the Thoreau family, including Henry David who had just come of age, exercised
the right to vote (Sanborn 468).
Of his two sisters, Helen was the more active
regarding the movement. In 1845, she
worked tirelessly to resolve a controversy at the Concord Lyceum regarding a
lecture by radical abolitionist Wendell Philips. Philips, who had publicly denounced both the
United States Constitution and the Union as a whole, was viewed by
conservatives as one of the most dangerous men in America. Leading lyceum curators Reverand
Barzillai Frost and Squire Keyes tried to bar Philips
from speaking, thus creating a significant controversy. Helen, along with the Emersons,
and many leading figures in Concord, demanded that the subject be voted
on. In his book on the history of the
Concord Lyceum, Kenneth Walter Cameron describes the divisive incident, which
saw the motion to allow Philips to speak “adopted by a vote of 21 to 15 as
declared by the President” (160). Keyes
and Frost immediately resigned from their positions in disgust, and their replacements
as curators were none other than “Messrs Ralph W Emerson...& David H.
Thoreau” (Cameron 160). It was a
significant victory for Helen, who proudly wrote of it to her friend and
neighbor Prudence Ward. She described
the dispute as “a hard battle—but victory at last; next winter we shall have
undoubtedly a free Lyceum” (Sanborn 474).
Henry David, who had also taken an active stand in the battle over
Philips’ speech, found himself more drawn to the abolitionist cause than he had
been previously. He wrote an article for
the Liberator regarding the controversy and the subsequent victory. In her letter to the Wards, Helen proudly
mentioned her brother’s editorial and encouraged Prudence to read it (Sanborn
474).
Helen’s involvement extended beyond the Lyceum
controversy. In her article, Petrulionis describes Henry David’s elder sister as
cultivating personal relationships with major abolitionists of the period,
including Frederick Douglass and Garrison himself (7). It was Helen Thoreau who convinced Douglass
to come and speak at an antislavery meeting in Concord in 1844. This was a particularly touching gesture for
Douglass, who had met with racism within the abolitionist movement itself. Having been barred from speaking in certain
towns, it was refreshing for the former slave to be extended an invitation by
the gracious Miss Thoreau. Helen was
also quite close with Garrison, so much so that after her untimely death in
1849, the publisher of the Liberator eulogized her in the abolitionist
newspaper. Garrison proudly proclaimed
her a true abolitionist and celebrated her patience, intelligence, and
courage. The fact that this poignant
tribute was published in the leading abolitionist newspaper of the time period
illustrates just how significant Helen’s involvement in the movement was.
The passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 was
another catalyst in Thoreau’s abolitionist involvement, as it had been for
Emerson. Unlike Ralph Waldo, however,
Thoreau had been presented with the extreme side of the abolitionist movement
in his most formative years. The example
set by his mother and sisters was essential in shaping his own antislavery
activities and writings, particularly in the 1850s when he began advocating
militant opposition to the South. Thoreau
grew terminally ill just as the Civil War was starting, and while Emerson and
his friends were horrified by the Union loss at Bull Run, Thoreau took heart in
the fact that the war would bring about a moral rebirth of the United States
(Sanborn 483). Just as Helen passed away
before she could see her abolitionist activities come to fruition in the
emancipation of the country’s slaves, Thoreau died before the war was won. Nevertheless, his antislavery writings served
as an inspiration to many as the great conflict loomed over the United
States. The abolitionists thus owed a
great debt to the Thoreau women, not only for their own contributions, but also
for their role in introducing one of the greatest minds of the era to the
movement. Nathaniel Hawthorne was
in many ways a foil to both Thoreau and Emerson. All three were gifted writers who lived in
Concord, Massachusetts. Conversely,
Emerson and Thoreau were essayists while Hawthorne predominantly wrote
fiction. Moreover, Emerson and Thoreau
were transcendentalists, while Hawthorne was a more cynical, matter-of-fact
individual. In her splendid biography on
Hawthorne, Brenda Wineapple describes the author’s
aloofness regarding the transcendentalist movement: “The Dial put Hawthorne to
sleep, and as to the recent religious controversies pitting Unitarians against
transcendentalists, he couldn’t have cared less” (166). The three writers’ politics differed
significantly as well. Whereas Emerson
and Thoreau both became abolitionists, Hawthorne remained a steadfast Unionist
for all of his life. He rejected the
efforts of the abolitionists, as they seemed certain to split the country in
two.
There were various factors that contributed to
Hawthorne’s denunciation of the abolitionist movement, one of which was his
friendship with President Franklin Pierce.
Pierce and Hawthorne had attended college together and become intimate
friends. When the relatively young
politician took office as President of the United States, he sided totally with
the South, appointing pro-slavery governors in the West, using federal troops
to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, and blaming all of the country’s problems on
the abolitionists. Just as Pierce stood
with the South, Hawthorne stood with Pierce, and dismissed all of the severe
criticism leveled against the President by various antislavery factions in the
United States. Two of Pierce’s most vocal critics were actually members of
Hawthorne’s extended family. While
Sophia Hawthorne found her husband’s devotion to Pierce admirable, her sisters
were appalled that Nathaniel had chosen a pro-slavery president as his dearest
friend. Hawthorne’s two sisters-in-law,
Elizabeth Peabody and Mary Mann, were devoted to the antislavery cause. Just as Lidian
Emerson and Cynthia Thoreau worked to instill abolitionist sympathies in Ralph
Waldo and Henry David, Peabody and Mann made the conversion of Hawthorne an
urgent project. For all of their
efforts, however, they succeeded only in furthering his distaste for the
abolitionists.
Mary Peabody Mann was connected to abolitionist
politics through her husband, Horace.
Elected to Congress to fill the seat of deceased Representative John
Quincy Adams, Horace Mann was actually voted into a seat of his own in
1848. As a Whig devoted to ending the
spread of slavery, he often found himself in conflict with Hawthorne on the
subject of politics. Like her husband,
Mary was fervent about stopping the advancement of the slave system in the
United States. She also took a very
liberal view toward freed blacks living in the North. When an African American student named Chloe
Lee was refused lodging in town, the compassionate Mrs. Mann invited her to
stay in the Mann home (Wineapple 199). As if this were not enough, she bade her
black houseguest to dine at the dinner table with her. Nathaniel and Sophia were both disturbed and
uncomfortable, and their daughter Rose later claimed that dining with an
African American caused the table to “lose its attractiveness” (Wineapple 199) for them.
The Hawthornes’ racist views
concerned Mary significantly. Even more
disconcerting than their prejudices, which correlated to
many of the widespread viewpoints of the time period, was their intolerance for
the abolitionist movement. Mann remained
hopeful that they would gradually change their minds on the subject, but even
as the conflict over slavery intensified, Nathaniel and Sophia remained
committed to their Unionist viewpoints.
Both Mary and Horace were particularly outraged when Hawthorne agreed to
write Pierce’s biography in 1852. Mary believed that the only explanation could
be that Hawthorne was an extremely devoted friend, and she refused to accept
the idea that her brother-in-law actually thought Pierce’s
policies acceptable (Wineapple 216). It was an action by Sophia that truly
triggered her temper, however. In 1857,
after the Supreme Court passed the abhorrent Dred
Scott Decision, Sophia wrote her sister a letter praising Chief Justice Taney’s actions.
Mann wrote back attacking her sister’s views, but Sophia shrugged off
the criticism claiming that “the inferior race were designed to serve the
superior—but not as slaves” (Wineapple 329). Hawthorne felt the exact same way, and for
most of his life, clung to the belief that although slavery was a wicked
practice, blacks’ inferiority to whites validated their subservience. When he actually bothered to think about
abolitionism, he argued that if slaves were set free too quickly, they would
inevitably find themselves in conflict with the poor whites living in the
South. This casual view of the slave
system was extremely disconcerting to his sisters-in-law, particularly
Elizabeth Peabody.
Elizabeth was even more passionate regarding
abolitionism than her sister Mary was.
She was determined to see slavery ended as quickly as possible, and
equally determined to bring Hawthorne and Sophia over to the abolitionist
side. Like Mary, she was disturbed by
Nathaniel’s devotion to Pierce.
Nevertheless, she clung to the belief that the simpering politician “had
warped Hawthorne’s judgment” (Wineapple 330) and that
it was up to her to undo the damage that he had done to her brother-in-law’s
reasoning. She doggedly pursued Sophia
and Nathaniel, but her persistence served only to reinforce Hawthorne’s belief
that the abolitionists were obsessive and exasperating troublemakers. The closest he ever came to participating in
the movement was in 1850 following the hated Fugitive Slave Act. Disturbed by the idea of the government
pressing citizens to track down runaway slaves, he signed a Free-Soil petition
in protest (Wineapple 243).
Having learned about Nathaniel’s actions, Elizabeth
grew hopeful. For her, it was a sign
that her brother-in-law might actually come over to the abolitionist side with
the proper motivation. While the Hawthornes were in England following Nathaniel’s
appointment to a government post by Pierce, Peabody sent them the abolitionist
pamphlets she had written in hopes that they would convince her relations to
join the cause. Hawthorne never even bothered
to study them, and mailed them all back to his sister-in-law unread (Mather 310). Not one
to be put off, Peabody shipped them back to England on the next available
vessel. Edward Mather
writes that Nathaniel wrote back to his sister-in-law “curtly; then rudely; and
finally told her in plain unvarnished English what he thought of her”
(311). Jean Yellin
fleshes out this incident even further in her essay on Hawthorne’s views of
slavery. When Elizabeth decided to try
and bring Sophia over to the abolitionist cause, Hawthorne began censoring his
wife’s mail by refusing to let her read the pamphlet that her sister had
sent. He angrily sent the manuscript
back to Elizabeth, along with a note which stated, “I do not choose to bother
Sophia with it, and yet should think it a pity to burn so much of your thought
and feeling” (Yellin 149). There was a significant rift between
Nathaniel and Elizabeth at this time. His statements that the slavery problem would eventually take care
of itself through passive inaction deeply offended her as an abolitionist, but
Hawthorne took no notice. He
later told her that “you,
like every other Abolitionist, look at matters with an awful squint which distorts
everything within your line of vision” (Yellin 148). Interestingly, this quote shows that
Hawthorne’s views on the abolitionists were akin to Emerson’s early opinions on
the subject. Unlike his friend, however,
Nathaniel refused to be converted.
Ironically, Sophia used a similar censoring tactic
against their daughter Una in 1860. Mrs. Hawthorne refused to let the girl read
an antislavery booklet that Aunt Elizabeth sent her. Sophia angrily wrote to her sister telling
her that the pamphlet’s graphic depictions of naked slaves on the auction block
had no place in Una’s hands (Yellin
149). This story goes along with her
early sentiments toward the abolitionists, particularly female
abolitionists. Back in Salem, she had
refused to join the local female antislavery society and labeled all of the
women involved as troublemakers who did not know their proper place (Yellin 138). There
was understandably a great deal of tension between Sophia and her sisters in
the years building up toward the Civil War, due mainly to the fact that Sophia
stubbornly continued to use anti-abolitionist rhetoric in her letters on the
subject of slavery. While she repeatedly
claimed that she viewed slavery as an odious practice, she was unrelenting in
her condemnation of the abolitionist movement as well, going so far as to
attack Harriet Beecher Stowe’s novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin in one letter (Wineapple 255).
Mann and Peabody were beginning to lose hope. It seemed that just as Pierce had brainwashed
Hawthorne, so had Hawthorne programmed Sophia.
For all of their efforts, they made absolutely no progress in the
conversion of their sister and brother-in-law.
Eventually, even Peabody recognized that she was fighting a losing
battle. Wineapple
states that both sisters ultimately realized “they could no longer speak
candidly to Sophia,” convinced that “Pierce had led [Hawthorne]…down a primrose
path of moral obliquity” (264). Their
determination to blame Pierce for the corruption of their relatives seems to
indicate that the two sisters were blinded to the fact that Nathaniel and
Sophia were freely prejudiced against both blacks and abolitionists.
It is fitting that one of the final clash between
Nathaniel and his sisters-in-law regarding the movement to end slavery revolved
around Pierce. In 1863, the Civil War
was raging, and Hawthorne was making ready to dedicate his latest book, Our
Old Home, to his dear friend Franklin Pierce. It was a bad time in the failed politician’s
life. His wife Jane had recently died,
and his unrelenting condemnation of President Lincoln and the Civil War had made
him one of the most hated men in the United States. Hawthorne seemed to be his one friend left in
the entire country, and Nathaniel was determined to do the former President a
good turn by dedicating his latest book to him.
Elizabeth and Mary were horrified, and others outside the family began
condemning Nathaniel as a “copperhead of the worst kind” (Wineapple
356). Peabody decided to take action and
wrote her brother-in-law an emotionally charged letter, practically pleading
with him to reconsider. It was her
belief that Hawthorne’s acknowledgement of Pierce as some sort of hero would
hurt the antislavery cause, and moreover, the Union war effort. As usual, Hawthorne refused to listen. Nevertheless, the letter he sent back to his
sister-in-law was more courteous and tender than many of the previous missives
he had written to her regarding her abolitionist pamphlets. Nathaniel assured her that “the dedication
can hurt nobody but my book and myself” (Hawthorne 253), and rejected the idea
that many abolitionist newspapers at the time were labeling the former
president a traitor. It was clear that
for the bleakly romantic author, Pierce could do no wrong, and Wineapple goes so far as to claim that “not even Pierce’s wife loved him as Hawthorne did” (354).
It is understandable why Hawthorne’s sisters-in-law
wanted him to join the movement. As a
celebrated novelist, his endorsement of the abolitionists would have added a
certain sense of legitimacy to the antislavery movement. It is rather fascinating how extremely futile
their efforts were. Hawthorne’s
anti-abolitionist viewpoints revolved around two very different personal
qualities. His unwavering loyalty to
Pierce shows just how devoted a friend he truly was. Conversely, many of his letters prove he was
extremely narrow-minded and prejudiced.
This combination of his admirably steadfast friendship and his
dreadfully racist views created an impenetrable barrier for his sisters-in-law
to try and break through. Nathaniel’s
racism was not uncommon in the time period.
Emerson himself had been given to racist speculations about the
inferiority of blacks. His abolitionist
conversion at the hands of Lidian, Brooks, Hoar, and
Mary Moody caused him to do a great deal of soul-searching regarding the true
nature of African Americans, and he eventually realized that the alleged
inferiority of blacks was a fabrication.
Hawthorne never opened himself up to the other perspective, however. Just as Pierce never second-guessed his
unswerving devotion to the South, Hawthorne never considered the slavery
problem from the abolitionist point of view.
His refusal to bother reading Elizabeth’s antislavery pamphlets is
representative of his dogged resolution not to be connected with the
abolitionists in any way.
The fervor with which many women approached the
antislavery cause was startling to Americans living in the antebellum
period. An 1837 Liberator article
reveals just how taken aback many were with the women’s antislavery movement.
The following remarks are from the last National Enquirer:
But ‘a
Convention of Females’ exclaims the mere book-taught reformer…‘it is a new
thing under the sun!’ Very well: The
magnitude of the object in view, the stupendous mountain of evil that we have
to remove, the transcendent importance of the
reformation we seek to accomplish requires a newness of life, activity, and
energy; new plans and modes of proceeding. (“Female Anti-Slavery Convention”
45)
For certain, the women that became involved in the
abolitionist movement brought a bold new perspective to the antislavery
cause. The leading members of the
Concord Female Anti-Slavery Society took this one step further. Not only did they bring their own perceptions
and ideas to the abolitionist movement, they simultaneously succeeded in
bringing two of the greatest minds of the 19th Century into the fold
as well. Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry
David Thoreau were inspired by the examples set by the women in their
lives. In converting Emerson to
abolitionism and strengthening Thoreau’s resolve, the women of Concord
significantly changed the abolitionist movement in New England. Petrulionis claims that “the influence
they brought to bear on some of America’s most noted antislavery speakers and
writers had a pronounced and far-reaching impact” (6), and that the movement
truly began to gain momentum after Emerson and Thoreau touted it. Though Nathaniel Hawthorne never became an
abolitionist, his sisters-in-law showed the same indomitable persistence that
characterized Cynthia Thoreau, Lidian Emerson, and
Mary Merrick Brooks. Thus, William Lloyd
Garrison’s contention that women would determine the fate of the abolitionist
movement was not an exaggeration. The
proof can be found by examining how tirelessly the women of the Concord Female
Anti-Slavery Society pursued their goals.
Such determination was essential in the movement to end slavery and
bring freedom to all Americans.
Works Cited
“Another Female Anti-Slavery
Society.” Editorial. Liberator.
December 1832: 2.48.
Cain, William E. ed. A Historical Guide to
Henry David Thoreau. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 2000.
Cameron, Kenneth Walter. Emerson and Thoreau Speak: Lecturing in
Concord and Lincoln During the American Renaissance. Rhode Island: Trinity College, 1972.
Cole, Phyllis.
Mary Moody Emerson and the Origins of
Transcendentalism. Oxford:
Oxford UP, 1998.
Collison, Gary. “Emerson and Antislavery”
in A Historical Guide to Ralph Waldo
Emerson. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo.
“John Brown” in Emerson’s Antislavery Writings ed. Lou
Gougeon and Joel Myerson. New Haven: Yale UP, 1995.
“Female Anti-Slavery
Convention” Editorial. Liberator.
March 1837: 7.10.
Gougeon, Len. Virtue’s Hero: Emerson,
Antislavery, and Reform. Athens:
University of GA Press, 1990.
Mather, Edward. Nathaniel Hawthorne:
A Modest Man. Westport: Greenwood
Press, 1940.
Myerson, Joel ed. Selected Letters of
Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Columbus: Ohio State UP, 2002.
Petrulionis,Sandra. “ ‘Swelling That Great Tide
of Humanity’: The Concord,
Massachusetts, Female Anti-Slavery
Society.” New England Quarterly
2001 Sept;
74(3): 385-418.
Richardson Jr., Robert D. Emerson:
The Mind on Fire. Los Angeles: UC
Press, 1995.
Sanborn, F.B. The Life of Henry David Thoreau. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1917.
Strysick, Michael.
“Emerson, Slavery, and the Evolution of the Principle of Self-
Reliance” in The
Emerson Dilemma. ed. T. Gregory Garvey. Athens: University of GA Press, 2001.
Taylor, Bob Pepperman. America’s Bachelor Uncle: Thoreau and the
American Polity. Lawrence: UP
Kansas, 1996.
Wagenknecht, Edward. Henry
David Thoreau: What Manner of Man? Amherst: University of MA Press,
1981.
Wineapple, Brenda. Hawthorne: A Life.. New York: Knopf, 2003.
Worley, Sam McGuire.
Emerson, Thoreau, and the role of the Cultural Critic. Albany: State University of New York Press,
2001.
Yellin, Jean Fagan. “Hawthorne and the Slavery
Question” in A Historical Guide to Nathaniel Hawthorne. ed. Larry J.
Reynolds. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.
Works Consulted
Collison, Gary. Shadrach Minkins: From Fugitive Slave to Citizen. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1997.
Dahlstrand, Frederick C. Amos
Bronson Alcott: An Intellectual Biography.
London: Associated UP, 1982.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel.
The Life of Franklin Pierce. Boston: Ticknor,
Reed, and Fields, 1852.
McFarland, Philip.
Hawthorne in Concord. New York: Grove Press, 2004.
Von Frank, Albert J.
The Trials of Anthony Burns: Freedom and Slavery in Emerson’s Boston. Cambridge