Frances Ellen Watkins Harper’s “National Salvation”: A Rediscovered Lecture on Reconstruction

“Mrs. Francis E. W. Harper,” portrait with Frances Harper’s name misspelled, taken from page 748 in The Underground Railroad: A Record of Facts, Authentic Narratives, Letters… printed by Porter & Coates (Philadelphia, 1872). Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts.

On January 31, 1867, the Social, Civil, and Statistical Association of the Colored People of Philadelphia offered the fourth in their 1866-1867 course of lectures at Philadelphia’s National Hall.  Tickets cost 35 cents, and could be purchased at the door or in advance from the African Methodist Episcopal Church Bookstore at 631 Pine Street, Trumpler’s Music Store at Seventh and Chestnut, or members of the Association’s Committee of Arrangements, led by William Still and Jacob C. White Sr.  The February 2, 1867, Christian Recorder noted “a large audience of both colors” attended.

Listeners that night were deep in the swirl of Reconstruction—as the choice of speakers for the course, from General Oliver O. Howard to Congressman William Darrah Kelly, testified.  They might have been wondering whether the state legislature would ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, or they might have been thinking about the ongoing battles over racial discrimination in the city’s transit system.  They might have been thinking of the Philadelphia Public Ledger’s New Year’s Day issue, which hoped to see “North and South heartily reconciled and fully one again, politically and socially.” Or they might have been remembering the association’s last event, on January 3, when Frederick Douglass linked African American rights and women’s rights when told a packed house, “Drive no man from the ballot-box because of his color, and keep no woman from it on account of her sex.” 

All who came on that chilly Thursday evening, though, wanted to see Frances Ellen Watkins Harper, who the January 26, 1867, Christian Recorder promised would “deliver her new and eloquent lecture on ‘National Salvation’” to the citizens of the city she had recently made her home.

No wonder: so accomplished, so lively, and so forceful were her lectures that newspaper coverage regularly compared her positively to white radical sensation Anna Dickinson.  A letter in the September 15, 1866, Recorder even said, “We have heard Frederick Douglass, and hesitate not to say that for beauty of expression, richness of illustrations, and, in a word, rhetorical finish, she is his superior.  He is more massive than Mrs. H., but she is more polished than he, and fully his equal in warm and glowing eloquence.”  

The lecture wasn’t out of the ordinary for Harper.  In July 1866, she’d spoken at Philadelphia’s “Freedmen’s Fair” benefit before journeying to lecture in cities ranging from Newark to Washington, D.C.  The turn into 1867 found her giving several lectures in Nashville, Tennessee; after her January 31 lecture and a brief respite in Philadelphia, April and May would see her in South Carolina for yet another set of lectures and a speech at a radical Republican state convention. 

What makes Harper’s January 31 lecture rare is that we have its full text.  The Philadelphia Evening Telegraph printed a transcription of “National Salvation” the day after Harper spoke.  That transcription is shared below.

The Telegraph took a “hands-off” approach to the transcription—not only presenting it, uninterrupted, but asserting that “the merits of the lecture which we give below will speak for themselves.”  Still, featuring Harper’s lecture—along with a biographical sketch and a separately published poem—was part of a limited opening of the paper’s pages to Black subjects.  The Telegraph also shared transcriptions of other lectures in the association’s course—including Douglass’s, published in the January 4, 1867, issue—and offered a massive and somewhat friendly article on Philadelphia’s Black community in their March 30, 1867, issue, curiously titled “Africa!  The Colored Population of Philadelphia: Their Numbers, Callings, and Manner of Life.”  The condescending tenor of such work can be guessed at from language in the paper’s biographical sketch of Harper: “she is a living and present proof of the fact that the colored race is not hopelessly depraved and benighted.”  That pompous, patronizing tone—notably, the Telegraph sometimes supported Andrew Johnson—reminds us of how often we must sift through white noise to find Black voices.

The Telegraph’s transcription of “National Salvation” nonetheless gives an unparalleled sense of Harper’s Reconstruction oratory—oratory that brought her national attention and powerfully supported a new, major phase of her literary career, one led by her serialized Recorder novel Minnie’s Sacrifice (1869) and her powerful long poem Moses: A Story of the Nile (1869).  Frances Smith Foster’s groundbreaking collection A Brighter Coming Day: A Frances Ellen Watkins Harper Reader reproduces only two speeches from this period, both presented at events where Harper shared the platform—the brief “We Are All Bound Up Together,” given at the Eleventh Women’s Rights Convention in May 1866, and the slightly longer “The Great Problem to Be Solved,” given at the Centennial Anniversary of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, on April 14, 1875, in Philadelphia.  When talking about Harper’s Reconstruction oratory, most scholars rely on these texts or on the brief snippets—presented through both quotation and paraphrase—in press coverage of Harper.

“National Salvation,” however, runs over 5,000 words—more than three times the length of “We Are All Bound Up Together.”  Further, only one other figure was noted in event announcements:  Philadelphia singer Elizabeth Greenfield, the celebrated “Black Swan,” who regularly gave short performances to round out association events.  Harper’s lecture was the raison d’être for the evening’s gathering.  As such, “National Salvation” gives us a much fuller example of the content, character, rhythms, and rhetorical strategies of Harper’s oratory.

Harper’s position at the podium that night was one of both experience and rebirth.  Born Frances Ellen Watkins in Baltimore in 1825, she’d lectured on abolition and temperance during the 1850s throughout the Northeast (going as far west as Indiana), and she’d published a rich range of literary work—short fiction, essays, letters, and individual poems in periodicals ranging from the Liberator to the Anglo-African Magazine and from the National Anti-Slavery Standard to Frederick Douglass’ Paper, as well as a pamphlet collection, Poems on Miscellaneous Subjects, originally published in 1854 and enlarged in 1857, that built in part from her recently rediscovered first collection, the c.1846 Forest Leaves

But when she married Fenton Harper on November 22, 1860, in Cincinnati, she pulled back from lecturing, published much less, and helped build a family—the Harpers’ daughter Mary joined Fenton Harper’s children from an earlier marriage c.1862—and farm outside Columbus, Ohio.  Only with Fenton Harper’s untimely death in May 1864 did she return to lecturing—called by both economic necessity and a recognition of how much the nation-at-war needed her voice. 

Those early lectures included a speech to the National Convention of Colored Men held in Syracuse in October 1864 and lectures with titles like “The Mission of the War” and “The Causes and Effects of the War.”  Harper was educating audiences from Indianapolis to Philadelphia, in the words of the May 21, 1864 Recorder, about the U.S. government’s “slow awakening” to “the character and influence of slavery and slave-power,” “its final comprehension of the question and magnitude” of the Civil War, and “the future of the nation, conditions of reconstruction, [and] the relation of the blacks to that future.”  The centerpiece of these lectures was “an earnest appeal for a national recognition of the colored man as freeman and citizen.”

By early 1867, that appeal had developed into a multi-faceted argument that full civil rights offered the only path to “National Salvation.”  Asserting early in that January 31 lecture that “slavery, as an institution, has been overthrown, but slavery, as an idea, still lives in the American Republic,” Harper explores how the forces that broke the nation and caused the Civil War still split the populace.  Only “a higher form of republicanism and a purer type of democracy”—ideas she frames in a deeply Afro-Protestant sense of history, “with truth and justice clasping hands”—could “win the fight.”

On one level, Harper’s sense that both slave-power and slavery still lived deeply informs the critique of Andrew Johnson that runs throughout the lecture.  In an extended metaphor that received some press coverage after the lecture, she depicts him as an unknowing “great national mustard-plaster” spread “all over this nation, so that he might bring to the surface the poison of slavery which still lingers in the body politic.”  But her direct calls to impeach Johnson—to throw away the “plaster” when its work was done—are only a piece of her larger naming of white racism and its tentacles.  Harper treats the racist violence at the heart of the 1866 riots in Memphis and New Orleans, like Johnson’s person and policies, as clear extensions of the long history of American politics, “a history of compromise and concessions from the hour that Georgia and South Carolina demanded the slave trade, down to the last Constitutional amendment.” 

In her trademark weaving of multiple senses of the domestic, Harper speaks in great depth about the newly freed folks of Kentucky and Tennessee she met touring in 1866, emphasizing their love of liberty and country, their great faith, and their “dignity of soul.”  Here, she exhibits an updated version of her antebellum lectures, which Manisha Sinha reminds us “combined abolitionist polemics with literary romanticism.”  These people’s stories—and those she heard from diverse other newly freed folks on several wide-ranging visits to the South—touched Harper deeply: they became the subject matter for several poems (especially in her 1872 Sketches of Southern Life) and novels Minnie’s Sacrifice and Iola Leroy (1892). 

On that January night in Philadelphia’s National Hall, she told listeners that “some of the most beautiful lessons of faith and trust that I have ever learned, which could never have been learned in the proudest temples of wealth or fashion, I have learned in these lowly homes and cabins of Tennessee.”  These recently enslaved people, Harper asserts, had a stronger sense of nation and home than most of the rest of the country.  The hands of Andrew Johnson, she tells us, “are not clean enough to touch the hems of their garments.” 

Nor, she submits, are the hands of those worrying over the “bugbear” of “social equality” or the hands of white Northerners who do nothing to stop racism at home.  In the lecture’s amazing final sections, she says “I am coming right home to Philadelphia” and “am not going to bathe my lips in honey when I speak.”  What follows is a stunning crescendo of condemnation—reminiscent of Douglass’s “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?”—that depicts representative Philadelphians who allowed a Black woman to be kicked off a city car. Harper, indignant, asserts that “when that man kicked that woman, he kicked me.  He kicked my child, and he kicked the wife and child of every colored man in Philadelphia . . . the wife, sister, and child of every colored man who went out to battle and to lay down his life for his country. . . .” 

Harper shares that this moment also led to one of her young daughter Mary’s first recognitions of racism,  reminding us of Harper’s rhetorical habit of recognizing the political and the public as “domestic,” as threads of lived experience.  This powerful linkage also highlights Harper’s integration of tropes of motherhood and widowhood into her self-representation in the wake of the Civil War—rich ground for further study.

This striking content is matched by Harper’s skill with rhetoric, rhythm, and tone.  Her seemingly simple and repeated address to the audience—“My friends” is a case in point—draws connections to her audience but also highlights the responsibilities inherent in truly being a “friend.”  Harper’s escalation of moral and emotional tone is paired with, alternately, stunning pathos and wicked humor (often biting irony) that temporarily diffuses—but never dismisses—the growing tension.  There are moments in the speech—especially after her powerful sequence of images tied to racism surrounding city transit moves into a critique of “social equality” fears—that make us laugh with their unveiling of absurdity, even as we cry and rail against how that absurdity causes immense tragedy within individual Black lives.  When we remember, per the Telegraph’s biographical sketch, that she was “rather small,” “with vivacious manners and an enthusiastic bearing” filled with “earnestness and sincerity,” the fireworks at the lecture’s end seem all the more spectacular.

Such moments also remind us that, as we move toward rightfully recognizing Harper as one of the most important American public artist-intellectuals of the nineteenth century, we need to ensure that her oratory is, in turn, a center of our studies.

 

Editorial note:  The February 1, 1867, issue of the Telegraph is available digitally through the Chronicling America project.  I share the full Telegraph article, including the paper’s biographical sketch and the brief introduction provided by AME minister James Lynch, in part to give a sense of the event.  Beyond this, though, the sketch offers personal information available only from Harper or a close friend like William Still—including some material that complicates existing biographies—and thus functions as a valuable artifact of Harper’s careful self-presentation and reputation-building.  The poem referred to in the sketch is Harper’s “Appeal to the American People,” which had been published earlier in the July 21, 1866, Recorder, was collected in Harper’s 1871 Poems, and is reproduced in Brighter Coming Day; as it is widely available and was not a part of the lecture, I have not included it.  Of note, Harper gave the lecture—or one with this title—at least once more, as part of the 1866-1867 course of lectures at the Lyceum of Salem, Massachusetts.  Original spelling and punctuation has been retained with the exception of one potentially confusing moment when the Telegraph gives “pretroleum” for “petroleum.”  Audience responses given in parenthesis in the original have similarly been retained.

 

***

 

National Salvation.

A Lecture Delivered Last Evening at National Hall, by Mrs. F. E. W. Harper, with Some Account of the Lecturer.

[Official Report for the Evening Telegraph.]

 

The fourth lecture in the present course before the Social, Civil, and Statistical Association of the Colored People of Philadelphia, was delivered at National Hall, last evening, by Mrs. Frances E. W. Harper, a colored lady of more than ordinary oratorical powers.  In this connection a

Sketch of Mrs. Harper

may not be uninteresting.  Her early life, under the name of Frances Ellen Watkins, was passed in Baltimore, where she was born in 1825.  Her mother was born a slave, but through the exertions of her grandmother her freedom was purchased, and Miss Watkins was, therefore, free from birth.  She remained at school in her native city until she was fourteen years of age, and subsequently to that obtained her own livelihood for some years by sewing and teaching school.  In the former occupation she was for some time employed by Mrs. Isaac Cruise, of Baltimore.  This lady was the possessor of quite a large library, to which Miss Watkins had free access at all times.  Being strictly enjoined against perusing novels, the information which she thus picked up in her leisure hours was of the most solid and desirable character.  Her experience as a school teacher was quite extensive, and this calling she followed at times in Baltimore and the neighboring country for some years.

Miss Watkins was early given to poetizing, some of the productions of her muse—of which a specimen, entitled “An Appeal to the American People,” is printed elsewhere in our issue of to-day—exhibiting more than ordinary depth of thought and fervor of expression.  These early poems she usually composed while busy with needle and thread.  While on a visit to New Bedford, Massachusetts, in 1854, she recited some of her poems to her friends, who were so deeply impressed with their merit that she was invited by them to appear before the public as a lecturer.  Just previous to this she had become strongly imbued with a desire to contribute, in some measure, to the enlightenment and social elevation of the outlawed race to which she belonged.  This ambition sprung from the recital in her presence of a story which in those days was as common as it was disgraceful to the community by which it was tolerated.  A free colored man had moved into the State of Maryland, and in pursuance of the law then and there in vogue, he was for this dire offense seized by the authorities and sold into slavery.  Being afterwards taken to Macon, Georgia, he there made his escape, but only to be recaptured and returned to a bondage from which he was soon after released by death.  From the time that Miss Watkins listened to this oft-repeated tale, she resolved to devote all her time and energies to the welfare of her kindred race.  So she was nothing loth to appear upon the platform, and delivered her first lecture in New Bedford in 1854, from which time forth, for six years, she continued upon the stage, restricting her labors principally to the New England States.  For a time, however, she acted as an agent of the Anti-Slavery Society in this State.

In November, 1860, Miss Watkins was married in Cincinnati to Mr. Fenton Harper, a free colored man, from Loudon county, Virginia.  Her married life was passed on a farm in the neighborhood of Columbus, Ohio.  During this time she seldom appeared in public as a lecturer.

Mr. Harper died in May, 1864, and in October, 1865, Mrs. Harper resumed her former calling, which she has steadily pursued up to the present time.  New England was again her favorite field, but she has likewise spoken in many of the other States, and, during the present winter, has passed some time in Kentucky and Tennessee, addressing the people, white and black, whenever and wherever she could get a chance.  On the 24th of last month she spoke at a meeting in the Capitol, at Nashville, Tennessee, her oratory even receiving praise from the semi-Rebel sheets which still flourish there, although her politics were denounced as abominable and as tending to create a hatred between the races, deeper than that which at present exists.  Last evening was the occasion of her third appearance before a Philadelphia audience.

We have given this lengthy sketch of Mrs. Harper’s career, because she is a living and present proof of the fact that the colored race is not hopelessly depraved and benighted.  In person she is rather small, and of prepossessing appearance, with vivacious manners and an enthusiastic bearing that impresses all who listen to her, either in public or in private, with her thorough earnestness and sincerity.  The merits of the lecture which we give below will speak for themselves.  She was introduced last evening to the audience by the following

Remarks by Rev. Mr. Lynch,

Ladies and Gentlemen:—You are assembled to listen to one of the most cultivated daughters of the persecuted race, who has plead their cause for more than twelve years, in poetry, in thrilling eloquence, and in logic, from the platform.  Additional interest may be expected in this lecture to-night, as she is recently from the South, where she lectured to the delight and instruction of the loyal whites and blacks; and, judging from the encomiums of semi-Rebel Andrew Johnson journals, we have discovered that she possesses a power that we have not before known—that of enchanting a certain kind of serpent called Copperheads.  I now have the honor of introducing to you Mrs. Frances Ellen Watkins Harper.  (Applause.)

Address of Mrs. F. E. W. Harper,

Reform has her seed-time and her harvest, her night of trial and endeavor, as well as her day of success and victory.  But before her ears are greeted with the shouts of triumph, they are hailed with the hisses of malice and the threats of revenge; but as amid the darkness and the cold, nature spreads her dews and carries on the work, so amid the darkness, cold, and pain the spirit of reform carries on her work of progress, and sows in tears the harvest she is to reap in joy.  Men tread with bleeding feet their paths, and from the soil covered with the ashes of martyrs and drenched with the blood of heroes, has sprung up a new growth of character and civilization.

Now in the question of dynamics, or the application of force to any end, it is necessary to know the amount of resistance to be met, and the power which is needed to overcome that resistance.  For instance, a man who would wish his locomotive to go fifty miles an hour would not be acting very wisely if he only put on steam enough to carry it ten miles an hour; and the same remark would apply to the man who would wish a large water-wheel turned by little rills, and would supply fifty gallons of water where a thousand were needed.  This man would not be acting wisely in these particulars.  He would be failing to take the right means to gain the desired end.

Now, in the moral and political world, as well as in the physical, there are resistances to be met and obstacles to be overcome in carrying out the aim of true civilization, which is the social advancement and the individual development of the human race.  And if we look through the history of the past, we will find that there has been an old struggle going on for ages—a struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor—a battle which has been fought under different names, and continued under different auspices, but which is still the continuation of the old struggle.

In one age it has assumed the form of a conflict between the lowest of the people and the hierarchy; still again against the despotisms which shackled the human intellect and put fetters upon the human conscience.  In another age it has been a struggle between freedom on one side and slavery on the other.  Slavery, not content with having simply a battle of ideas, resorted to the arbitrament of the sword, and the sword decided against it, and slavery went down in tears, and wrath, and blood—went down amid the rejoicing of men and women who had burst their chains.

Now slavery, as an institution, has been overthrown, but slavery, as an idea, still lives in the American Republic, and the problem and the duty of the present hour is this:—Whether there is strength enough, wisdom enough, and virtue enough in our American nation to lift it out of trouble; whether by its legislation and jurisprudence these distinctions between man and man, on account of his race, color, or descent, shall cease.  Last year, my friends, I spoke of the nation’s great opportunity.  I still think we have one of the greatest opportunities, one of the sublimest chances that God ever put into the hands of a nation or people.

But it is not in opportunities presented, but in opportunities accepted, that the very pith and the core of our national existence lies.  What we need, my friends, in this county, is all the energy, all the wisdom of the nation so to reconstruct this Government that it will render another such war impossible.  There is something wonderful, my friends, in the power of an idea.  And what to-day is the watchword of the present hour?  It is the brotherhood of man amid the din and strife of battle, amid the conflict of the present age; and yet it is an idea which has been struggling through the centuries, baptized in blood and drenched in tears.

To-day the tendency of the spirit of the age is towards a higher form of republicanism and a purer type of democracy, and yet this idea has been struggling for ages.  I look away back on the pages of history, and hear it preached by Him who made it, in His death, the sublime lesson of His life eighteen hundred years ago.

Proud and imperial Rome stood crowned and sceptred amid her seven hills, apparently the strongest power in the world.  At the same time, in a manger lay a child whose work of reform was destined to live when the proud empire should be laid away amid the dead kingdoms.  This idea, my friends, met with opposition, just the same as this idea of equal rights meets with opposition to-day.  This man held up the single idea taught by Jesus Christ, with His giant enthusiasm for humanity, and it was met with opposition from every distinct class.

And yet this reform, meeting with all this opposition, lived on until it became the professed faith of the most enlightened and progressive nation on earth.  The men who martyred Jesus Christ now sleep in forgotten graves.  He lives and shines in the hearts of all who accept Him as the true and living Christ.  The crown of thorns has changed to a diadem of glory, and the cross has become a power and ensign of victory.

The Protestant Reformation sprang from the same spirit, and still fights its way against the ignorance and superstition of ages.  It lived on until the Inquisition ceased to claim its victims, until the auto-de-fe no longer lit its fires, until Protestant kings sat upon the very thrones from which the edicts against the children of Reformation had gone forth.

Men then grappled with agony and death, so that they could secure the rights which we this day enjoy.  We are carrying on the cause, but we have only got through one part of the struggle; the reform we are now carrying on, we may feel assured, notwithstanding all the opposition, notwithstanding all the obstacles in its way, with truth and justice clasping hands, shall yet win the fight.

Oh, my friends, the work goes bravely on!  I look back seven years ago, and see this nation apparently in a prosperous career, with slavery bound to her with a four-fold cord.  In your commercial interests, men said, virtually, Let us make money, though we coin it from blood and extract it from tears.  Here were ecclesiastical interests, the same from Maine to California; here were our political parties clasping hands North and South; and yet they were all snapped asunder, simply because they lacked the cohesion of justice.  (Cheers.)  Now to-night the question arises, What shall be done?  How shall we serve the interest of freedom so that this nation shall be wise enough to know its citizens, and knowing them shall be strong enough to protect them?

One thing that this nation has been doing, is throwing away an element of strength.  The colored man, as a laboring force, as a political force, and even as a moral force, in this country is an element of strength or of weakness.  As a passive force he is an element of weakness; that is, he weakens the country when he is pressed down in the scale of life, when he is wronged and robbed.  But justice will certainly take sides with this people who have been pressed down in the scale of life—a people who are struggling for a higher and purer state of existence.  Now, I hold that the colored man is capable of being an element of strength to the American nation.

I have lately been down amid the cabins and humble homes of Tennessee; and—would you believe it, my friends? some of the most beautiful lessons of faith and trust that I have ever learned, which could never have been learned in the proudest temples of wealth or fashion, I have learned in these lowly homes and cabins of Tennessee.  There may be some people who think within themselves that it is a little strange Andrew Johnson, after having promised the colored people that he would be their Moses, should turn around, and instead of helping them to freedom, should clasp hands with the Rebels and traitors of the country.  (Cheers.)

My friends, since I have come from Tennessee, I am not surprised at the position that Andrew Johnson takes.  Do you know why it was that David was not permitted to build the temple of the Lord?  Because his hands were not clean; he was a man unfit for the work.  And so, when I have gone among some of the people of Tennessee, who have breathed their words of faith and trust, I see in Andrew Johnson a man whose hands are not clean enough to touch the hems of their garments.  (Cheers.)

Do you ask me to-night what are the colored people doing in Tennessee?  They are doing just exactly what Mr. Lincoln said the colored man might be required to do in this country.  They are helping to keep the jewel of liberty in the family of nations.  And how are they doing it?  I have heard, my friends, of serfs to whom a broader and higher freedom came, and they did not know how to appreciate it, and offered to go back again into serfdom.

I have been in humble homes where poverty has been staring them in the face, and said to them, Would you not rather go back again into slavery?  And such an answer as this has come up:—“I would rather live in a corn-crib.”  I remember, some few years ago, I met in Louisville, Kentucky, a woman who lived in a room which looked as though it might have been a stable converted into a dwelling.  I said to her:—“If your master would take good care of you, would you not rather be back again?”  The woman, with eyes filled with indignation, for she did not know that I loved freedom so well that I liked to hear its praise from the humblest lips, said to me:—“Don’t you wish to be free and stamp your foot in Jubilee?  God bless the poverty that brings me that privilege.”  (Applause.)

There is one thing that has impressed me more forcibly, perhaps, than anything else about the inner life of these people who have lately come up to freedom, and that is their faith and trust in God.  I met a mother there who had lost her child.  But here was a mother looking over the track of distant years.  How did she feel, as a mother who has given her child up to death, saying:—

                        “That innocent is mine;
                             I cannot spare him from my arms,
                        To lay him, Death, in thine.

                        “I am a mother dear;
                            I gave that darling birth;
                        I cannot bear its lifeless limbs
                            Should moulder in the earth.”

—when her child was taken from her, and when she felt the distance increasing between them, and knew she could not meet it till she met it in another world.

Oh, when I look at this beautiful faith and trust, when I see them, too, in their humble homes, and ask them what has sustained them, what has kept them up in these dark and gloomy years?—the almost invariable answer that comes to me is:—“The power of God!”

I met with a woman in Tennessee who had been the mother, I think she said, of five children.  All were absent from her except one.  I don’t know that she could say in what part of the world her children were.  She prayed for them, and said, “I only see them in my dreams.”  This was a woman upon whose heart the shadow of slavery still hung black and heavy.  Her husband heard that his children wanted to see him, and he started to go to them; and then word came to this mother and wife that her husband was dead.

Before he started he had contracted a debt of twenty-five dollars.  When the news came to the mother of his death, what did that woman do?  She went and paid off the obligation, by working at nine dollars a week, and living in a house where she was charged five dollars a month.  Look at the dignity of soul in that woman!  Her husband dead, no one could have forced her to pay that debt; yet with such a keen sense of honor and dignity of soul, she takes up the obligation, and pays it off.  Interested friends, let me tell you Andrew Johnson’s hands were not clean enough to clasp that woman’s hands, to be her Moses, and lead her up to freedom.

When I see this faith and trust, it is beautiful.  But there is another feature of life among these people which might impress you just as pleasantly, and that is the tender humanity displayed among them.  I have gone into the little cabins, where the light of the sun came through a single window without a pane of glass, and yet, in that humble home, they were taking the children and sending them to school, and it is a thing you will often see in many of these little homes.  This people, that have gone through this weary night of suffering, have come out of it with a tender humanity, clasping in their arms poor little orphan waifs, giving them shelter, schooling, and a home.  (Cheers)

And then there is another feature, and that is their greediness for knowledge.  A few weeks since I was in Louisville, Kentucky.  They had just opened a school for colored people, charging twenty-five cents a month, I believe.  The people were so eager that their children should have schooling, that by half past nine o’clock it was necessary for the Superintendent to lock the door, because they were overcrowded with applicants, and many of the parents went away in tears because their children could not enter the school.  This greediness for knowledge on the part of the colored man is an element of hope and future strength in this Government.  (Applause.)

The ancients had an idea that there was a giant chained under Mount Etna, and that the eruptions of the mountain were caused by his turning over.  So when I go down South, and see and hear of their eagerness for knowledge, I see the rising brain of the colored man, and I hope, my friends, that if any of the enemies of humanity shall attempt to build any system of despotism with an idea to the disenfranchising of a race—making it in the name of freedom, and torturing it with the essence of slavery—that the rising brain of the colored man will be evoked, and quell the despotism at the start.

In treating this question, I think of the legend of ancient Rome, of the chasm that yawned there, and of which the sorcerers predicted that whosoever should bring the most precious gift should be the means of closing it and saving the city.  Cassius, thinking that he himself was the most precious gift, leaned into its yawning jaws.  The legend has been repeated in part in this country.  Slavery has made a chasm in our American republic.  It has made you two people in the midst of one nation—a people for freedom and a people for slavery—a people for knowledge and a people for ignorance!  And what have you tried to do?  You have been trying to bridge it over by compromise, until the history of American politics is the history of compromise and concessions, from the hour that Georgia and South Carolina demanded the slave trade, down to the last Constitutional amendment.

Slavery wanted more room, and you gave it land enough for an empire.  It wanted the power to hunt the trembling fugitive, and the Fugitive Slave bill was passed, and the trembling victim was thrown into the chasm.  Still it yawned, and slavery was not satisfied.  For itself it wanted a white man’s government, and you made a trial of a white man’s government in this country for four years, and the prayers of the freedmen are ascending that we may never have another such a government as long as the world may stand.  (Applause.)  You threw into this chasm a few million lives, warm with the rich blood of your patriots.  You threw into it the life of your loving, honored chief—Abraham Lincoln.  (Applause.)  And yet to-night the chasm yawns.  You are still two people in the midst of one nation.

Would you close over this chasm?  Do not try any more compromise or concession; you might as well try to bridge with egg-shells the Potomac river.  What you need to-night is to take the shackle from the wrist of the colored man, and to put the ballot in its stead.  (Applause)  When I see the streets of New Orleans and Memphis red with the blood of unexpiated murders, and I hear of that miserable Recorder counselling them to burn and hang the nigger, I ask that the colored man should have that much power in his hands, to turn all such men out of office.  (Applause.)

Look at New Orleans.  Whose fault was it?  You should ask that of Andrew Johnson.  Let me tell you Andrew Johnson is not the most guilty man in this republic.  I don’t know but that we have needed him. I have, in the course of my life, had to put a mustard plaster on myself.  Now, I don’t like a mustard-plaster, and yet I would rather suffer an hour with it than suffer a pain in my chest for a week.  I don’t know but what we have needed Andrew Johnson in this country as a great national mustard-plaster, to spread himself all over this nation, so that he might bring to the surface the poison of slavery which still lingers in the body politic.  But when you have done with the mustard-plaster, what do you do with it?  Do you hug it to your bosom, and say it is such a precious thing that you cannot put it away?  Rather, when you have done with it, you throw it aside.

Now, my friends, why do you not do the same with Andrew Johnson, and impeach him (applause), and bring him before the bar of the nation, and prove to the world that this American nation is so strong, and so powerful, and so wise, that the humblest servant beneath its care, or the strongest, is not to behave without its restraint.

I was in Boston a few days since, and I heard a gentleman speaking of an accident that had happened.  It was of an engineer who was insane.  I suppose that the people did not know that he was insane.  He got on the locomotive, and he imagined that he was going to the moon.  He was not swinging around the circle, but was going to the moon, and he was dashing away wildly.  Death was of no moment to him; he was going to the moon.  Now what did the people do?  Did the people stop to ask his friends about him, or try him a little longer until he had done some mischief?  No, no; the case was too imminent for that.  A student picked up a block of wood to try to dash him off.  So to-day Andrew Johnson stands at the head of the Government, a man who is striking hands with the Rebels of the South.  Is there not in this nation, from the Potomac to the Rio Grande, a hand strong enough and earnest enough to throw at him the billet of impeachment, and let him go home to Tennessee to rust out the remainder of his life?  (Applause.)

I don’t, my friends, berate him because he may have swung around the circle from the seaboard to the Mississippi, although, as far as that is concerned, it reminds me that the colored man has the advantage of him there.  I remember when I was a girl how the colored man used to be burlesqued in popular songs.  One of those songs ran thus:—

                    “If I was President of the United States,
                      I would lick molasses candy and swing upon the
                         gates.”

That might have been a burlesque upon the colored people; but, my friends, I have lived to see the time when the President, though he don’t swing upon the gates, does swing around the circle, and though he does not lick molasses candy, takes something that is a great deal stronger.  (Sensation.)

Now, this reform must be carried on, as others are, against opposition and persecution.  This cause has already passed through part of the time of persecution.  It is a different thing to-day from what it was when William Lloyd Garrison threw his words like burning coals upon the nation’s heart.  Since then the ideas that originated in the Boston garret have become a mighty building, bearing upon its bosom hundreds of millions of men, women, and children, translating them from the oligarchy of slavery to the commonwealth of freedom.  Still the work needs courage to-day.

There is a small matter of prejudice that I want to take up—that against color in particular—and I am coming right home to Philadelphia, and not intending to spend my ammunition on the Rebels, who are so many thousand miles away.  But I am to talk to those who clasp hands with Rebels in the city of Philadelphia, and I am not going to bathe my lips in honey when I speak.  Two weeks last Saturday night I was in Louisville, Kentucky.  I came on from Nashville, had a little business down the street, and I got into the city cars; and I found that there is no difference there in Kentucky as to the people’s riding in the cars; Kentucky had just burst from her chains, yet she was ahead of Philadelphia in that.

I went into the house and picked up a Philadelphia paper—a Christian Recorder.  What did I read?  There I read that a woman had been kicked out of the cars in the streets of this city.  What had she done?  Simply claimed her right to travel, and had been brutally kicked in these streets.  Where was she kicked?  Let me tell you.  Did you see that man with the surplice, chanting his solemn litany?  That man is an Episcopalian minister, and that brutal man kicked her in his presence.

Did you see that man with a simple ritual?  He is a Presbyterian.  I don’t think there is a Church in the world to whom civil liberty owes more than to the Presbyterian Church.  They came out and preserved civil liberty in the wilds of Scotland, and this man kicked this woman in his presence.

Do you see that man who has just been celebrating the centenary of his Church, of which John Wesley is the St. Paul?  That man is a Methodist, and he kicked her in his presence.  Do you see that lady and gentleman, in plain garb?  They, too, have a grand memory, reaching away back to William Penn, who came here to Pennsylvania, and taught the world how peace and justice could clasp hands; and Mary Dyer, who gave up her life on Boston Common and who died for a principle.  (Cheers.)  He is a Friend, and that woman was kicked in his presence.

Do you see that man, upon another plain, who knows it is better to have the peace of Christ than to quarrel about Christianity?  He is a Unitarian; kicked in his presence also.  Do you see that man, who believes in God and the brotherhood of the human race, and that He will ultimately clasp us all in a living embrace?  That man kicked her in the presence of the whole popular Church of Philadelphia, and I ask them have they done their duty on this subject?

I pick up the papers, and I hear a great deal said about the running of the cars on Sunday.  The day is sacred in Philadelphia, but man is vile.  Where did he kick this woman?  In the very streets over which colored men marched to the front, faithful to the country when others were faithless (applause)—who were rallying around the flag when Rebels were trampling it under feet; true to the country when she wanted a friend.  Witness, now, that the sisters and mothers of these men can be kicked from the cars in our popular thoroughfares. (Applause.)

Friends, when that man kicked that woman, he kicked me.  He kicked my child, and he kicked the wife and child of every colored man in Philadelphia.  He kicked the wife, sister, and child of every colored man who went out to battle and to lay down his life for his country; and I am here to-night to protest against it.  (Applause.)

Last summer I was here; it may have been the fourth of July; it does not matter, though.  I was going up the street with my child, between five and six years of age.  My friend Mr. Still was with me.  He, living on Fifth street, thought the drivers would know him, and wait for us.  I did not ask these drivers to take me in; I shall faint upon your paved streets before I ask such a favor.  Do you think they would stop for us?  Oh, no!  They swept by us as if we were paupers.

The next day my child came to me and said: “I know why we can’t ride in the cars; because we are colored!”  No women feel this deprivation so keenly as we do, and when my orphan child came home and told me that she had read the cruel, bitter lesson, I felt bad.  And yet to-night, poor, ignorant, and trodden under foot as our people are, I would not change souls with the richest and proudest stockholder in Philadelphia.  I would not change souls with a man who reproaches his God by despising His poor!  (Applause.)  Again, my friends, I do not feel that the colored people need despair; we only take our turn in the suffering world.

I do not demand social equality; I do not demand that you shall take us into your parlors, and make us companions of your wives and daughters, if they have no liking for us.  All I ask is that you take your prejudices out of the way and give the colored man a chance to grow; give him a chance at the ballot-box.  Why this idea of social equality?  I don’t know of any colored man that demands it.  After all, this thing depends upon social affinities, customs, wealth, and habit, and in some cases on shoddy and petroleum.  But there is a dread of blood degeneration.

Somehow I do not think I should like to stand before the world, with pale lips, dreading the bugbear of social equality; afraid of giving the colored man a chance, for fear that he might somehow outstrip me in the race of life.  (Applause.)  If I was in his place I would say, “I will give him all the chance I can; I will not press him down in the scale of life.”  I should feel that I was superior, because of a superior teaching.  Look at slavery: has it not robbed us of our wives, children, and husbands; robbed us of our very complexion, and put some of the meanest kind of white blood in our veins?  (Cheers.)  And we have lived through it all, and come out of the war the very best characters down South.  If we don’t complain about it, what right has anybody else to do so?  (Cheers.)

O friends! if there is any danger, you make your President and Congressmen; you make your own laws; if any man feels that the case is urgent, let him go before the Legislature and say to them:—“Honorable Sirs—We have a deep concern on our minds; it haunts us by day and comes over our dreams by night.  We are so afraid that some colored man’s uncle’s aunt will marry some white man’s cousin’s aunt, and we want you to put a law upon the statute books that no white man shall marry a black woman unless he wants to.”  (Great laughter.)  I think that they must necessarily be guided by their wishes.  Some men have no other wants than those which are low and grovelling; they are like the men to whom the grasshopper is a burden; they are afraid of that which is high.

Justice is high, and liberty is high, and equal rights are high; and these men are afraid of that which is high, and putting their ears to the ground they hear the advancing tread of the negro, and would retard his coming.  (Cheers.)  Why you have a paper in this city called the Age.  The better name for it would be to call it Behind the Age.  Last spring it had a call for a Democratic meeting, and in the call it included all those who voted for a white man’s Government.  I have been taught that the power of gravity gravitates in the strongest hands.  What possibility is there that we should get to the head of the Government, or that the white race should stand trembling before us, or that eight thousand persons are going to get the upper hand of the nation?

He has dropped the rags of the plantation and put on the uniform of the nation.  In the District of Columbia he has exchanged the fetters on his wrists for the ballot in his right hand.  Mr. Johnson did not admire that very much, so he gave us a veto; he paid us a compliment, somehow, by supposing that we would come into the District for the purpose of giving a vote.  If it is such a privilege to an American citizen, he will go where he can have the rights of a citizen.

The colored man is taxed in this country, he is drafted in war; and yet to-night I live in an American republic; I am a taxpayer.  The Government may increase its taxes until it runs down every seam and fold of my dress, may tax the very bread I break to my orphan child; but it brings me back a rich compensation when it makes my child free in South Carolina, in Tennessee, and Alabama, and even in this city of Philadelphia when I want to ride in your cars.

Friends, this is the nation’s hour for every heart and hand to build on justice as a rock, to trust in the truth, and never yield.  With truth and justice clasping hands, we yet shall win the fight.

 

***

 

Further Reading

Manisha Sinha’s quote comes from her fine essay “The Other Frances Ellen Watkins Harper,”  Common-place 16:2 (winter 2016).

Any student of Harper’s life and work should start with A Brighter Coming Day: A Frances Ellen Watkins Harper Reader (New York, 1990), edited with an introduction by Frances Smith Foster.  Foster’s edited Minnie’s Sacrifice, Sowing and Reaping, Trial and Triumph: Three Rediscovered Novels by Frances E. W. Harper (Boston, 1994) and the sections on Harper in William Still’s The Underground Railroad (Philadelphia, 1872) are also essential.  Useful complements to this work include Melba Boyd’s Discarded Legacy: Politics and Poetics in the Life of Frances E.W. Harper 1825-1911 (Detroit, 1994); Maryemma Graham’s Complete Poems of Frances E.W. Harper (New York, 1988); Carla Peterson’s “Literary Transnationalism and Diasporic History: Frances Watkins Harper’s ‘Fancy Sketches,’ 1859-1860,” Women’s Rights and Transatlantic Antislavery in the Era of Emancipation, eds. Kathryn Kish Sklar and James Brewer Stewart (New Haven, 2007), 189-208; and Margaret Washington’s “Frances Ellen Watkins: Family Legacy and Antebellum Activism,” Journal of African American History 100:1 (winter 2015): 59-86. 

Recent rediscoveries that broaden this base include Johanna Ortner’s immensely important “Lost No More: Recovering Frances Ellen Watkins Harper’s Forest Leaves,”  Common-place 15:4 (summer 2015) and my “Sowing and Reaping: A ‘New’ Chapter from Frances Ellen Watkins Harper’s Second Novel,”  Common-place 13:1 (October 2012). Among exciting recent work on Harper, see Meredith McGill’s “Frances Ellen Watkins Harper and the Circuits of Abolitionist Poetry,” Early African American Print Culture, ed. Lara Langer Cohen and Jordan Alexander Stein (Philadelphia, 2012): 53-74, and Stephanie Farrar’s “Maternity and Black Women’s Citizenship in Frances Watkins Harper’s Early Poetry and Late Prose,” MELUS 40:1 (spring 2015):  52-75.

Carla Peterson’s “Doers of the Word”: African American Women Speakers and Writers in the North, 1830-1880 (New York, 1995) offers the richest primer on Black women lecturers including Harper; Shirley Wilson Logan’s “We Are Coming”: The Persuasive Discourse of Nineteenth-Century Black Women (Carbondale, 1999) offers another good starting point.  On the nexus of race, gender, and politics Harper engaged, see Martha S. Jones’s “All Bound Up Together”: The Woman Question in African American Public Culture, 1830-1900 (Chapel Hill, 2009) and Carol Faulkner’s Women’s Radical Reconstruction:  The Freedmen’s Aid Movement (Philadelphia, 2003).  Andrew Diemer’s “Reconstructing Philadelphia:  African Americans and Politics in the Post-Civil War North,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 133:1 (January 2009): 29-58 provides valuable local context.  Primary sources tied to Black oratory can be found in Philip S. Foner and Robert Branham’s Lift Every Voice: African American Oratory, 1787-1901 (Tuscaloosa, 1997) and the online Colored Conventions Project.  Outside of the Telegraph piece, the fullest reporting I’ve located on this specific lecture appears in “Philadelphia Correspondence,” National Anti-Slavery Standard (9 February 1867).

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.4 (Summer, 2017).


Eric Gardner is professor of English at Saginaw Valley State University and the author or editor of five books, most recently Black Print Unbound:  The Christian Recorder, African American Literature, and Periodical Culture (2015).  Two-time winner of the Research Society for American Periodicals Book Prize, he helped found the “Just Teach One: Early African American Print” project, and he blogs at blackprintculture.com




The Law and the Gospel

Baird Tipson, Hartford Puritanism: Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 496 pp., $74.

Picture a sine curve, a single wave endlessly rising and falling across the x-axis. That is the Puritan life. It models their version of sanctification, the fruits of grace that follow from justification (the moment God redeems a sinner). The ascent of each wave was called comfort, or assurance, and that came from believing Christ had substituted himself for one’s own sins and paid the price in full. Rising in assurance, believers would begin to commune with Christ through their desire for him and their deeper and stronger sense of his loveliness and holiness. It was wonderful. It could be rapturous. Some described it as a “joy unspeakable.”

But then—just like that—it ends. The wave peaks. The believer begins to sink.

The downward turn occurs precisely because of its ascent. The fact that Christ died for sins makes the godly recognize the depths of their sin and ingratitude. And the more they could see of their own depravity and disobedience, the further they would fall into what Puritans called humiliation, a godly sorrow: could Christ really have died for me? As sorrow seemed about to sink the soul, however, the preaching of the minister and the fellowship of a godly community would begin to convince the sinner that, yes, even this degree of depravity has been covered. Christ died for me! The believer would rise again.

In his new, excellent book on Puritanism, Baird Tipson emphasizes that this life of faith accrued assurance of salvation over the long haul. Conversion was not a moment; it was more like momentum. It involved a daily turning. No particular “religious experience” could produce an ability to rest in full assurance, just as no particular failing could be cause for despair. Progress instead would be measured “by a Christian’s affection or desire rather than by the actual results of her efforts” (282). That is because, as Tipson summarizes, “At its core, conversion involved a ‘change of heart,’ a convert’s changing how she desired to live and what she desired to do. It involved an Augustinian reorienting of the core disposition of the human will” (273).

Such a change of will marked how the godly life would go on. Unlike an actual sine curve, the peaks and troughs of Puritan sanctification were not supposed to be the same height and depth each time. Every peak should rise higher, and every trough dip deeper. The more believers realized how badly they had failed, the more amazed, assured, and comforted they would be that Christ had died for them. The more they were able to witness and realize Christ’s beauty and grace and glory, the more they would see just how badly they had failed. The lows sink as the highs rise. And on it goes, day after day, until one day the believer finally dies: in glorification, assurance changes from a foretaste of heaven into a seat at the table of the Lord. No Puritan life ever mechanically followed this graph, but the idea behind it served as a guide to many.

That guide came to most Puritans through their preachers. As Tipson writes, “ministers like Hooker and Stone were not only describing the kind of conversion they wanted their hearers to experience, they were also using the rhetorical techniques at their disposal to induce and shape that conversion” (273). The sensations of those in the pew came filtered through an interpretative framework preached from week to week, moving sinners through an expanding sine curve of sorrow and hope, comfort and fear.

Ideally, every sermon contained both the comfort and the sorrow, but ministers directed their words to stress one or the other as needed. If congregations moved too much toward security (turning assurance into complacency), preachers administered the Law; they showed how far all had fallen short. But if congregations seemed to be sorrowing too much—if they approached that terrible dip into despair—then ministers preached the Gospel, the comfort of grace. Faced with despair, Puritan ministers frequently insisted that even the dimmest beginning of a mere desire to believe constituted a good sign that the seed of grace had taken root and would grow into salvation. The bruised reed, they liked to say, would not be broken; God would not snuff out the smoking flax.

Anxiety and assurance, the sorrow of sin and the comfort of Christ, the law and the gospel—this was the Puritan way of grace.

Such guidelines were accepted by most who professed themselves the “godly” (what Puritans called themselves), but each minister had his own way of applying it. In Hartford Puritanism, we find an “extreme Augustinianism” that emphasized terror as a form of grace. In fact, Hooker seemed to think of humiliation as the ultimate sign of salvation, and he bent his congregation to long and agonizing struggles of the soul. For Hooker, as Tipson explains, “Brokenness, not ecstatic experience, was the best sign of God’s presence” (355).

This does not mean that Hooker rejected comfort. He agreed with others that the purpose of preaching was “twofold: to reprove the false pride of sinners, and, only after their repentance, to comfort faithful souls in those times when they doubted that they had gained God’s favor” (249). But as Tipson explains, “He gained a reputation among his ministerial colleagues for the ferociousness of his reproofs” (249). Hooker once claimed that God had called on him to fling “hell fire in your face” (249). Like certain evangelical preachers who would come later, Hooker intended to save by fear. His God was an angry God.

That potential link to modern evangelicalism functions as one of the guiding purposes of Tipson’s study. For Tipson, Hooker “documents a vital stage in the development of Protestantism from the Reformation to the great Evangelical Revivals of the eighteenth and early nineteenth-centuries,” and he claims that Hooker “anticipated much of what was to come” (4). Unfortunately, the full connection to evangelicalism seems to be waiting for a further study. What we get in this book, on the contrary, is a wonderful account of one particularly important Puritan and his extreme theology in an era grappling with predestination and practical divinity. A biographical sketch appears of Hooker (chapter 2), but this is not biography; instead, it is a model contribution to its Oxford series, “Studies in Historical Theology.”

As a study of historical theology, Tipson lucidly lays out, for example, every possible early modern position on predestination and shows both what was at stake and why so many people cared. Over the course of two brilliant chapters (5 and 6), Tipson ranges from Jesuits, Dominicans, and Jansenists to Protestants such as Martin Luther, William Perkins, Thomas Hooker, and Jacobus Arminius. Consider the Jesuit theologian Luis de Molina—one of the most influential (albeit now-forgotten) thinkers of the sixteenth century. Using what amounts to an early form of modal logic, Molina posited that God contemplated all possible worlds before bringing ours into being. In each one, God foresaw the decisions every person would make. Then God chose to create the one world in which the elect would come across the proper conditions to encourage belief. Incidentally, this is the same model Arminius adopted. As Tipson shows, for all that “Arminianism” has come to mean “opposition to predestination,” it did not begin that way. Arminius just worked out God’s predestination through a process whereby God carefully formed and guided the worldly conditions in which each person’s will either would or would not be persuaded by the presentation of God’s grace.

In fact, as Tipson shows in these chapters, despite the ferocity surrounding predestination (the king eventually outlawed any preaching about it), no one really objected to predestination per se. What they objected to was the conception of human will each model implied. One of the main opponents to Molina and Arminius was the influential Puritan William Perkins. In the seventeenth century, his works outsold Shakespeare. His books guided Oxford and Cambridge. His ideas trained up a whole generation and more of Calvinists in both England and America. And when it came to predestination, Perkins believed that Molina did not go far enough. God does not persuade the will; he replaces it. He does not coax the unregenerate; he overpowers them. And thus, God’s predestination does not depend on the creation of conditions for belief; it depends on an active re-creation of the sinner’s heart.

How does that happen? By preaching the word. In his sermons, the minister became the instrument of God, and when the experience functioned properly, Puritans called it the “demonstration of the Spirit”—the work of God made possible “in, with, and under” the preacher’s words. And yet, that preaching still needed to be done with careful skill to make possible the demonstration of the spirit. As Tipson shows, Hooker imitated the theatrical style of a famous minister named John Rogers. Rogers would play-act while preaching, taking on the role of God and impersonating His voice: he would bellow and roar, he would threaten and console, he would plead with wild gestures from the pulpit. And in the process, he packed the church. Most Puritans hated the theaters—closed them down, in fact—but they also copied what worked.

Moreover, they defined “what worked” by what moved those sitting in the pews. Puritans preached to change the will, not convince the mind. Logic still mattered, of course, and some, such as Hooker, thought saints could deduce the grace of God in their lives through the shape their lives had taken. If a person’s experience matched the sine curve of sanctification, then he or she could conclude that justification had occurred—even if the moment had passed unnoticed. Nonetheless, sermons still aimed at the heart. As Tipson explains, Hooker believed the understanding would find a way to reject whatever the will would not accept. So he cut a middle line between logical deduction and emotional experiences. Assurance of salvation, Hooker believed, did not result from a single religious rapture, but instead arose over a long period of reflection on one’s desires, deeds, and dispositions, one’s steady growth in grace. According to Hooker, genuine faith had three distinguishing marks: it arose from contrition, it inspired daily repentance, and it stirred believers to want more of faith and grace.

From predestination to preaching, from abstract theology to practical divinity, Tipson does a marvelous job covering the terrain of Puritanism as it appeared in the world of Thomas Hooker. In the process, Tipson shows that Hooker was both an ordinary Puritan and an extraordinary outlier. His godly colleagues critiqued him for terrifying people too much, or for demanding a humiliation so extreme that no saint could possibly achieve it. That’s where Samuel Stone comes in. The subtitle of the book makes it sound as though he and Hooker will receive equal billing, but this is not a book about Stone, who was ordained alongside Hooker in the Hartford church and wrote the first complete body of divinity in New England. Stone, who was just as much a Puritan as Hooker, approached their shared doctrine quite differently. As Tipson puts it, “Stone’s emphasis on the attractiveness of Christ and the soul’s eagerness to embrace him contrasts startlingly with Hooker’s emphasis on the soul’s continued need for brokenness and rigorous self-discipline” (342). In the balance between justice and mercy, Hooker leaned on the former, Stone on the latter.

The law and the gospel. Never one without the other. It would seem that in seventeenth-century Hartford, Hooker and Stone divided the duties incumbent on all Puritan ministers. One scared the hell out of the ungodly, the other took the weak believer by the hand and held out the promises of God. As this beautiful, learned book reminds us, Puritans insisted on both.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.3.5 (Summer, 2017).


Abram Van Engen is associate professor of English at Washington University in St. Louis and the author of Sympathetic Puritans: Calvinist Fellow Feeling in Early New England (2015).




Selling Misery Abroad

Leonardo Marques, The United States and the Transatlantic Slave Trade to the Americas, 1776-1867. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2016. 328 pp., $40.

More than 150 years since the conclusion of the Civil War, we live in a world rife with forced migration and less-than-free labor. In many places across the globe, refugees flee their war-torn homelands and all that they have ever known in search of safety in strange new societies where mixed fortunes await them. Elsewhere, the desperately poor attempt to cross national borders in the hopes of providing better lives for themselves and their families. The private prison complex makes vast profits for its investors on the backs of prisoners, many of whom are young men of color. In other cases, people, women and children in particular, are bought and sold by unscrupulous predators along well-worn national and international networks of human trafficking. The victims’ new lives are defined in large part by exploitation and a lack of freedom. The twentieth century witnessed forced migration and unfree labor on an epic scale. Nazi labor camps and the genocidal efficiency with which millions of people were transported to their death during the Holocaust and the Soviet Gulag exhibited two of humanity’s lowest points. In the midst of all of this suffering, dislocation, and exploitation, the transatlantic slave trade and Atlantic slavery stand out as particularly cruel and horrifying examples of forced migration and unfreedom.

 

Few topics in Atlantic history elicit more debate or stronger feelings than the transatlantic slave trade. Spanning close to three centuries, the trade in African men, women, and children stands alone as history’s largest forced migration, with at least twelve million people captured, sold, transported, and bought. The enslaved who survived the horrors of the Middle Passage provided the labor that served as the economic bedrock on which Atlantic empires and modern nation states were built. Today, tens of millions of descendants of the enslaved live across the Americas and elsewhere, often in harsher socioeconomic circumstances than their fellow citizens. Those who remained in Africa dealt with loss, dislocation, and disruption as their lives and societies were systematically exploited to feed the labor demands of faraway European colonies in a process that began as a proto-capitalist phenomenon and concluded as one that was at the heart of nineteenth-century capitalism. The impact of the slave trade and later European imperialism are intensely felt in Africa today. In fact, the legacy of the slave trade has led some to argue that reparations are warranted for this grievous injustice.

 

Given the immense significance of the transatlantic slave trade and the institution of slavery, it is hardly surprising that scholars have studied and debated these topics for centuries. Some historians have sought to understand the complex interplay of ideas about race, culture, economics, and empire that led to the rise of slavery and the slave trade. Many of these inquiries have been forced to address the challenging topic of African involvement and complicity. Some have concerned themselves primarily with numbers, seeking to quantify the lives of millions of men, women, and children. Such scholars have been aided immeasurably by the creation of Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. Others have examined the economics of the slave trade and its larger impact on regional, imperial, Atlantic, or global economies. Historians have taken cultural approaches to the slave trade, seeking in particular to understand the extent to which African cultures survived the trade and enslavement. Social historians have painted harrowing portraits of life and death aboard slave ships. Others have analyzed shipboard rebellions, or topics related to health, technology or seafaring. Political studies have sought to understand the fight to abolish or defend the slave trade and slavery.

 

Leonardo Marques adds his voice to the field of slave trade studies with The United States and the Transatlantic Slave Trade to the Americas, 1776-1867. Based on a 2013 Emory University PhD dissertation, Marques’s book focuses on the role that citizens of the United States and their ships played in the slave trade to other parts of the Americas in the eras spanning from independence to shortly after the conclusion of the Civil War. Impressively researched in English, Spanish, and Portuguese-language archival and published primary sources, deeply conversant with an expansive historiography, and making nimble use of the Voyages database, The United States and the Transatlantic Slave Trade to the Americas seeks to correct a field of study which, in Marques’s opinion, has been hindered by the persistent influence of W.E.B. Du Bois’s The Suppression of the African Slave Trade, the failure to expand chronologically beyond c. 1820, and an overly dismissive attitude about the effects of anti-slave trade legislation.

 

Marques seeks to correct these perceived shortcomings by illustrating the effectiveness of U.S. slave trade legislation and analyzing the landscape of international law that U.S. slave traders had to navigate. The author’s argument unfolds over six chronologically organized chapters. It begins with the creation of a truly American branch of the transatlantic slave trade, which emerged between independence and 1807; moves to a transitional period (1808-1820), in which the traffic was abolished to the U.S. but American merchants figured out ways to continue to ply their trade; shifts to an approximately forty-year era in which U.S. merchants conducted brisk (largely contraband) business in Brazil and Cuba, and concludes with the era of the Civil War, which turned out to be the event that finally ended American involvement in the slave trade.

 

At the heart of Marques’s analysis is an attempt to understand the seeming dissonance between the fact that ships flying the American flag imported  around one million Africans to other countries (many illegally) but only 100,000 or so slaves to the U.S. (most prior to 1808). In other words, how did a nation that was, legally at least, cut off from the African slave trade after 1808, and had only a moderate tradition of transatlantic slave trading as an independent nation, come to play such a substantial role in the traffic? The answer lies in demand, greed, small communities of mutual interest, transatlantic geopolitics, and a mosaic of international law that excluded subjects and citizens of some empires and nation states from the trade, but often provided Americans with loopholes to participate in this traffic. Complicating matters further, the first half of the nineteenth century was a time in which the U.S. was becoming one of the hemisphere’s most prominent slave societies as well as the major incubator of both pro- and antislavery thought in the Americas. Accordingly, the topic of legal and illegal slave trade became the source of much debate among activists, politicians, and the public as the republic careened toward Civil War.

 

This is a book about slave traders (captains, ship owners, and investors, largely), their ceaseless quest for profit as they sought to satisfy a demand for labor, a quest that had little regard for laws, national loyalties, or timing, and the forces that influenced the buying and selling of people. The story of these men and the political, legal, and economic forces that shaped their lives and actions is situated in multiple corners of the Atlantic world, from Rhode Island to the American South, from the coast of Africa to Brazil and Cuba. The latter two places receive the majority of space due to their continuing demand for Africans well into the nineteenth century. Marques also places his findings within various national and colonial histories, which are then situated in dialogue with each other. For example, legal developments within the early American republic are presented alongside the political culture of the contemporary British empire and the economic landscape of post-independence Brazil. In this sense, the book is a good example of the recent historiographic turn that might be called “U.S. and the World.” What emerges within Marques’s Atlantic and international framework is a lively analysis of the role that American citizens, their ships, and their flag played in transporting Africans across the Atlantic world, long after the slave trade to the United States had been abolished.

 

The United States and the Transatlantic Slave Trade to the Americas has a number of strengths. The book’s evidentiary base is impressive. Marques’s dual Atlantic and international framework is thoughtful and effective. Most importantly, the author is largely successful in meeting his goal of detailing and analyzing American involvement in the transatlantic slave trade between independence and the Civil War. There are, however, some shortcomings to the book. For one, the book sometimes reads like a dissertation, which is exactly what it was just three years before publication. Second, very few Africans appear in the book. This is, of course, a political and legal history that states clearly that its primary focus is slave traders. At the same time, however, this is a political and legal history that seeks to explain how a million or more men, women, and children were violently uprooted from their homelands, forced to endure the Middle Passage, and then sold into slavery. The voices and experiences of these people demand a place in a study of the transatlantic slave trade. Regardless of this shortcoming, The United States and the Transatlantic Slave Trade to the Americas is a valuable book that adds to Atlantic and international history, as well as our understanding of slavery and the slave trade.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.3.5 (Summer, 2017).


Nathaniel Millett is an associate professor of history at Saint Louis University. He is the author of The Maroons of Prospect Bluff and their Quest for Freedom in the Atlantic World, which won four prizes. Thanks to a Fulbright Fellowship in London and a Weatherhead Fellowship at the School for Advanced Research in Santa Fe, he has made major progress on a book that considers the role that indigenous people played in the Anglo-Caribbean between the sixteenth century and the middle of the nineteenth century.




The Birth of Population

Molly Farrell, Counting Bodies: Population in Colonial American Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 296 pp., $65.
Molly Farrell, Counting Bodies: Population in Colonial American Writing. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 296 pp., $65.

It seems fair to say that the idea of assembling individual human beings into a “population,” through counting, feels natural. It so thoroughly structures our individual and collective lives that its origins and effects have become invisible to us. In the opening pages of her thoughtful and original book, Molly Farrell carefully de-naturalizes the concept of “population,” making strange the idea of counting bodies as both a power of the state and an accepted and codified discourse. In a series of case studies, Farrell examines “moments around the colonial Atlantic world when writers explored the implications of enumerating people before censuses and birth registries shaped everyday life” (8). Although she does not neglect key moments and texts in the formation of population science, Farrell’s interest here is explicitly in the “literary prehistory” of population, that is, the “imaginative, personal and narrative writings that performed the cultural work of normalizing the enumeration of colonial bodies” (2). Implicit in this statement are two of the book’s central claims: first, that before the counting of bodies was consolidated into population science, literary texts not only reflected but helped to construct emergent notions of population; and, second, that colonial space and colonial bodies were not just incidental scenes or sources of data for a metropolitan project. Rather, the experience and the situation of colonialism itself encouraged the shift toward thinking of human communities in terms of numbers. Most strikingly, she suggests that the impulse toward thinking of bodies as discrete numbers continually ran up against the linkages and interdependencies between human subjects. What Farrell lays out is a fascinating spectacle, a colonial practice of counting bodies that is perpetually collapsing and producing odd, indeterminate results, even as it consolidates its conceptual hold as a way of thinking about human communities.

The first two chapters of the book address early documents of colonial experience in seventeenth-century America. The first chapter, “Poetics of the Ark Ashore,” examines the Massachusetts colonist and poet Anne Bradstreet’s engagement with early modern ideas about population and reproduction. In keeping with a broader theme in Counting Bodies, Farrell shows how Bradstreet’s poetry connects cataclysm and death with reproduction and regeneration, a link she builds by contrasting the poems with William Bradford’s record of colonial death and increase. The centrality of loss, and its relation to generation, will likely sound familiar to anyone who has read Bradstreet’s famous elegies. Farrell, however, shows us how the act of remembering the dead in these poems undermines a dominant vision of colonial populations as a ceaselessly multiplying collection of interchangeable individuals. Likewise, she reads Bradstreet’s less-studied epic poems as a complex response to triumphalist visions of colonial population increase. Building on her reading and revision of Guillaume Du Bartas, Bradstreet’s poems imagine a fertile, teeming colonial world, but one that is absolutely tied to the complexity of reproduction. In Farrell’s account, Bradstreet’s poetry, in both its lyric and epic modes, “focuses on the unreliability and innumerability of humans’ reproductive capacity” (60). Farrell elegantly evokes these themes of unreliability and uncountability in the quite different setting of the second chapter, which focuses on Richard Ligon’s True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados (1657). Farrell sees Ligon doing the work of counting human bodies at the “intersection of aesthetic ideals and mathematical reckoning” (80). In his literary and numerical accounting of Barbados, Ligon tries to impose a degree of control on the human complexity of the plantation system. That ordering work, unstable throughout, fails most completely when it turns to the reproductive bodies of enslaved women. The problem, again, is bodies that cannot be counted: both their aesthetic status and their individual human value is distorted by a system in which bodies are goods and human reproduction is a central form of commodity production.

The second half of the book extends these lines of inquiry about counting and innumerability into later colonial moments. The third chapter considers the role of numeracy in Mary Rowlandson’s The Sovereignty and Goodness of God. Counting bodies, for Rowlandson, becomes a tactic for imposing order in moments of dissonance and conflict, but also for separating a quantifiable white colonial population from seemingly innumerable indigenous groups. Farrell suggests, however, that the most anxious and complicated counting work in Rowlandson’s narrative happens around women and children, or as she puts it, “bodies that have the potential to alter the count” (132). These are bodies at once mutable (as when the adoption of a captive child could convert English to Indian) and persistently, stubbornly interconnected, even beyond death (as in Rowlandson’s intimate connection with her deceased daughter, Sarah). The book’s final chapter expands on the link between counting and death by focusing on colonial mortality bills. The dead body, Farrell points out, was a more easily countable unit than a living person. If the event of a birth in colonial America remained largely private and unreported, the numbers from the burial grounds could be (and increasingly were) added up and printed in the newspaper. Drawing on mortality bills printed in early eighteenth-century colonial newspapers, Farrell argues that it was the process of counting the dead (outside of crises like plague, war, and famine that had long been occasions for counting bodies) that helped to naturalize the idea of social enumeration. Her central example is Benjamin Franklin’s fascination with vital statistics, beginning with his practice of publishing mortality bills in his newspapers. Farrell then traces how Franklin, in his 1750 Poor Richard Improved, used the changes in rates of death to extrapolate about living colonial inhabitants. Death, then, became the starting place for thinking about the growth, categorization, and demarcation of a population.

In drawing out some of the key themes, texts, and lines of inquiry above, I may risk obscuring one of the pleasures of reading Farrell’s book, namely the range of her sources and the deftness with which she interweaves them. In each chapter, she moves skillfully between her central cases and broader discursive contexts, including Albrecht Durer’s aesthetic theory, Thomas Malthus’s population science, and Achille Mbembe’s concept of “necropolitics.” This range might occasionally leave readers wishing she would pause for longer on some of these supporting characters and questions. In my case, I would have been curious to hear more (and more directly) about the discourse of biopolitics, and Michel Foucault’s work in particular. I saw the outlines of Farrell’s engagement (both in opposition and agreement) with biopolitical ideas, but felt that she could have been more explicit about how she seeks to modify our sense of biopolitics as a dominant way of thinking about population.

I was continually excited by this book, and was especially struck by the way that Farrell’s focus on the literary representation of population, and particularly on bodies that are difficult to count, might open up new possibilities for thinking about the complexity and variability of colonial American ideas of community. I’m persuaded, for example, that her book can help us think about colonial understandings of disability, another form of human categorization that was just beginning to emerge during this period. The idea of disability calls into question the degree to which individual members might “count” in a population. Certainly, then, scholars of disability representation will be interested in Farrell’s demonstration of how colonial and early national counting practices explicitly devalued certain individuals, and disregarded crucial interdependencies between people. Just as important, however, is her careful attention to how writers in early America obstructed, disallowed, and resisted this kind of counting. Farrell’s book is worth thinking with, and I’m eager to see how her methods and conclusions might further expand and enliven our understanding of what it meant to count and be counted in colonial communities.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.3.5 (Summer, 2017).


Nicholas Junkerman is assistant professor of English at Skidmore College. He writes on early American literature, religion, and the representation of disability. His article “‘Confined Unto a Low Chair’: Reading the Particulars of Disability in Cotton Mather’s Miracle Narratives” appears in the Spring 2017 issue of Early American Literature.




“So Difficult to Instruct”: Re-envisioning Abraham and Tad Lincoln

This photograph of Abraham Lincoln and his son Thomas (Tad) was taken by Anthony Berger in Mathew Brady’s Washington, D.C. studios on February 9, 1864. It shows the president and his son looking at a photograph album (a prop that was lying around the studio) together. The photograph was commissioned by the painter Francis Carpenter, who was at the time working in the White House preparing sketches that would serve as the basis for his First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln (1864). This particular sitting led to a number of images that have become part of U.S. national iconography. For example, a portrait of Abraham Lincoln that was taken on this day was used as the basis for the image that appears on the five-dollar bill. This image of the president and his son, however, soon to become one of the most popular and most reproduced depictions of Lincoln, was not published or otherwise publicly distributed until a year after its completion. Only after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 did the image become ubiquitous. The variety of changes introduced to the image in its reproductions offers a fascinating glimpse into how iconography produces narratives and fantasies about national history, culture, and values.

 

 1. The book that Lincoln held in his lap in the Mathew Brady studios was a photograph album. However, in most reproductions of the image, the book is either captioned as, or made to look like, a Bible. The 1865 Currier & Ives' lithograph based on the pose was titled President Lincoln at Home, Reading the Scriptures to His Wife and Son. One can see the deliberate visual changes made by the artisans reproducing the image by comparing two engravings published by H.B. Hall. Look closely at the visual detail of the books: the first reproduces the book as a photo album, the second as a Bible. Lincoln himself worried over the book's falsely "biblical" appearance. In Lincoln in Photographs, Lloyd Ostendorf relays Lincoln's concern that any visual fabrications representing the photo album as a Bible would amount to "a species of false pretence." Lincoln's brief but suggestive comment makes explicit what the photograph's changing nature asserts implicitly: images can and do lie.

1. The book that Lincoln held in his lap in the Mathew Brady studios was a photograph album. However, in most reproductions of the image, the book is either captioned as, or made to look like, a Bible. The 1865 Currier & Ives’ lithograph based on the pose was titled President Lincoln at Home, Reading the Scriptures to His Wife and Son. One can see the deliberate visual changes made by the artisans reproducing the image by comparing two engravings published by H.B. Hall. Look closely at the visual detail of the books: the first reproduces the book as a photo album, the second as a Bible. Lincoln himself worried over the book’s falsely “biblical” appearance. In Lincoln in Photographs, Lloyd Ostendorf relays Lincoln’s concern that any visual fabrications representing the photo album as a Bible would amount to “a species of false pretence.” Lincoln’s brief but suggestive comment makes explicit what the photograph’s changing nature asserts implicitly: images can and do lie.

 

Further Reading

For more on photographic depictions of President Lincoln, see Charles Hamilton and Lloyd Ostendorf, Lincoln in Photographs: An Album of All Known Poses (Norman, Okla., 1963), James Mellon, The Face of Lincoln (New York, 1979), and Philip B. Kunhardt III, Peter W. Kunhardt, and Peter W. Kunhardt, Jr., Lincoln, Life-Size (New York, 2009). For more on the images of Lincoln circulated through popular prints, see Harold Holzer, Gabor S. Boritt, and Mark E. Neely, The Lincoln Image: Abraham Lincoln and the Popular Print (New York, 1984). Recent scholarship on the importance of African American contributions to and commentary on nineteenth-century visual culture have revitalized the study of our national visual past. See, in particular, Shawn Michelle Smith and Maurice O. Wallace, Pictures and Progress and the Making of African American Identity (Durham, N.C., 2012) and Deborah Willis and Barbara Krauthamer, Envisioning Emancipation: Black Americans and the End of Slavery (Philadelphia, 2012). In a forthcoming essay in the journal MELUS, I provide a more extended close reading of Elizabeth Keckley’s memoir in relation to this famous image.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 13.4 (Summer, 2013).


 

 

 




The Advice Jefferson Never Received: Health Counsel Delivered to Jefferson From His Italian Friend Filippo Mazzei, Two Hundred Years Too Late

The interior of the rare manuscript room of the library in Florence, Sala Manoscritti e Rari, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. Courtesy of their website.

Two years had passed since my discovery of a mystery letter in a Florence archive, and as I studied the correspondence on the Founders Online website run by the National Archives and the University of Virginia Press, I finally began to comprehend the significance of my accidental find. The letter, dated 1812, written in Italian and, according to the archival reference sheet, directed to “?”, did indeed have a recipient, and a notable one at that.  I realized that I had inadvertently stumbled upon a missing link in the extensive chain of correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and his friend Filippo Mazzei (1730-1816), Italian patriot of the American Revolution, who first arrived in Virginia as an agriculturalist in 1773. It struck me that over the course of 200 years, no one had read Mazzei’s letter of 1812 and Jefferson’s letter of the previous year side by side except for Mazzei himself. And now, me. With this realization, I found myself in the throes of my own “archive fever,” consumed by my letter and the mystery that surrounded it. I wondered if this 1812 letter had ever left Italy, and why no one had found it before I did. The clues were there, and I couldn’t resist diving headfirst into a bit of historical detective work.  

I stumbled, unknowingly, upon this hidden treasure as a result of a chain of events that can only be described as serendipitous. In June 2015, after co-directing the Bucknell University Engineering in a Global/Societal Context course in Italy, I reserved a day in Florence to conduct archival research on Carlo Bellini, father of Italian Studies in the United States. Friend to both Jefferson and Mazzei, Bellini, originally from Florence, was appointed by Jefferson in 1779 to teach Italian, French, Spanish, and possibly German at the College of William and Mary, a position which he held until his death in 1804. It was at William and Mary that I began studying Italian in the fall of 1991 as a first-year student, and when I heard the story of Bellini at a language conference in 2014, I decided that I owed it to his ghost to find out more about him and his life in the early years of our republic. So, on a cloudy day in June 2015, I set out for the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze in search of an original Bellini document. 

 

Frontispiece portrait of Filippo (Philip) Mazzei, from Philip Mazzei: Virginia’s Agent in Europe (New York, 1935). Courtesy of Dr. Richard Cecil Garlick Jr., from Philip Mazzei, Friend of Jefferson: His Life and Letters (Baltimore, 1933). This copy courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts.

A quiet space with a long oak table running down the middle, the rare manuscript room of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze is lined with drawers full of hand-written index cards, some dating to the early days of the library, which first opened to the public in 1747. I was drawn to the card catalogue on my right, which housed the recent acquisitions collection. A quick perusal of the catalogue confirmed that the collection held nothing filed under Carlo Bellini’s name. Purely out of curiosity, and not wanting to leave the library after so short and futile a search, I took a moment to look up Filippo Mazzei, whose name appeared in much of the correspondence between Jefferson and Bellini. Mazzei came to Virginia in 1773 under the patronage of Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany, one of the earliest supporters of free trade in Europe. Leopold sent Mazzei to the colonies with the charge of shipping grain back to Tuscany, and once in Virginia Mazzei planned to cultivate a vineyard and produce wine. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mazzei bonded quickly with Jefferson over their shared interest in horticulture and Jefferson’s passion for the Italian culture and language. Mazzei recalled in his memoir that when he met Jefferson in 1773, the Virginian “knew the Italian language very well, but had never heard it spoken.” 

 

Archival reference page accompanying Mazzei’s letter of September 27, 1812. According to this page, the letter is directed to “?” and, as per the comment in the “observations” column, unsigned (non firmata). The word minuta refers to an original archived draft. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Sala Manoscritti e Rari, C.V., Cassetta 539, Numero 133.

I found one card filed under Mazzei’s name. I signed for the document, and was handed a folder containing an original letter written in Italian and accompanied by an archival reference page. Mazzei at the time was living in Pisa and had addressed his letter simply to “Stimatissimo signore, e amico carissimo” (Most esteemed sir, and dearest friend) on September 27, 1812. In the first few lines Mazzei mentions that his letter will be sent with a friend through Paris, though no final destination is cited. There are references to both Monticello and Bellini within the text. Archived in the library as “not signed” and directed to “?” according to the reference sheet, the letter piqued my interest, so I transcribed it in Italian on my laptop.  When I returned home from Florence later that summer, the mysterious Mazzei letter remained in a folder labeled “Bellini” on my computer, and quite honestly, I forgot about it. I had no idea to whom it was written, and I figured it was an unsigned draft that had probably never left Italy. 

Two years later, with the 240th anniversary of Bellini’s hiring at my alma mater quickly approaching, his ghost continued to haunt me, as did the mystery letter sitting on my laptop. In search of answers, I began studying the extensive republic of letters exchanged between Mazzei and Jefferson archived on the Founders Online website. Right away, I noticed a gap in correspondence between the years 1811 and 1813. At the bottom of Jefferson’s July 9, 1811, letter to Mazzei, a footnote states that Mazzei had endorsed a response as written on September 27, 1812, but that the letter was not recorded in Jefferson’s Summary Journal of Letters and had not been found.  

At that moment I knew that I had made an important discovery on that cloudy June day two years earlier in Florence. Mazzei’s detailed response to Jefferson’s 1811 letter had finally made it across the Atlantic and was sitting right there on my laptop in Pennsylvania. But its identification raised more questions than it answered. Had the 1812 letter even made it as far as Paris? If so, how and when did it find its way back to Florence, and why had no other scholars discovered it? Had I unearthed any state secrets? And why wasn’t the letter signed?   

I contacted the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, requested a digital copy of the letter, and began the work of tracing the letter from its inception in 1812 to my discovery of it in 2015. As Mazzei had intended, a copy of the 1812 letter was indeed sent from Pisa to Paris amidst the economicand political turmoil that marked the end of Napoleonic rule in Italy, where it eventually landed in the hands of Consul David Bailie Warden, though for some reason was not included in the envelope that Warden later sent to Monticello. The copy that I found in the library is most probably a draft that remained in Pisa. According to their records, the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze acquired this copy of the letter from Lim Antiqua, a manuscript dealer in Lucca, Italy, in 2009. The owner of Lim Antiqua surmises that the letter was likely part of the private archive of Count Luigi Cibrario of Torino, Italian statesman and historian. Lim Antiqua purchased the Cibrario collection in the late 1990s. Interestingly, Count Cibrario was stationed in Paris as the minister of foreign affairs of the Kingdom of Sardinia from 1855-1856 (prior to Italian unification in 1861, the Kingdom of Sardinia included Piedmont, the governing region of much of the peninsula). If this letter was indeed part of the Cibrario collection, he might have acquired it directly from Mazzei’s daughter Elisabetta Mazzei Tozzi Pini, who sold many of her father’s documents following his death. Stashed in a private archive, unsigned and addressed to no one, the letter remained in deep slumber until Bellini’s ghost led me to it in June of
2015. To read the letter in its entirety, click here.

 

Mazzei’s letter of September 27, 1812 (page one). The letter is addressed to “Stimatissimo signore, e amico carissimo” (Most esteemed sir, and dearest friend). Courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Sala Manoscritti e Rari, C.V., Cassetta 539, Numero 133.

Mazzei’s letter of September 27, 1812 (page two). Mazzei spilled the ink before he started writing the letter. The writing flows around the ink blot, not underneath it. Courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Sala Manoscritti e Rari, C.V., Cassetta 539, Numero 133.

 

Much of the import of this particular letter lies in its humanity. Alas, I did not exhume a letter full of state secrets or hidden agendas; instead, and perhaps more significantly, I exhumed a contemplative letter devoted to the value of friendship and the poignancy of human existence. Mazzei lived a life rooted in Enlightenment ideals, and one way to interpret his letter is as a reflection of those ideals. While Mazzei does touch on issues of national importance (primarily as a consideration of events that had happened 30 years earlier), most of the letter is a testament to the strong bond he felt with his American friend. It is a shame that Jefferson never had a chance to read it. 

 

Engraved portrait of Thomas Jefferson by Bass Otis, painted at Monticello; both Otis and publisher Joseph Delaplaine arrived at Monticello during the first week of June 1816. This portrait was engraved by John Neagle and faces page 125 in Delaplaine’s Repository of the Lives and Portraits of Distinguished American Characters (Philadelphia, 1817). Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Jefferson, who was nearing seventy at the time, states in his July 9, 1811, letter to Mazzei that he is “much enfeebled, little able to walk about,” and that most of his exercise is done on horseback. Here, finally, is Mazzei’s missing response, health counsel delivered to Jefferson from his Italian friend 200 years too late: “since you have the courage to go riding, I am convinced that you could with your own legs walk at least one mile before lunch, and one before evening, in the flat countryside you have made around Monticello, which you might find more useful than six, or eight, done by horse.” Mazzei, who himself was nearing eighty-two, admits that he wouldn’t have the courage to ride a horse, but noted walking four or five miles a day. Expressed in these lines is the comfort and ease of an enduring and honest friendship between two men who, by 1812, had not seen each other in twenty-four years.  

 

“Monticello, the home of Jefferson, Near Charlottesville, Virginia,” wood engraving from a sketch by Theodore R. Davis, from Harper’s Weekly June 2, 1866, page 345. Mazzei states in an 1811 letter to Jefferson that he is “panting for the tranquility of Monticello.” Courtesy of the American Antiquarian Society, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Mazzei continues to explore the theme of friendship as he considers mutual acquaintances who have died. In his 1811 letter, Jefferson comments that his only wish is a “quiet descent to that asylum which has received some more of your acquaintances since my last,” mentioning the names John Page and George Wythe. Mazzei responds, “the news of these deaths moved me considerably, no longer for them, but for their good friends, since I regard the loss of friends as one of the greatest and saddest disgraces.” He does not fear death for himself, but for those he will leave behind, namely his young wife and daughter. Exchanges such as this one open a window onto the private emotions of two very public figures and remind us of their humanity.  

One aspect of this letter that I find particularly poignant is Mazzei’s tender description of his young daughter Elisabetta. He recounts, “my daughter is doing wonderfully. She turned 14 on 22 July; she is tall for her age; her personality is pleasing to all; she learns languages easily; she embroiders passably well; her music teacher is happy with the progress that she is making in her study of the piano.” Beyond providing early nineteenth-century education guidelines for young women of a certain class, this paragraph speaks volumes about his relationship with Jefferson, who by this time had nine grandchildren by his daughter Martha Jefferson Randolph and four surviving children by Sally Hemmings. The Virginian was surrounded by children in the year 1812, so it seems fitting that his friend would dedicate an entire paragraph to his own young daughter. In stark contrast to his preceding comments addressing the inevitability of his own death, here Mazzei focuses on the promise of future generations, while simultaneously expressing his concern about Elisabetta’s well-being in Tuscany, a region that he characterizes as “afflicted by evils” in 1812. In his February 15, 1811, letter to Jefferson, Mazzei is quite direct about his desire to bring his daughter to the United States, and he alludes to this again in his 1812 letter, stating that he can die in peace if he knows his daughter will be left in a “free country.” Perhaps Mazzei imagines his daughter Elisabetta someday taking part in the affectionate family life that surrounded Jefferson during his retirement years, though in his letter of July 9, 1811, Jefferson expresses his doubts about “whether a person brought up in European society & habits can themselves be as happy here as there.” 

Historians less sentimentally inclined might read parts of Mazzei’s letter as an analysis of the economic and intellectual impact of the Napoleonic years on Italy, especially on the port city of Leghorn. As a result of its status as a free port, Leghorn flourished in the latter part of the eighteenth century both economically and intellectually, becoming a key place of publication for Enlightenment texts. In an 1805 letter to Jefferson, Mazzei extols the city as a place where “Americans are carrying on excellent and profitable business […] Leghorn is an emporium from which their merchandise is shipped to all Italy and to various parts of Germany.” Yet Mazzei’s letter just seven years later offers a more dismal vision of the city. Whereas over 700 ships entered Leghorn in 1800, in 1812, under blockade, only one ship entered port. The city’s economic and intellectual decline went hand in hand: 

 

At first glance, Mazzei’s letter appears unsigned. Upon closer study, the original valediction is apparent (highlighted in this view). Mazzei signed his letter, “Suo devotissimo servo, e amico” (Your most devoted servant, and friend). Courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Sala Manoscritti e Rari, Carte Varie, Cassetta 539, Numero 133.

Leghorn, where I have most of my movable and immovable wealth, is decreasing in population more each day, and if a swift and unexpected solution does not come about, it will soon be a place of fishermen. A property that used to earn me 180 silver pieces [pezze], no longer earns me 80; as far as cash is concerned, I am no longer collecting interest and every day I relinquish failed properties.  

Despite all that I had uncovered about Mazzei’s letter, the mystery of its missing signature continued to haunt me. At first glance, it appears that Mazzei concluded his thoughts abruptly at the bottom of the back of the page, leaving no room for his signature (in fact, in order to finish his final sentence, he squeezed his last four words in the upper-right corner of the page). Once I had a digital copy of the letter and had enlarged it on my screen, I was able to focus clearly on the crowded script and noticed something that I had missed while at the library: something that, in fact, no one had noticed before. The “+” mark two-thirds of the way down the second page of the letter indicates a type of postscript meant to substitute lines of canceled text above, and toward the right, the phrase “Suo devotissimo servo, e amico” (Your most devoted servant, and friend), although difficult to spot since it is almost obscured by the postscript text, designates the original valediction. Just below this phrase, and partially concealed by the first sentence of the postscript paragraph, there is a faint and nearly illegible “FM.” The partially hidden initials on my letter are replicas of those on other letters signed by Filippo Mazzei, and their presence merits an update to the archival sheet accompanying this letter in the Bibilioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, for it is indeed signed by Mazzei.

 

Compare the faint “FM” (hidden beneath the postscript text) of the 1812 letter at left to the “FM” of the 1811 letter from Mazzei to Jefferson at right. 1812 letter courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Sala Manoscritti e Rari, C.V., Cassetta 539, Numero 133. 1811 letter courtesy of Columbia University Libraries, General Manuscripts Collections, Box 37.

 

What my story reminds us of, I believe, is the value of archival work as an experience in and of itself, consisting of give-and-take between document and searcher. The archivist brings emotion, passion, and self to the search, and conversely, the process of archival sleuthing and discovery can help mold the searcher’s very identity. Beyond the process itself, we cannot overlook the importance of due diligence on the part of the searcher, coupled with a healthy dose of curiosity. I entered the archive in Florence in June 2015 looking for one item, and I walked out with something completely unexpected, yet to which I was deeply and personally connected. As I have now learned firsthand, the thrill of breathing life into slumbering words on parchment is unparalleled. I, for one, am already planning my next trip to the archives in Italy. Who knows what I might find? 

 

September 24, 2017. At age ninety-five, Sister Margherita Marchione, leading Mazzei scholar and author, signs a 1975 copy of her book Philip Mazzei: Jefferson’s “Zealous Whig.” This particular copy belongs to Bucknell University and was first signed by Marchione in 1977. Courtesy of Lisa Ferrante Perrone.

Front free endpaper of Bucknell University’s copy of Philip Mazzei: Jefferson’s “Zealous Whig” showing Sister Margherita Marchione’s two signatures, one from 1977 and one from 2017. Courtesy of Lisa Ferrante Perrone.

 

Acknowledgements 

This project is dedicated to Michael Lettieri—my professor, my colleague, and my friend—whose mention of Carlo Bellini at the NeMLA conference in March 2014 prompted my visit to the archive in Florence in 2015 and my discovery of Mazzei’s 1812 letter to Thomas Jefferson. Also, I would like to give special thanks to the many people who helped me with this project throughout its various stages. Thank you to my supportive colleagues at Bucknell University: Bernhard Kuhn, Anna Paparcone, Marta Senigagliesi, Helen Morris-Keitel, Anneliese Pollock Renck, Ann Tlusty, Claire Campbell, Karline McClain, Michael Drexler, and John Penniman. Special thanks to Massimo Fino at Lim Antiqua in Lucca, Italy; to Hannah Spahn of the University of Potsdam, whose advice from afar has been invaluable; to Dr. Wendy Woloson of Rutgers University-Camden, my editor for this essay; and to Sister Margherita Marchione, for her wisdom and friendship. Lastly, I am especially grateful to the librarians at the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze (un caloroso ringraziamento alle dottoresse Carla Pinzauti, Susanna Pelle e Anna Maria Russo), who patiently helped me decipher Filippo Mazzei’s handwriting in June of 2015, almost 203 years after he wrote his letter. Without their assistance, his letter might very well still be slumbering in its dusty bed. 

 

Further reading: 

Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Philip Mazzei, Founders Online, National Archives.  

Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and David Bailie Warden, Founders Online, National Archives.

Margherita Marchione, Philip Mazzei: Jefferson’s “Zealous Whig” (New York, 1975). 

Margherita Marchione, Philip Mazzei: My Life and Wanderings (Morristown, 1980). 

Howard R. Marraro, “Unpublished Mazzei Letters to Jefferson,” The William and Mary Quarterly 2:1 (1945): 80. 

J. Worth Banner, “Genesis in Modern Languages,” South Atlantic Bulletin 17:1 (1951): 6. 

Dino Carpanetto and Giuseppe Ricuperati, Italy in the Age of Reason, 1685-1789 (New York, 1987). 

Desmond Gregory, Napoleon’s Italy (New Jersey, 2001). 

E. Joe Johnson, Once There Were Two True Friends: Idealized Male Friendship in French Narrative from the Middle Ages to through the Enlightenment (Birmingham, 2003). 

Carolyn Steedman, Dust: The Archive and Cultural History (New Brunswick, 2002).  

 

 

Translator’s note: Omitted closing brackets have been editorially supplied for clarity. Copies of the other documents which Mazzei references as included with this letter were not found. 

Pisa, 27 September 1812 

Most esteemed sir, and dearest friend,  

Much time has passed since I received your much appreciated letter of 9 July 1811; but the disgraceful circumstances of the times have not yet offered me a true occasion, when I could hope that my response could arrive to you. A friend of mine, who will leave in a few days for Paris, promises me that he will deliver this letter right into the hands of our Minister, and Mr. Appleton is encouraging about the possibility that you will surely receive this letter [canceled text: but nevertheless, I am sending a duplicate copy]. [I am sorry to hear that you are not happy with your physical strength; but since you have the courage to go riding, I am convinced that you could with your own legs walk at least one mile before lunch, and one before evening, in the flat countryside you have made around Monticello, which you might find more useful than six, or eight, done by horse. I will turn 82 this next 25 December; I wouldn’t have the courage to ride a horse; but I walk four, or five miles a day, and when I cannot go outside, because of bad weather, I walk at home on a terrace about 50 feet long, or in a hallway of the same length.] You had already informed me of the death of Mr. Wythe and of John Page, but I was ignoring the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Eppes, and of Walker, and of Mr. Hilton; news of these deaths moved me considerably, no longer for them, but for their good friends, since I regard the loss of friends as one of the greatest and saddest disgraces. I regard death with maximum indifference, and I would even desire it at this decrepit age, if I were to leave my widow and my child in a free country; but the current situation of things in this part of the world frightens me for them. [The news of the evils that afflict us must have arrived to you, and I am amongst those who suffer the most.] Leghorn, where I have most of my movable and immovable wealth, is decreasing in population more each day, and if a swift and unexpected solution does not come about, it will soon be a place of fishermen. A property that used to earn me 180 silver pieces, no longer earns me 80; as far as cash is concerned, I am no longer collecting interest and every day I relinquish failed properties. Although my lot in Richmond is not worth much, I ask that you sell it as soon as you can, and that you remit me the funds. I would ask that you do the same for the poor sisters of Bellini. 

As for my little family, my wife (following the painful consequences of childbirth, for which she suffered at great length) is now considerably well, and my daughter is doing wonderfully. She turned 14 on 22 July; she is tall for her age; her personality is pleasing to all; she learns languages easily; she embroiders passably well; her music teacher is happy with the progress that she is making in her study of the piano, as is her drawing teacher, who is very pleased, since she makes portraits and copies that look like them perfectly, and with surprising speed. 

Upon my return to Virginia, while you were in Boston getting ready to come to Europe, I proposed a Constitutional Society for the use that I hoped that you will see in the included copy of a letter that I wrote from Mansfield to Mr. Blair. They wanted to make me president, but I excused myself, and proposed Mr. Blair. I would love to know if something worthwhile came of it, or if it went up in smoke. I am also including the copy of another document that I made regarding boat navigation of the rivers of Virginia, of which I would also love to know what happened. + [Canceled text: and in the meantime I will tell you that the aforementioned document produced a note from Attorney Carmignani (and of this document I will also include a copy, because it inspired me to write my memoir). The aforementioned document on the navigation of our rivers was certainly translated (as far as I can tell) by Edmund Randolph]. I would like to know if it appeared in the papers, and also if this resulted in anything. But what is of even greater importance to me is to receive your good news, wishing you all possible happiness, confirming that I am  

Your most devoted servant, and friend 

 FM 

+ The person I left it with, who was Edmund Randolph, or Dr. [illegible] promised to have it translated, to examine it, correct it if needed, and publish it in the paper. I would love to know if this resulted in anything. In the meantime I will tell you that the Attorney G.C. [Giovanni Carmignani] a middle-aged man, lawyer of highest regard, extremely well-learned, and perfect philosopher, (having read my document) wrote me a note (of which you will find an included copy) and after (he pleaded with me so much, and he had others plead with me seriously (with whom it wasn’t befitting that I contradict)) that finally he inspired me to write my memoir, the story which ends with the narration of my trip to Rome in 1805, and of the shipment of the two sculptors that I sent to Mr. Latrobe. Thus I say: “After having obtained the happiness of those two wonderful families [which will be even greater for their descendants] and having been now and then able to see my friends in F. [Firenze], Prato, Pistoia, Lucca and Leghorn, it seems that I have been nothing more than a gardener, but if you think that something is missing, add it yourselves. I, however, believe that you will find much to take out. 

 

This article originally appeared in issue 18.2 (Spring, 2018).


Lisa Ferrante Perrone is assistant professor of Italian Studies at Bucknell University in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, where she teaches Italian language courses and a first-year seminar on the Italian American experience. Her research interests focus on second language pedagogy and Italian American Studies. She was recently awarded a short-term fellowship from the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies in Monticello to continue her study of the friendship between Filippo Mazzei and Thomas Jefferson. At the time this article went to press, she had recently returned from the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze. The archival reference sheet is now updated and cites Thomas Jefferson as the recipient of Mazzei’s 1812 letter.

 




The Relational Turn

Caroline Wigginton’s In the Neighborhood joins a new and vital wave of scholarship critically examining the affective ties that bound people together in the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British American world. In the 1990s and early 2000s, scholars of women sought to demonstrate the very real conflicts that marked the lives (and the bodies) of their early modern subjects. Although these divisions had been examined and traced by scholars in the papers and archives of early modern men since the 1960s, this group of pathbreaking scholars of women—such as Elaine Crane, Patricia Crawford, Laura Gowing, Jane Kamensky, and Jennifer Morgan—offered an essential counter-narrative in their own scholarship: seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British American women fought, slandered, and preyed upon one another. They policed each other, took each other to court, and screamed accusations at each other in the streets. They meted out punishments, physical and emotional. They enslaved other women. These actions were expected of them, as in this period women were imagined to be sharp-tongued, petty, and driven to gossip. Many women lived up to these terrible expectations. They lived in and were marked by a violent world, and in their violent actions sought autonomy, belonging, and survival.

 

Caroline Wigginton, In the Neighborhood: Women’s Publication in Early America. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. 232 pp., $85.

But in the past five to ten years, scholars of British America have offered a corrective to the image of an early modern world riven entirely by discord. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British America was a ferocious place, but it was also one in which powerful norms, laws, and dicta drove women and men to cooperate and live peaceably. How early modern people negotiated and reconciled the expectations that bound them together with the realities that drove them apart has been the subject of studies by authors such as Caleb Crain, Nicole Eustace, Cassandra Good, Naomi Tadmor, and Karin Wulf (as well as myself). These works focusing on an affective or relational seventeenth and eighteenth century resonate in some, although not all, ways with the new field of the history of emotion in their recognition that one of the many methods through which seventeenth- and eighteenth-century people sought social cohesion was via displays of positive feeling: expressions of love, professions of sister- and brotherhood, promises of concord and companionship. Caroline Wigginton’s book also participates in this broad scholarly conversation, as the author traces how women’s publications allowed them residence in early American neighborhoods, both real and imagined. These “relational publications” could help early American women to build consensus, senses of self, and ultimately, the author argues, an American republic (6).

In the Neighborhood offers a boldly argued and compelling alternative to the traditional narrative of the imagined communities of early America. Alongside the “certain men who fostered the nation through republican print,” Wigginton reveals the many different kinds of American women—including women of color, lower-status women, and dissenting or exiled women—who participated in the public dialogues that helped to constitute an American sense of national identity (1). Wigginton explodes open the definition of a publication, arguing that any communique that “makes public an expression of its author, invites a reading, submits itself to circulation” should be counted and considered alongside the elite, masculinized, formal writings that scholars of early America have chosen to represent the republican canon (5). Wigginton’s chapters are structured around breathtakingly and refreshingly different genres of publication. These include belts of black beads woven by Lenape women, funeral elegies written by former slaves, Quaker commonplace books, and diplomatic marches led and performed by Creek women: for Wigginton, all of these public expressions were publications, and all of them allowed women to shape early American community. The author’s evidence is rich and compelling, with seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sources from Savannah and Newport compared with those from New York and Philadelphia, although there is a particular focus on British colonial cultures and legacies rather than Dutch, French, Spanish, or Portuguese ones.

Throughout the book Wigginton works hard and well to offer careful attention to the many different kinds of neighborhoods that existed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and shows an admirable willingness to engage with and analyze relationships that would never have been understood as traditional “friendships” in the period—itself a limited category of relation allowed to only a limited kind or number of people. An especially good example of this occurs in chapter two, “Vexing Motherhood and Interracial Intimacy,” where Wigginton investigates the “asymmetrical and at times uncomfortable intimacy” between Sarah Osborn, a white slaveowner and schoolmistress, and Phillis, an enslaved woman who was the mother of a boy over whom Osborn claimed mastery (63). Sarah Osborn and Phillis socialized together, prayed together, and argued with one another, and Wigginton carefully pulls each singular, complex layer of their relationship back to demonstrate how the women each used this relationship for their own ends. Wigginton’s acknowledgement that difficult and unequal relationships could still create senses of neighborhood, and that all of these attachments—even ones rimmed in fury, despair, ambivalence, or jealousy—were critical American relations, is an important one. In our explorations of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century sociability, it is crucial to recognize the inherent strains between prescriptive expectation and practical experience, as well as the variety and complexity of relationships themselves.

Wigginton manages these deftly, but as In the Neighborhood focuses on publication—the ways in which British American women made themselves heard, albeit subtly, differently, or contrarily—I was left wondering about times when these women were forced into silence, and when their gorgeously complex, messy relationships allowed them to silence one another. In the introduction, Wigginton describes how in their letters, two “impoverished and marginalized” Narragansett women “enacted and denied affinities by insisting on particularity, thereby prefiguring autonomy” (15). It is worth thinking carefully about that interpretive jump between particularity and autonomy, particularly in regards to public speech, thought, and action. This was a society in which autonomy or individuality was often read as strangeness, and then brutally punished. It was a society that sought to stamp out distinction and self-determination by quickly and abruptly silencing anything foreign, alien, other. In the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century British diaspora, people who spoke or acted out had their writings banned or burned in public bonfires, were locked into solitary confinement in prisons, or were bored through the tongue with hot irons. People (and sometimes exclusively or especially women) were threatened or punished with the branks, the gag, and the scold’s bridle, and with being ducked underwater, deprived of breath and voice. Enslaved people were silenced in the most cruelly and horribly effective ways of all, as they faced physical tortures while also being systematically, deliberately, and unswervingly denied access to speech, selfhood, and education. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, people whose public speech or actions marked them as different were taught, told, and made to shut up right now, and many methods of punishment ensured that they stayed muzzled, sometimes permanently. Discord was a part of early American relationships, but discord could also be anonymizing, erasing self and voice and independence through very real punishment and pain.

In the Neighborhood does not seek to, nor should it necessarily have to, examine the dynamics of relational silencing in addition to those of relational publication. But as scholars continue to explore the relational turn, and to uncover and problematize the ties that stubbornly, vexingly bound together the women and men of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Atlantic world, we must grapple with just how sophisticated and intricate those relationships could be.  

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.2.5 (Winter, 2017).


Amanda E. Herbert is assistant director at the Folger Institute of the Folger Shakespeare Library, where she runs the Fellowships Program.   She earned her MA and PhD in history from the Johns Hopkins University, and completed her BA at the University of Washington. Her first book, Female Alliances: Gender, Identity, and Friendship in Early Modern Britain, was published by Yale University Press in 2014 and won the Best Book Award from the Society for the Study of Early Modern Women. You can follow her on Twitter @amandaeherbert.




A Nation Apart, Together

In the 1942 essay “Pacifism and War,” George Orwell wrote, “Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist . . . . If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help that of the other.” In his address to Congress in 2001, George W. Bush declared, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” And now, more recently, in our own presidential election, many suggested the illegitimacy of the “protest vote.” At critical junctures in American history, people who occupy the middle ground on controversial issues have been pressured to choose a side. Such an insistence has often edged out and persecuted those who refuse. And few have been so intent in their efforts to maintain their neutrality than the Society of Friends, as Sarah Crabtree explains in Holy Nation.

 

Sarah Crabtree, Holy Nation: The Transatlantic Quaker Ministry in an Age of Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015. 304 pp., $45.

Because of their insistence on pacifism, Quakers historically have been treated as suspicious, at best, or traitors, at worst. Most scholars have argued that Quakers responded to pressures to conform by retreating from politics altogether, but Crabtree convincingly contends that “[p]ublic Friends in particular remained extremely active” during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (215). Because Quakers could be neither with the nation nor against it without violating their principles, they framed themselves as citizens of a “holy nation,” united by faith, dedicated to the mission of establishing a “church militant upon earth” (2, 92).

In “Part 1: Combat 1754-1789,” Crabtree tracks the beginning of this imperative to the Seven Years’ War. During this period, public Friends called for the creation of “a new Zion”—a spiritual homeland—so that they might “maintain . . . cohesion . . . amidst the chaos of the world around them” (32). The biblical notion of Zion appealed to the Quakers because they, like the Jews, were forced to endure exile and oppression. And they, like the Jews, took solace in spiritual unity with fellow believers in the face of diaspora.

As the Zionist narrative allowed Quakers to maintain their principles during the Seven Years’ War, so it did during the American Revolution. Crabtree points to the Virginia exile crisis as a particularly trying time for Quakers, whom a falsified missive had implicated as spies. Friends throughout the colonies suffered for these accusations as Congress targeted them for requisitions and quartering to “ensure that they contributed one way or another” (45). But Crabtree contends that, since Quakers saw suffering as part of their faith, they maintained cohesion. Holy Nation is one of the very few (if not the only) book-length sources written in the twentieth or twenty-first centuries that addresses this crisis, which marked a crucial turning point in the war—not just for Quakers, but for anyone who voiced dissent—and Crabtree provides a fresh and insightful reading of this event.

Just what constituted “political engagement” could have used some clarification in Part 1. Although the Quaker Margaret Morris framed herself as a “mother in Israel” in her Revolutionary War journal, she also hid a loyalist informant in her house. And while Elizabeth Drinker—a key figure in the Virginia Exile Crisis—described herself as a member of the holy nation that Crabtree describes, she (and other Friends) negotiated with George Washington to set the exiles free. They were neither removed from nor above worldly politics, as Crabtree claims the Quakers were. In short, the line distinguishing the “holy nation” from the outside world was a bit murkier during the Revolution than is represented here.

“Part 2: Compromise, 1779-1809,” discusses how the Friends created walled garden schools to resist the “nationalist education project” (105). Quakers who attended public schools were taunted and harassed as “Tories,” and government-mandated curriculum insisted the children learn “principles of liberty and government” (103, 122). In an effort to protect the holy nation in the midst of these pressures to homogenize, Quakers created their own educational system that taught children to follow God’s law over national law. The theory that someone could “wall in” that which he wanted to protect and “wall out” that which he wanted to eschew did not hold. (Donald Trump, take note.)

In “Part 3: Concession, 1793-1826,” Crabtree explains that war-weary Quakers who could not endure another fifty years of persecution sought reconciliation through cosmopolitanism. Quakers stopped thinking of themselves as “wholly outside of the nation” and began forming coalitions with activist societies whose goals aligned with theirs (134, 145). Unfortunately, however, both America and France still viewed the Friends as inimical to their nationalist projects, and the Quakers’ “still small voice was drowned out by the nationalist cheers” (196). The Hicksite-Orthodox separation of 1827—which split the Society of Friends and rocked the core of Quaker ideology—sounded the death-knell for the Friends’ new Zion. Although they had lived for so long as “a nation apart, together,” they now had to “cast their lot with the worldly nations in which they lived” (2, 213).

Holy Nation is well written, well organized, and thoroughly researched. But more than that—it is also hopeful and, paradoxically, disconcerting. This book reminds us, after a very contentious election, that dissenters threaten polarized parties who wished to simplify complex political issues for their own gain. This dissent is essential, but always imperiled. The construction of the holy nation suggests that people will always find a way to voice that dissent, but its dissolution underscores how great the pressures were and continue to be to conform.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.2.5 (Winter, 2017).


Kacy Dowd Tillman is an associate professor of English and writing and associate director of the Honors Program at the University of Tampa. Her publications include “Women Left Behind: Female loyalism, coverture, and Grace Growden Galloway’s Empire of Self” in Women and the Formation of Empire (2015); “Paper Bodies: Letters and Letter-Writing in the Early American Novel” in Tulsa Studies of Women’s Literature (2016); and “Constructing Female Loyalism(s): Loyalist Women Writers of the American Revolution,” Loyalty and Revolution: Essays in Honor of Robert M. Calhoon (2017). She is working on her monograph, Stripped and Script: Loyalist Women Writers of the American Revolution.

 

 




Conjecturing Histories

What is a hemispheric region? We are accustomed to thinking of regional differences within the national borders of the United States, but how does region emerge if we think about associations across and throughout the American hemisphere? And what might surface if we rethink literary regionalism as a hemispheric cultural and imaginative construct rather than one confined by the national boundaries of the U.S.?

 

Gretchen J. Woertendyke, Hemispheric Regionalism: Romance and the Geography of Genre. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. 224 pp., $74.

In Hemispheric Regionalism: Romance and the Geography of Genre, Gretchen J. Woertendyke unsettles and unmoors our geographic conceptions, whether arranged by nation, region, continent, or hemisphere. Through her example, Woertendyke encourages us to re-draw our literary and spacial maps by tracing the networks and movements suggested by a particular archive. For Hemispheric Regionalism, Woertendyke has carved a region that extends the nineteenth-century borders of the United States to include Haiti and Cuba, part of the archipelago of islands, colonies, and nations in or along the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. This specific though fluid hemispheric region is meant to suggest other re-mappings of the local, national, hemispheric, and transnational, such as we have seen in Matthew Pratt Guterl’s American Mediterranean (2008) and more recently, in Monique Allewaert’s Ariel’s Ecology: Plantations, Personhood, and Colonialism in the American Tropics (2013), Raul Coronado’s A World Not to Come: A History of Latino Writing and Print Culture (2013), and Martha Schoolman’s Abolitionist Geographies (2014).

Ultimately, Woertendyke defines the phrase “hemispheric regionalism” as “multiple scales of geography and history in dynamic relation, rather than a static space” and “an alternative set of relations within the broader categories of nation and hemisphere” (3). Sometimes “hemispheric regionalism” signifies a space we might locate on a map, and sometimes, as Jennifer Greeson has said about the U.S. South, it is “a term of the imagination, a site of national fantasy.” We are confronted with an expansive, even fluid sense of “region” as conceptualized by and through literary representation. Throughout her book, Woertendyke engages concerns with aesthetic form and genre theory; with hemispheric, transatlantic, and oceanic literary paradigms; and with the construction of our literary canons.

Nuanced and wide-ranging, Woertendyke’s Hemispheric Regionalism also shifts critical focus from “novel and nation,” a pairing ingrained for scholars of the early United States at least since Cathy Davidson’s seminal Revolution and the Word (1988), to “romance and region.” Woertendyke directs her readers to longstanding debates about the development of prose fiction in the United States (152), debates that both precede and follow Davidson’s work. Hemispheric Regionalism alerts us to the ways in which a too singular focus on the novel has distorted U.S. literary history, as well as to the limits of pursuing a nation-centered literary history in lieu of a regional or Atlantic one. Its archive contains titles both familiar and those less so. While gothic, popular, and historical romances are central to her analysis, Woertendyke has also gathered fugitive slave narratives, periodical fiction, advertisements, political documents, and commentary. She mines the editorial work of Maturin M. Ballou. She reads the works of Gabriel Prosser, Nat Turner, and Denmark Vesey, the fiction of John Howison, William Gilmore Simms, and J.H. Ingraham as well as Walter Scott, Charles Brockden Brown, Washington Irving, Edgar Allan Poe, Herman Melville, and James Fenimore Cooper.

As this list suggests, Woertendyke contends with materials that have been understudied or overlooked and juxtaposes them with those more canonical. The result is, in part, an important contribution to scholarly conversations about the genres of the romance and the novel. Woertendyke revisits the commentary of writers like Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Henry James on the romance as a genre distinct from the novel, while reminding us of the various positions taken by Richard Chase, George Dekker, Ian Duncan, Leslie Fiedler, Northrop Frye, Catherine Gallagher, F.O. Matthiessen, and Ian Watt. In doing so, she substantially expands that conversation, insisting on the distinct contributions of the gothic, the popular, and the historical romance traditions. Fantastical, wildly imaginative, and sometimes improbable, the romance emerges as a versatile kind of “border fiction” in which extra-national regions became crucial in grappling with early national anxieties about shifting local and global alliances and geopolitical instability. Woertendyke follows Charles Brockden Brown in conceiving of the romance as “a speculative genre,” and in viewing romance as “an adaptive form of conjectural history” (13). That the capaciousness of the romance genre could and did accommodate revolutionary, reactionary, and assimilationist impulses suggests one explanation for its popularity and its persistence throughout the nineteenth century.

Woertendyke has organized her book in three parts, each with paired chapters: one section on the gothic romance and Haiti; a second on popular romance, Cuba and oceanic spaces; and the final one on historical romance and United States. Temporally, the sections overlap as chapters organized by specific genres and geographies layer within particular decades even as Woertendyke traces material that appears over the course of the long nineteenth century. Woertendyke’s organization and methodology thus resemble the sedimentation that Fredric Jameson ascribes to the genre of romance itself, in addressing its particular power to sense other historic rhythms, the ways in which romance reveals the “worldness of the world” (8).

In Part 1, “Specters of Haiti and the Gothic Romance,” Woertendyke claims an origin point for the New World gothic romance in the reports and accounts of slave uprising in Saint-Domingue and the ensuing establishment of Haiti, a dynamic that repeats with subsequent accounts of uprisings in the fugitive slave narratives of Gabriel Prosser, Denmark Vesey, and Nat Turner. In “Fugitive Slave Narratives and Atlantic Conspiracies,” Woertendyke elucidates how the spectacular violence of the Haitian Revolution brought latent fears of blackness to the surface, shaping the print archives of the conspiracies of Prosser, Vesey, and Turner, all of which deploy the language of terror and horror. These archives in turn, Woertendyke argues, help establish a link between slavery, blackness, and gothic romance throughout the United States. In the second chapter, “‘The Sea is History’: Apocalypse and the New World Romance,” Woertendyke traces the use of the sea as a metaphor for uncertainty, mobility, and the horrifying unknown by reading John Howison’s “The Florida Pirate” (1821) alongside Poe’s The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym (1838), and Melville’s Benito Cereno (1855), and tying the violence of slavery and revolution to an apocalyptic vision with either no resolution (Poe) or unfathomable annihilation (Melville).

The second part of the book, “The ‘Boulevard of the New World’ and the Work of Popular Romance,” posits Spanish America (or Cuba as a metonym for the continent) as the popular subject of romance, and locates the southern hemisphere both as an object of manifest destiny and as central to the generic development of U.S. romance. The first chapter of this section pairs Washington Irving’s biography of Christopher Columbus and Alexandre Olivier Exquemelin’s The Buccaneers of America. Woertendyke reads Irving and Exquemelin as writing romance-histories that grapple with the specter of Spanish imperial and colonial violence, and the tyranny associated with the Black Legend as they alternately domesticate the figure of Columbus as patriotic, and figure the “pirate” as an object of anxiety and desire. The way Irving and Exquemelin marshal and navigate through vast geographies, collapse and traverse historical time, and negotiate the conventions of romance fiction, romance history and travel accounts makes clear why they would prove such generative precursors for other long-form romances, but also for the periodical fiction Woertendyke examines next.

In the second chapter of this section, “Maturin M. Ballou, Periodical Romance, and the Editor Function,” Woertendyke locates the emergence of popular cheap fiction not in the dime novels of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but in the periodical fiction of the 1840s and in the company of other writing that explores the future of U.S.-Cuba relations. Reading news of hemispheric conditions and accounts of the racial, political, and cultural threats posed to the U.S. by its southern neighbors provided what Woertendyke calls “fertile ground” both for the “far-flung fantasies” of romance fiction and for readers to “conjecture about would-be political and social arrangements between the United States and Cuba” (98-99). This chapter offers scholars a list of periodicals and a sampling of the fiction they contain that is also near fertile ground and might potentially provide the basis to revise the literary history of short fiction.

In the final section, “Historical Romance and the New National Novel,” Woertendyke argues that U.S. writers find in the historical romances of Walter Scott a “language and a landscape with which to produce a fundamentally national literature” (122). Moreover, Woertendyke contends that U.S. historical romances she examines “consolidate hemispheric tensions into a coherent national vision” grounded in regionalism (17). Hemispheric spaces like Haiti and Cuba fall away in this section and instead the very geographic expansiveness of the Americas replaces the centuries of time that Scott collapses to great effect. Woertendyke understands the hemispheric energies of the Haitian Revolution in the gothic romance and of imperialist fascination with Cuba in the popular romance to be assimilated in the historical romance as the form becomes the vehicle of literary nationalism.

James Fenimore Cooper, J.H. Ingraham, and William Gilmore Simms followed Scott’s model in which regional materials and preoccupations synecdochically fuse the local to the national. In Ingraham and Simms’ hands romance becomes a vehicle through which the South could represent the nation’s history, present, and future. The translation from the Caribbean to the South, from Scotland to the United States is mediated by turning to Cooper, the “American Scott,” and to his sea fiction and its figurations of the pirate. In the alternate literary history Woertendyke lays out, the cowboy eventually supplants the pirate, as western expansion supplants southern expansion.

While remarking on the regionalist fiction of Sarah Orne Jewett and Charles Chesnutt and its investments in New England, the South, and the West, this chapter is provocatively silent on how writers like Catharine Maria Sedgwick, Lydia Maria Child, and Nathaniel Hawthorne may have similarly turned to the historical romance in order to situate New England as the space of the nation’s history, present, and future. The chapter is silent too on how Melville ranged over the entirety of the terraqueous earth in Moby-Dick and changed locations from the Mississippi to the Hudson, from Wall Street to the Galapagos in search of the imaginative spaces for his various tales. Given the critical attention that these writers and their texts have garnered, and given that the genealogy Woertendyke sketches ends in the aftermath of the Emancipation Proclamation—in a coda titled “Hyperbolic Regionalism, Confederate Nationalism, and the New Southern Frontier”—these silences are ultimately inconsequential to the argumentative arc of Hemispheric Regionalism. In effect, Woertendyke’s generative theorization of the romance genre’s use of time, history, and geography, as well as the interpolations of non-U.S. hemispheric spaces and figures in U.S. romances seems an irresistible invitation to rethink the historical romances that have attained more canonical status in a nationalist U.S. literary history, as well as an incitement to return to the archives with eyes newly opened to the possibilities of other imaginative geographies.

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.2.5 (Winter, 2017).


Martha Elena Rojas is an associate professor of U.S. literature and culture and the director of the Edmund S. and Nathalie Rumowicz Literature of the Sea seminar and lecture series in the English Department at the University of Rhode Island. She specializes in the early American literature of public documents and in oceanic literary narratives. She is co-editor of The Sea and Nineteenth-Century Anglophone Literary Culture (2017).




Poems

Large Stock

 

Law of Torment

after Jill Lepore

When military law would not apply
nor would the laws of war. Eye for an eye,

instead. Or more. Two eyes? Twenty for
one? Lawful captives taken in Just Warres,

we called enslaved Algonquians back in the day,
like that’s legit. We show up. Okay. Straight off we violate

Habeas Corpus, the law of nations, the rule
of law over war. Our exceptionalism means we, too,

can kill innocents, or citizens, like Al Qaeda when
a gleaming skyscraper became a tomb. We went

a little crazy with the torture techniques: the waterboard, Fear
Up Harsh and We Know All, stuff we picked up from SERE. SERE:

the training we gave our good guys
on withstanding anti-law-of-nations types

in Russian Korea. Commies. Bad guys, what they do
to force a false confession out of you.

 

Monticello Visit

“Black life is cheap, but in America black bodies are a natural resource of incomparable value.”
—Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me

We love our country, all its fathers, times.
Jefferson and his best friend’s shared grave
under a favorite oak: pretty gay. Which is fine
with us. We worried they’d gloss over the slaves—
not mention the math he did on their increase, how
that all worked out. But then we see the place
is so small, everyone there must have known.
Getting Sally Hemmings pregnant? More slaves.
Smart baby slaves, fresh-bred to look like you.
I ask a docent which slaves he picked to sell.
Did he keep his kids? He might have wanted to
but there wasn’t the money for it. Right; money. Ah, well.
What he did for his country. What we do for ours.
What we think family means. And what money’s for.

 

Satan’s Cupboard 

A morning with Athena,
the Boston Athenaeum’s on-line catalogue.

An afternoon with Mary, Assistant Reference Librarian. She points
out heads of the dead: hidden relief of Dante, hooded

Petrarch, dusty Shakespeare in the stairwell. On your right,
here’s Jesus Christ; on the left you’ve got your Satan. Christ:

huge with grace, forbearance, years across the hall
from Beelzebub. He’s looking down on us, says Mary, who should know.

I stoop, and see his placid brow is hairless. Lucifer’s
is out of bounds, unruly eyebrows of an old professor, cast out

by his wife. His line of sight is blocked by the King’s Chapel’s Library,
stately cupboard of books. Satan sneers, has always sneered,

at Keith’s Dispute with Quakers, Illustrations of More, Defences of More.
During the renovations, he saw less than ever: dim interior of crate. Forgive

his bitterness: the prince of the power of air’s now carved in marble. All
this knowledge hanging, ripe, just out of reach. His chin cleft or cloven, hair

corkscrewed, tumbling forth
like a fountain, like

Athena herself from the forehead of Zeus. Mary says that during renovations
the cupboard’s shelves were misplaced, lost

a long time. Where did they turn up? I ask. She intercedes, asks
Stanley. Satan, that old serpent, hid them under prints and portfolios,

under power of darkness. Untidy spirit, spiteful on the return
of the bookshelves, books that Satan looks at: More on Apocalypse, Sherlock 

on Death, Goodman on Sin. Lucifer, on his pedestal,
is tempered by these neighbors, through with acquisitions. He would kill

to be their editor. He could suggest a few changes, hopeful
new titles in the tradition of Fowler on Christian Liberty,

 Stillingfleet on the Separation,
Defence of Snake in the Grass.


Poetic Research Statement

I use research in and for my poems all the time. Sometimes the poems are just an excuse to do the reading and travel I dream up. You read Between the World and Me and want to take those ideas to Monticello? You want to make notes the first time you get a tour of the Boston Athenaeum so you don’t get lost? You want to read Jill Lepore’s article on the history of torture closely enough that you can teach it? You’re half way to a stack of poem drafts!

Sometimes research comes to the house, which saves time. The found text in “Law of Torment” arrived in my mailbox in a New Yorker. I started reading it in the steam room at my gym, then realized I was going to need those pages less soggy, and got out of there. When I started seeing rhyming couplets, I had the road map I needed to take it where I wanted to go.

“Monticello Visit,” the sonnet for Jefferson and his boyfriend buried together under the oak a short walk from Sally Hemmings’ cabin, comes out of my realization that Monticello is tiny, that everybody knew who was up to what with whom. It’s astounding how determined we have been not to know that the founding fathers, like so many other slaveowners, could be found prowling the quarters of enslaved people on any given evening. That it was OK to do it, just kind of tacky to bring it up. It’s like how surprised we all were when Trump won, or Beyoncé lost; it’s just too painful to remember what-all we already know about ourselves. So many chickens, so much roosting.

“Satan’s Cupboard” features Mary Warnement. She’s now the William D. Hacker Head of Reader Services at the Boston Athenaeum, and she’s been my friend since I won a Mary C. Mooney fellowship there in 2001. Now I bring Boston public high school students in to look at manuscripts by Boston residents over the centuries to get them inspired to write their own personal essays. And I bring in UMass Boston MFA students to look at engravings of, say, the ruins of Palmyra, to start them thinking on writing, say, anti-ISIS poems. But this poem is from the first tour Mary gave me of the Athenaeum, back when she was assistant reference librarian. Back in the day, another time, when I was worried I’d get kicked out for wearing sneakers.  

Stanley Ellis Cushing, the dapper Anne C. and David J. Bromer Curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts, makes an appearance in this poem, too. So does my habit of admiring books for their titles: The Complaining Millions of Men and My Cave Life in Vicksburg were recent spines I took photos of. Stumbling across those, doing any kind of research in person, letting yourself drift into lucky breaks instead of traveling down digital wormholes—it’s not as efficient, but holding real objects can help. My second book has a whole series of poems based on William Alcott’s 1847 anatomy book for children, The House I Live In, or The Human Body. Its front matter is engraved with a skeleton knocking at a door, announcing “I am fearfully and wonderfully made!” Who isn’t? Aren’t we all?

 

This article originally appeared in issue 17.2.5 (Winter, 2017).


Jill McDonough’s books of poems include Habeas Corpus (2008), Where You Live (2012), and Reaper (2017). The recipient of three Pushcart prizes and fellowships from the Lannan Foundation, NEA, NYPL, FAWC, and Stanford, her work appears in Slate, The Threepenny Review, and Best American Poetry. She teaches in the MFA program at the University of Massachusetts-Boston and directs 24PearlStreet, the Fine Arts Work Center online. Her fifth poetry collection, Here All Night, is forthcoming from Alice James Books.