by Barbara Rimkunas
This "Historically Speaking" column was published in the Exeter News-Letter on Friday, January 15, 2021.
In June of 1835, the newly formed New Hampshire Anti-Slavery Society met in Concord. Among the many resolutions passed was this: “Resolved, That this Society earnestly recommend to all its auxiliaries, to circulate, as soon as practicable, in their respective vicinities, petitions for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and forward the same to Congress, at the opening of the next session of that body.”
The issue of slavery, which even abolitionists had to admit was recognized as legal by the United States Constitution, had become a divisive, intractable, issue by the 1830s. It had not, as many had hoped, withered away due to economic forces. Even with the constitutionally dictated elimination of slave importation in 1808, the use of racially based enslavement continued unabated. In most of the north, the use of enslaved labor was uncommon – many states had outlawed the practice (although not New Hampshire). During the early decades of the republic, most northerners had a ‘live and let live’ attitude. There was a distaste for slavery, but if other people wanted it, so be it.
However, public opinion can and does change – sometimes quite swiftly. It can be difficult to get a fix on the views of Exeter’s population. It is notable that, of the 105 delegates to the first meeting of the New Hampshire Anti-Slavery Society, none were from Exeter. A year earlier, though, a letter-writer to the Exeter News-Letter had asked, “Are the columns of the News-Letter open for a discussion of the subject of slavery? If they are it would be gratifying to me to have the subject candidly discussed in them…it is a system which holds more than one sixth of our whole population in a bondage the most servile – which considers rational and immortal beings as articles of traffic – vendible commodities – merchantable property – which recognizes no social obligations – no natural relations – which tears without mercy the infant from the mother, the wife from the husband, the parent from the child, and excludes from them the means of education. But I feel myself inadequate to describe a system so horrible so detestable. Which is the most effectual remedy for slavery in this country, African Colonization, or immediate emancipation? In order to act correctly we need information on this important cause.” It was a plea for discussion. John Gerrish, the editor of the News-Letter, although more than willing to devote weekly column space to the similarly divisive issue of temperance, was not having it. “As at present advised,” he responded, “we doubt the expediency of opening the columns of the News-Letter to a protracted discussion on this subject. We believe the people of New England are universally convinced of the evils of slavery; and, to the great misfortune of the citizens of the South, the circulation of the News-Letter is pretty much confined to the Northern States.” Best not to stir up any trouble, he implied.
Avoiding the issue, unfortunately, became impossible. Early abolitionists were, in the words of Exeter’s Dr. William Perry, “abusive of all who did not agree with them.” He recalls, “I can remember the bitter feeling which existed against the principal leaders and speakers.” But that’s what it takes sometimes – unrelenting pressure on an issue. In the collections of the Exeter Historical Society, there are three petitions addressed to congress. “The undersigned, women of Exeter, New Hampshire, believing that slavery is a sin, and therefore ‘a reproach to any people,’ especially the free, enlightened and liberal government of which your honorable body form a part; and being grieved at its existence in the capital of our beloved country, the District over which you have exclusive jurisdiction, do unite our fervent, importunate petitions with the thousands already presented, that you would immediately abolish Slavery in the District of Columbia, that henceforth, whoever breathes its air or touches its soil may be free.” Over 130 women signed the petitions. If the petitions made their way to Washington, they would have been included in the epic stand-off then taking place in Congress.
When the petition drive began, in 1834, there was a power play between the north and south. Congress was rife with violence – fistfights, canings, duels, and weapons were common on the floor. Northerners, who favored a non-physical approach, often faced political blow back from voters at home when they confronted their more bombastic colleagues from the southern states. To deal with the petitions, Congress imposed a gag rule – all petitions or letters regarding slavery were immediately tabled. Historian Joanne Freeman, in her recent book The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War, has this to say, “The imposition of gag rules galvanized the North by attacking their fundamental rights of petition, representation, and free speech, and highlighting the degree to which a tyrannical Slave Power held the reins of power in Washington. Northerners responded by demanding that their congressmen fight for their rights, though with words and votes rather than fists and weapons.” The gag rule was in place from 1836 through 1844. Abolitionist congressmen kept the pressure on. Each session would include an attempt to read the petitions – often by John Quincy Adams, a man not known to back down. The attempts to silence the issue by bullying and calls for appeasement did not prove successful. It did not calm tempers or bring the congress together. “Eventually,” says Freeman, “even the rule’s staunchest supporters saw its failings. Instead of stifling dangerous talk, gag rules inspired it, causing dissension on the floor, drastically increasing the number of antislavery petitions, and rousing the Northern public to demand their rights of representation, petition, and free speech, and to elect congressmen who shared their convictions.” The issue of slavery was not solved smoothly in the United States – and we still suffer from its legacy of injustice. Before justice, there must be accountability.
Barbara Rimkunas is curator of the Exeter Historical Society. Support the Exeter Historical Society by becoming a member! Join online at: www.exeterhistory.org.