0
What else can I help you with?
What success did William garrison have in promoting reform?
William Lloyd Garrison was a pivotal figure in the abolitionist movement, best known for founding the anti-slavery newspaper "The Liberator" in 1831, which galvanized public opinion against slavery. His unwavering commitment to immediate emancipation and his use of moral suasion helped elevate the national discourse on slavery, influencing both public sentiment and political action. Garrison's activism also inspired a generation of reformers, contributing to the eventual passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. His efforts laid the groundwork for future civil rights advancements.
How is Nat Turner like William Garrison and how is he different?
Nat Turner and William Lloyd Garrison both played significant roles in the fight against slavery, but they approached the issue in fundamentally different ways. Turner is known for leading a violent slave rebellion in 1831, believing that radical action was necessary for liberation, while Garrison advocated for nonviolent resistance and published "The Liberator," a newspaper promoting immediate emancipation through moral persuasion. Both sought to challenge the institution of slavery, but Turner’s approach was one of insurrection, while Garrison emphasized moral suasion and political activism. Ultimately, their differing strategies reflect the broader debate within the abolitionist movement regarding the means of achieving freedom for enslaved people.
What did Lincoln think of Robert E. Lee?
Lee's own words tell the complete story, "...slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." His love and feeling however for "olde Virginia" rook precedence. Keep in mind that was offered command of all Union forces before he chose to align himself with the Southern Cause.Another AnswerThe analysis above is hardly complete, but it is a frequent - and dishonest - answer peddled by Neoconfederate apologists. The quote is genuine but surgically excised from the surrounding text in order to reverse Lee's plain opinion. In order to understand Lee's true feelings about slavery, we ought to look at the whole letter. We can rely on the letter as an accurate insight into Lee's views because it is a personal letter to his wife and not intended for the eyes of the public, so it is unlikely that Lee was moderating his views for outsiders.In short, Lee, like most southerners, thought that slavery was ordained by God. He felt that as a Christian, it was his duty to support the institution even if the institution had bad (evil) effects on white culture. He believed that abolitionists were working contrary to God's will and it was they who were evil.His complete letter is below. (1) Lee begins by concurring with the President's condemnation of abolitionist agitation. (2) He argues that the abolitionists are wrongly interfering with the domestic institutions of the South (read: slavery). He predicts that interference with slavery will lead to civil war (as it did). (3) He writes the lines about the evil of slavery so often taken out of context. (4) He then clarifies what that evil is: inconvenience to white people. He argues that slavery is good for blacks! Their "painful discipline" is "necessary." (5) Slavery may end in time, but only when God's will is fulfilled a thousand or more years in the future. (6) God will end slavery in time, but abolitionists who are working to speed up that far future date are working against God's will. God is angry with the abolitionists, but the abolitionist is likely to continue of his "evil course." (7) The abolitionists' religiously based anti-Christian attitude is in conflict with the South's religiously-based attitude.Robert E. Lee to Mary Custis Lee, December 27, 1856:(1) The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived.(2) The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war.(3) In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.(4) It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.(5) How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist!(6) While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course.(7) Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?More DetailPart of the Lee marble man myth is that he didn't own slaves. He did. In 1857, Lee inherited 63 slaves from his father-in-law. By the letter of the law these slaves were the property of Lee's wife, Mary. However, in those days the husband largely controlled his wife's property and de facto a wife'e property was the husband's.Lee's father-in-law's will specified that he and his wife must free the inherited slaves within five years of the father-in-law's death. While neoconfederates love to point out that Lee emancipated his slaves, they conveniently ignore that he emancipated them about a month after he was legally required to do so by the terms of the will.Between the time Lee and his wife inherited the slaves and their legally required emancipation, one slave reported that Lee had him and his sister brutally beaten. Here is an account in his own words:"My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to "lay it on well,��? an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee's agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement. "Even after the war Lee's views lagged well behind the times. He testified before Congress that freed slaves should not be allowed to vote:"My own opinion is that, at this time, they cannot vote intelligently, and that giving them the right of suffrage would open the door to a great deal of demagogism, and lead to embarrassments in various ways. What the future may prove, how intelligent they may become, with what eyes they may look upon the interests of the state in which they may reside, I cannot say more than you can."Lee also went on record that he wanted freed slaves deported from Virginia, and he answered yes when asled whether he thought Virginia's future would be "absolutely injured" and "impaired by the presence of the black population there?"______________________________________________________________Regrettable everything you said except for the accusations of a former slave by the name of Wesley Norris are true. It is well recognized that his particular recount was and is false; however at the same time it is just as accepted that he (Lee) did have slaves disciplined which again in these times could have been a physical action. I was fascinated by your fixation that Lee was an evil person because he owned slaves. So did the almost the entire group of founding fathers, prominent Northerners, Kings and Queens, New York being the second largest group of slaves and slave owners it was a different time, it did not make them bad. It made them rich, much like the big businesses of today whose workers are increasely compared to slaves.You made this statement again sound like he was because of this idea bad. "Lee also went on record that he wanted freed slaves deported from Virginia, and he answered yes when asled whether he thought Virginia's future would be "absolutely injured" and "impaired by the presence of the black population there?". That is again true but you failed to mention Lee got this idea from Lincoln and the Union Congress which had not seceded:Abe Lincoln-"If all earthly power were given me," said Lincoln in a speech delivered in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16, 1854, "I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land." After acknowledging that this plan's "sudden execution is impossible," he asked whether freed blacks should be made "politically and socially our equals?" "My own feelings will not admit of this," he said, "and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not ... We can not, then, make them equals."If we are to tell the truth let's tell all the truth!
How successful was the temperance movement?
It could be eather way. yes and no. YES-the women and business companies used propaganda and moral suasion (attempting to persuade) to address the problem. When this happened the consumption of liquor extremely reduced for some time. NO- after the temperance movement was passed, people started getting angry about they cant be told what they can and cant do, so the drinking started again and liquor consumption increased again. NOTE_ the temperance movement was an effort to encourage moderation in the consumption of intoxicated liquor..but it wasn't a law yet..after the nation saw it worked they passed the law of the temperance movement and thats when men started "rebeling" and started drinking again.
How was moral suasion by abolitionists as an argument against slavery?
abolitionists argued that slavery was morally wrong
How was moral suasion by abolitionists as as argument against slavery?
abolitionists argued that slavery was morally wrong
How was moral suasion used by abolitionists as am argument against slavery?
Abolitionists used moral suasion to appeal to the conscience of individuals and society, arguing that slavery was morally wrong and inhumane. They believed that by highlighting the moral implications of slavery, they could persuade people to reject it and support its abolition. Through speeches, writings, and activism, abolitionists aimed to foster a moral awakening and a sense of responsibility to end the institution of slavery.
How was moral suasion used by the abolitionists as an argument against slavery?
Abolitionists argued that slavery was morally wrong.
What was the moral suasion used by abolitionists as an argument against slavery?
Abolitionists used moral suasion to argue that slavery violated fundamental human rights and principles of morality, justice, and equality. They emphasized the immorality of treating human beings as property, appealing to the conscience and moral sensibilities of individuals to advocate for the abolition of slavery. This approach aimed to change societal attitudes and beliefs about the institution of slavery.
How was moral suasion used by abolitionists as an agruement against slavery?
Abolitionists used moral suasion to appeal to the conscience of individuals, arguing that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished. They sought to change public opinion through speeches, pamphlets, and petitions, emphasizing the immorality and injustice of slavery and calling for its immediate end. This approach aimed to generate empathy and understanding among people, leading to a shift in societal norms and ultimately contributing to the abolition of slavery.
Who established to use moral suasion against slavery?
William Lloyd Garrison is known for establishing the use of moral suasion against slavery as the editor of the abolitionist newspaper "The Liberator." He believed in using strong moral arguments to persuade people to change their views on slavery, rather than resorting to violent means.
What did abolitionist wanted for the slaves?
The abolitionist movement reached its peak between 1830 and 1860. During this period, abolitionists, those who "insisted slavery undermined the freedom, righteousness, order, and prosperity of all society" (McInerney, 8) sought to identify, denounce and abolish this cruel institution using their rights of free speech and free press. With free press and free speech "abolitionists depicted slavery as raw, aggressive power carrying in it's wake the seeds of political, social, economic, and moral dislocation" (McInerney, 18). In other words, the evils of slavery were expressed by abolitionists in an attempt to convince American society that slavery was not only morally wrong, but it also went against the goal of the republic, which was liberty and equality for all. At least initially, abolitionists relied on moral suasion to persuade individual slaveholders to free their slaves rather than on the coercive power of government. In the mid-1830s, abolitionist societies attempted to flood the South with antislavery propaganda, sent through the mails, only to be blunted by southern state laws and local pressure that forced southern postmasters to destroy these materials rather than distribute them. Abolitionists also insisted that blacks were the equals of whites, that racism also required instant extirpation, and that freed slaves must be incorporated into American society as white's social and political equals.
What is moral suasion?
Moral Suasion: Unofficial pressure on banks; pressure release, letters, etc.
What success did William garrison have in promoting reform?
William Lloyd Garrison was a pivotal figure in the abolitionist movement, best known for founding the anti-slavery newspaper "The Liberator" in 1831, which galvanized public opinion against slavery. His unwavering commitment to immediate emancipation and his use of moral suasion helped elevate the national discourse on slavery, influencing both public sentiment and political action. Garrison's activism also inspired a generation of reformers, contributing to the eventual passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States. His efforts laid the groundwork for future civil rights advancements.
How did what was William Lloyd garrisons greatest contribution to the cause of abolition?
William Lloyd Garrison's greatest contribution to the abolitionist cause was his role as the founder and editor of "The Liberator," an influential anti-slavery newspaper that began publication in 1831. Through his passionate writing and advocacy, he galvanized public opinion against slavery and called for immediate emancipation. Garrison's uncompromising stance and the promotion of moral suasion helped to mobilize the abolitionist movement, inspiring countless individuals to join the fight for freedom and justice. His efforts also laid the groundwork for subsequent civil rights advancements in the United States.
Was moral suasion sufficient to end slavery?
If it had been, we would not have had the US Civil War. Even those Southerners who accepted the immorality of slavery could not end the practice, although some freed their own slaves. The large numbers of "unpaid" laborers to the Southern economy were irreplaceable, or so it seemed. Although slaves were expensive to care for, they could not easily leave their owners, and most of their children were born slaves. This meant that they were a reliable source of physical labor in the agricultural South.
