In response to an article on this blog, "Why Was Brown Silent on the Conditions of Free Labor in the 19th Century?" (Oct. 31, 2022), another reader, Christian Chiakulus, has responded to Len Bussanich, who originally posed the question. Initially, Len wrote:
John Brown lived and worked in Springfield, MA. He must have known or heard about the conditions in the factories. I guess my question now is, why is there no examination of Brown's actions in the context of the industrializing North? Why would he-or the abolitionists-remain silent to the same oppressive conditions wracking the labor force in the North and not question, challenge or even confront the same capital dynamics that shaped the South as well as the North[?]
Last month, I noted that Christian, who is doing graduate work on John Brown, responded to Len quite insightfully, and rather than append his response to the original post, I thought it was worth presenting here. His response to Len is substantial and is reproduced completely as follows:
Thanks for these comments, this is a great discussion to have. Len, for what it's worth, Brown frequently did lament the state of "the poor" generally in America, not only that of slaves. In an 1855 letter from Ohio (so not a slave state), he wrote "I believe there is ten times the suffering amongst the poor in this State that ever existed before... Should God send famine, pestilence, and war upon this guilty hypocritical nation to destroy it, we need not be surprised."* Mr. DeCaro's point about Brown's agrarianism is the most pertinent, in my opinion; Brown seems to have been almost Jeffersonian in his lionization of agrarianism as the best way of life. He also didn't live to see the industrial revolution really take hold in the US, so while of course he would've been aware of factory conditions in New England, they had not yet reached the appalling heights of exploitation and prevalence that they would a few decades after his death. To add to LD's point about the racism among the white working class in the antebellum era, DuBois in Black Reconstruction outlines the extent to which the nascent socialist movement in the US capitulated to anti-black attitudes generally and even to the Slave Power itself to a degree. Socialist leaders here were well to the right of Marx and Engels on the issue.
John Brown and the Working Man (AI art)
While I also would love it if John Brown had come out strongly and openly against capitalism, I think he still did enough to earn the title of a hero to the working-class. His broad concern for the poor, advocacy for small wool growers, and Biblical belief in holding all property in common (see for example the Provisional Constitution) are solid evidence that, at least towards the end of the life, he was moving in that direction. [CK]
Christian's succinct and substantial response is appreciated.--LD
---------
9 comments:
Actually the industrial revolution was well under way during John Brown's lifetime, and its horrors were widely known. Workdays could be as long as 14 hours. There was child labor; for example, starting in the late 1700s, Samuel Slater of Rhode Island employed children as young as seven in his textile mill. The New-York Tribune ran its "Labor in New-York" expose in the 1840s. Orestes Brownson's "The Laboring Classes" was published in 1840. Rebecca Harding Davis's expose of the iron mills in Wheeling, [West] Virginia in her novella "Life in the Iron-Mills" appeared in 1861 in the Atlantic Monthly. (Comment by Tess Lloyd)
I sent a comment earlier, and I worry that it sounded abrupt and not kind. If you publish the comment, could I ask you to add this as the first two sentence? "Thank you for this thoughtful blog post. I would like to point out one thing, though." Thank you for allowing me to correct this. Tess Lloyd
Dear Tess, thank you for your input and insights. I would not have taken your initial remarks as either abrupt or unkind, but I don't know how to edit and insert them into comments, so I published both. Thank you for this information. --LD
Hi Christian,
My apologies for the delayed response. I disagree with your assertion that the industrial revolution had not yet taken hold. It certainly did in John Brown's lifetime and as the other commenter here, Tess Lloyd, references, the harsh exploitation of the industrial workforce was already in play. I'm currently reading Alan Taylor's, American Republics: A Continental History of the United States 1783-1850. He discusses the epic struggle between capital and labor in the 1820s and 1830s in the North, particularly in Massachusetts. Massachusetts was the leading industrial state, with its booming textile mills manufacturing cloth with Southern cotton. How could John Brown possibly overlook that connection? But my overall point really is not to simply critique John Brown. My critique and contention is that the abolitionist movement as a whole was essentially silent on the horrors of industrialization and industrial labor. Why? If plantation slavery was abhorrent-and it was-why didn't they have the same sentiments towards wage slavery and factory/textile working conditions? Industrial relations were clearly then taking hold in New England, which coincidentally is where the prominent abolitionists were located. The abolitionists were certainly not calling for the abolition and end of all exploited labor in the US, as underscored by their shameful silence of 14 hour work days in Northern, particularly Massachusetts, textile mills.
DId I just read -- in the blog that sent me here --that "Why would he-or the abolitionists-remain silent to the same oppressive conditions wracking"
In all respect, are you joking?
Do you not know anything about slavery? Rape, for example, was common, even at Lee's slave farm.
Torture was common, too -- slave women having their children sold, both as punishment as to terrorize, to control.
Frederick Douglass is one of the many -- the thousands -- of slaves who wrote -- or others wrote it for them -- what they saw. What they were forced to watch.
Frederick DOuglass for example was forced to watch the torture of this relative. Also he was forced to watch a slave owner torture -- and burn to death -- a young slave female. Of course there is that famous book you may have never heard of, "American Slavery As it IS, Testimony of a Thousand Witnesses.
Another important source to see the sadism by South leaders -- Robert E Lee, we now learn from his slave ledgers and other writings, tortured slaves -even small slave girls. Lee ordered the torture (torture is the right word) of a slave girl so small, the regular overseer refused to torture her. Why? Because she was so small. The man Lee usually used to torture slaves, refused!
Lee had her tortured anyway.
He not only had her tortured, he taunted her before her torture. He screamed at her during torture -- screaming at her. What did he scream? According to witnesses, he screamed "Hit her harder, hit her harder" but the vernacular of that torture at that time was "lay it on, lay it on"
Then Lee had her back --opened horrible wounds all over her back -- salted, for more pain. Lee defenders claimed that was for healing purposes. But witnesses at the time -- reported at the time -- said the salt was for more pain.
Lee was a sadist. He did not even have to have her chased -- supposedly he was anti- slavery. Actually Lee not only had slaves, he bought more, and he paid bounty hunters to capture free women -- see the term free women -- from the NORTH. That was common, by the way, where bounty hunters, eager to chase slaves down with dogs and whip -- eager to torture the slave for the amusement of the owner -- also were known to kidnap --illegally kidnap --any black person they could in DC and NY. Lee's slave ledgers show he did exactly this.
My name is Mark Curran. Everything I wrote above is not only revealed in sources AT THE TIME -- this is just the tip of the sadistic iceberg. Lee in that famous letter to his wife wrote that slaves MUST endure pain. And that same letter said slavery was a spiritual liberty. Also said those trying to end slavery could only use prayer, and said they were on "an evil course"
Given what Lee wrote in his slave ledgers, and his sexually explicit letters, and his torture of small slave girls, you might want to read Lee's letter again -- given what he did, who he tortured, and how he had them tortured, you might want to learn what slaves endured,
A guy name Abraham Lincoln knew what slaves endured -which is why, in his Oct 1856 Peoria speech, said slave owners deserve contempt, kicking and death.
That's not possible now -- but it's time you learned that paid labor at the time was not anything like slave labor. Even on the slave farm (you call it plantation) owned by Lee, slaves were terrorized and tortured -- and Lee then claims "the must endure painful discipline."
Watch how quickly this is comment is removed- - if it's ever allowed.
Hi Seeker,
Not sure why you would think your comment was going to be removed or even allowed. As to your point, I would hope that no one would argue that what exploited wage laborers experienced was equal to what enslaved people endured. But my sense is that the critic thinks that it was inconsistent for abolitionists to go all in over slavery and not have been mindful or opposed to the exploitation of free labor in the North. I'm not personally impressed with this criticism but it was given expression here. Certainly, John Brown was sympathetic and moved by injustice and he did not like unfairness, as he proved in opposing the abuses of wool growers by manufacturers. But this criticism, I think, under appreciates the weightiness of slavery in that era for abolitionists. After all, if your neighbor's house is on fire and his children are inside, you would not spend an equal amount of time helping another neighbor whose husband is abusive. You have to adjudge the weightiness of the crisis in context, which is what the abolitoinists generally did over slavery. They were all given to reforms, but why would they be as focused on exploited free labor when--as you observe--something as entirely ghastly and outrageous were flourishing and even trying to expand into other parts of the country. I just don't see why this criticism should carry so much weight. So I feel your outrage and your comments are published. Regards--LD
Len,
Sorry for replying so late to this. I didn't get notified about it and haven't come back to check in a while.
You and Tess are certainly correct that there were apalling factory conditions, child labor, and rampant exploitation of wage laborers in the US, and especially New England, during Brown's lifetime. However, they had not even begun to reach the heights that they would in the decades following the Civil War, which is why the American industrial revolution is generally considered by most historians to have begun around 1870.
Again--these conditions existed during Brown's life and he was aware of them, but the slavery question loomed much larger over American society and was, at the time, a more primary contradiction to be solved.
The abolitionist movement as a whole was, in general, politically aligned with petty-bourgeois business interests. There's a cliche that the Democratic and Republican parties "switched platforms" during the 1960s with the Southern Strategy, but it's not accurate. The Republican Party, which was formed largely by disaffected Whigs who wanted to make antislavery a core part of their platform, was largely comprised of northern capitalists and would-be yeomans who disliked slavery for a variety of reasons, but had a class interest in maintaining the free wage labor system. Many people who opposed slavery--for example, the Kansas Free Soilers--did so not out of moral or ethical considerations, but because they thought it was unfair competition with free (wage) labor.
Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier, the nascent labor movement in America either tiptoed around the slavery question or was outright chauvinistic.
This applies more to abolitionism as a movement rather than John Brown himself--Brown was in many respects at odds with the greater abolitionist movement. While in his younger years he was closer to the typical Republican of the 1850s (he was a business and land owner and believed in things like economic self-sufficiency and Jeffersonianism) by the end he had become pretty anti-capitalist (John Brown Jr. referred to himself and his father's beliefs as "socialist or communist" in a letter to the Haymarket martyrs) and contemptuous towards the abolitionist movement and the Republican Party (James Redpath said that he "despised" the Republicans).
I hope this info helps!
Hi Christian. Thank you for your compelling reply. I'm not sure if it's accurate to say the industrial revolution started in the US in 1870. Railroads and textile mills were already prevalent by the 1850s. The essence of the struggle between North and South leading up to the Civil War was industrial capital versus agrarian (plantation) capital. I agree with your take on the abolitionists. While I've been critical of John Brown, my overall critique is really aimed at the abolitionists. I just finished reading David Blight's Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory. He discusses Gerrit Smith-leading abolitionist and financial backer of Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry-as one of the four individuals who provided the bail funds of $100,000 to have Jefferson Davis released from federal custody. Incredible. A former abolitionist helping to grant freedom to the former executive of the slavocracy.
Hi Christian. Just wanted to add to my response though at this point I probably sound redundant. And in the case of John Brown, a man can only do so much. Anyway, last week I visited the Slater Mill in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Slater was the country’s first textile mill, built in 1790 and ignited the Industrial Revolution in the US, particularly in New England. Slater was the precursor to the Lowell mills built in the 1820s in Massachusetts. By the 1840s, female textile workers were already organizing for shorter working hours, safe working conditions and higher pay. And a chapter of the Workingmen’s Party had also emerged in the 1830s in Massachusetts. When the female textile workers started organizing in the 1840s, John Brown was in Springfield, MA. Notwithstanding the distance between Springfield and Lowell which was over 100 miles, Brown certainly must have known what was taking place in Lowell. Railroads were both conveyors of commerce and information. Did Brown really have to travel all the way to Kansas and eventually to Harper’s Ferry to fight oppression and exploitation when the horrors of industrialization and the oppression of the working class were beginning to take root closer to his home? I continue to find it fascinating that Brown and the leading abolitionists were mainly silent on the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few northern industrialists. I think Brown and the abolitionists-including Frederick Douglass-were silent because they believed industrial capitalism was far preferable to chattel slavery. Yes, conditions were not always rosy in the mills but still far better than conditions on the plantations. Workers could organize or leave if they wanted to and so therefore had more flexibility than the slave. I’m sure by the 1850s and the rise of the Republican Party, the free labor ideology must have been embraced by Brown and the abolitionists, which perhaps explains their willingness to accept the conditions of industrial capitalism in the textile mills of the North.
Post a Comment