"Abolitionist Wendell Phillips spoke on behalf of fugitive slave Thomas Sims, and against the Fugitive Slave Law in 1851. Sims was later returned to Savannah where he was publicly whipped."
Sunday, April 11, 2010
"When Boston Awoke": The deportation of Thomas Sims
In April 1851, the authorities of the City of Boston took escaped slave Thomas Sims from his freedom in Boston to a ship headed back South. The Boston Globe has a terrific article that Sasha found. Please click here for the article. Comments are required by April 16.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I found this article to be full of contradictions. Bostonian's claimed to be anti-slavery yet they didn't really try to get Sims freed. They just watched as he was shipped off to the south, someone even had the audacity to tell him to "preach liberty..". this astounded me because after everyone had done nothing they still expected Sims to tell slaves about the freedom they could have if they ran away from their masters.
As the article progressed I noticed how the deportation of Sims created a cloud of shame over Boston, that they felt the need to rid themselves of. This cloud angered people in Boston and gave them the push to elect strong anti-slavery leaders, help many escaped slaves to freedom, and declare the fugitive slave act unconstitutional. While what happened to Sims was a terrible misfortune, it seems to have spurred the abolition movement in Boston.
I found that this article romanticized and exploited the event of Sims’s capture and forced return to the south. The article did a wonderful job of recounting the tale, of capturing the tragedy of the event, small as it is in Boston’s history, and exploring every woeful little crevice, from the frustrated abolitionist’s point of view. I agree with Kip that this article had a few bemusing contradictions about it. The one I couldn’t help noticing the most was the way the article expressed feelings of shame over the capture of Sims straight from the beginning, even before the reader had been able to establish the setting. The writer is clearly visible behind the writing, as are their views of this event, which is portrayed like a march to the gallows in slow motion. The article gives off one particular feeling, as if Boston is made of a only a few people who all share the same view of the matter, instead of it being a city made of all people belonging to different social classes and of different opinions. Only one small, dismissive sentence in the entire article deigns to mention the opposition in Boston to abolitionism. Also, we must remember how far north Boston is, how very white it is. The people may have not actually been fully aware of what slavery was like, how blacks were treated, until the Fugitive Slave Act became law and people could no longer turn their head the other way as people suffered a few hundred miles south. If anything, it was this Law that galvanized the abolitionist movement because it forced the entire nation to participate in slavery. Books like Uncle Tom’s Cabin and other accounts like it are what exposed people to the cruelty of the institution. Sims story is tragic and poignant in its own right, however it is one of many and cannot alone claim responsibility for the abolitionist movement in Boston, which is what this article insinuates several times towards the end.
First off, this is a very interesting story, but wouldn't you think that there were many more like it? Was this Sims guy the only one to have a "heroic" return to slavery? The Sims
case seems to be one of extreme importance to the changing opinions of northern abolitionists. The article makes the case out to be THE reason why many Boston abolitionists became so radical, or even abolitionists in the first place. If the Sims case was of the importance the article makes it out to be, then why have we not seen it in any of our textbooks? On another note, the fugitive slave clause had been an initial part of the Constitution but lacked power of enforcement. When it was strengthened in the Compromise of 1850, I was surprised (that because California became a free state, and free state's became a majority), that it was not quickly repealed, as it clearly was pro-slavery. The meeting of the abolitionists who closed their windows and kept their meeting secretive also reminded me of the Sons of Liberty through what they fought for and how they did so. Two more questions to finish it off if anyone would like to answer them. First, although it seemed obvious that some sort of minor rebellion might occur, was the amount of force that was shown as Sims got onto the boat needed? And, did the jumping out of a window onto a mattress idea really exist?
I actually saw this article in the Sunday paper, but never had a chance to read it (funny how that worked out). After reading it, I really liked this article, since it gave us a piece of Boston history that usually goes unnoticed. Though many abolitionists complained about the Fugitive Slave Law and wanted to help Sims, they never did anything about it, despite Boston's history of resistance to unfair laws (Boston Tea Party). This made me think of Henry David Thoreau's "On Civil Disobedience", which said that it is the duty of the people to break unjust laws, and if the Fugitive Slave Law wasn't unjust, I don't know what is. It was only after Sims was sent back to the South and punished did the city start actively fighting for abolition, which explains the articles title, "When Boston Awoke". Also Uncle Tom's Cabin was published the year after Sim's capture, which also gained northern support for abolition. The part of the article that really struck me was the quote “They seek in a monarchy asylum from the injustice and cruelty of a republic.” From this quote I got the impression that people were ashamed of events like Sims' capture, which explains why it is relatively unknown.
In my opinion these stories did happen all the time like, Jake said, but I believe that this was different from other stories. Although we never read this in our textbooks, I do believe that this had a lasting impact than others. From what I read in the article, this was one of the events that really got people in Boston to fight for this topic. Boston had a history for rebelling to big events like the Tea Party but no one expected that in Boston people would react to such an extent to seeing a slave being sent back South and now with such a strong reaction, it was just what they needed to start anti-slavery movements to a greater extent. I was talking to my sister about slavery and how the North did not do all it could to help the matter and she gave me an answer that I think helps explain the lack of enforcing these rules. She told me that the North (anti-slavery), did not do as much as they could because they cared more about the country as a whole and that they had to be unified than some slaves. They knew that if slavery were to come to a stop the South were to rebel and the North did not want that. The white leaders would rather want a strong country than have blacks free and a weak country. After this event, the citizens knew slavery was a cruel thing and this was the spark they needed to start the fire but it was not until much later when they took even greater steps to finally ending slavery.
I feel in general when people are unsure of how to react to something they seem to go with what is popular rather than what they believe is truly the right thing. I think that this story is a classic case of people waiting for something to happen but not having the guts to stand up for it themselves.
"Higginson wrote, passiveness, inertia, even timidity, prevailed.."
You can see cases like this in almost every social situation. Even in high school, I feel that kids know right from wrong but fail to act on it because they do not want to stick out in the eyes of others or rebel against what is "popular"...
-by Katherine
As previously mentioned, this article at first, is a reminiscent tale of what happened to many Northern Slaves affected by the Fugitive Slave Law. However, Sims's tale shows a different aspect of the Fugitive Slave Law as the reactions to what was happening is also delved into a little deeper than from prior studies we've had.
Sims story was interesting to me because it showed the reactions of the grief stricken people of Boston after the event. A lesson was learned and when they absorbed that lesson, they would reshape America. The article does a good job of analyzing how the Thomas Sims case became "the stuff of legend" and changed the slavery debate heavily in the North. The Slavery debate suddenly became a more crucial topic and abolitionists became the forefront of the national campaign against slavery.
Abolitionism was really kicked into high gear after the Thomas Sims case. I overall took from the article the idea that actions always have reactions, and the effects of such reactions forever change history.
I think this event might have been one of many that happened, but it was still influential. I think that many little events like this added up and caused the north to become more active in opposing slavery. According to the article, people before this would oppose slavery by writing or talking about it, but wouldn't protest or do anything to stop the unfair Fugitive Slave laws which made them help support slavery by sending former slaves back to their owners. After this event, they started to do things to help slaves using underground railroad and other escape routes. The Massachusetts legislature elected Charles Sumner, who opposed slavery, to the senate. Books like Uncle Tom's Cabin and other things were written about the topic and influenced many people. This event might not have been the most important case, but it helped the north to realize that it needs to do something more than what they were doing before to put a stop to slavery.
The part of this story that really stuck out to me is the moment when the soldiers were taking Sims away and the abolitionists were shouting things at them, rather than doing anything that could have really made an impact for Sims and others in his situation. Even though this incident "awoke Boston", to me this very moment shows how little these comfortable, isolated abolitionists really understood of the plight of slavery. Almost (although not quite) worse than just standing by as Sims was hauled off, they humiliated him by yelling things both at him and the soldiers. How could they expect him to "preach liberty to the slaves" when they didn't even believe what they themselves were preaching strongly enough to act on it.
On the other hand, I find it heartening that this tragedy opened the eyes of the people of Boston and finally forced them from their dormant state into action. I do think, as several people before me have mentioned, that there are certainly things left out of this story, because it does not seem possible that this was the first or last story of its kind.
To me, the only truly surprising aspect of this story was the great lack of protest by the citizens of Boston. What, in the end, overtook them, was fear. The idea of fear, whether it be fear from the eyes of a slave or fear from the eyes of an abolitionist, sets a tone for this era. While many events similar to this most likely occurred, what appears to have separated this one out from other instances is that it eliminated fear, or rather set fear aside for protest, which is the ideal protester, i.e., one who is not afraid. I think the reason this fear was eliminated was the proximity of such an event to the supposed Northern Massachusetts persona. As Sims himself had said: "'And this is Massachusetts Liberty'". After all, one never fully thinks of something as bad until it happens to them.
This incident actually reminds me of something that happened in our class's english book. I'll try not to give anything away in case people haven't gotten that far yet, but I will talk vaguely about it. In the book (One flew over the Cuckoo's nest) one of the characters were made quite uncomfortable by a group of sailors, and while this was happening the other characters did absolutely nothing to help her, just like with this occurence. However, after this cast a "cloud of shame" (as kip said) over everybody, since they did nothing during the incident, pent up emotions were finally released and acted upon, and the characters almost wished for it to happen again so that they could stand against it. Though Boston didn't want something like sims's story to happen ever again, just like in the book the "cloud of shame" acted as a catalyst that finally made everybody confidant enough to rebell- after it was over. I also found it interesting that this was the second time where this harbor staged a rebellion against oppression (1st being the Boston tea party)
i will start off by saying i actually really liked reading this article.(usually i hate reading them) i felt like this article was quite accurate and showed how things were really like back then. and i got the idea that something like happening was not so rare, and that it happened more then we think. also this article had a lot of history in it it talked about key things like the fugitive act, the compromise
the idea that boston was against slavery yet didn't quite do anything about it was a general thing that happened. massachusetts knew it was bad, but never did anything about it because individuals didn't quite want to take the risk of having anything happen to them if they rebelled to haveing the slave return back to georgia because it wasn't a matter that personally affected them. but to see how it affected the state as a whole changed the way people thought about things.
First, I must agree with some Jake that there must be other stories like this one. But it was still a very interesting article to read. Two things about this article really shocked me. One, that the Boston police accepted the Fugitive Slave Law and attempted to send back the slaves they captured. This is because, like the article said, I always think of Boston as an Anti-Slavery city as a whole. The second thing that shocked me is that this event occurred one year after the Fugitive Slave Law was passed. I thought that the people of Boston would have pushed against the law sooner. It was not until after they heard of Sims torture (after his return) that the abolitionist and Massachusetts Senate acted against the law. I believe the reason this story is not well known is because people do not like to admit they did something wrong. Boston did not want to people to know that they accepted such an immoral law.
As I was reading this article I found my view of it changing the farther I read. At first it appeared to be very one sided. I felt as though it was saying that this single event was what caused Boston's abolitionists to really start their efforts. I believe both that the strong anti-slavery idea's of Boston started from more complex and long standing social and economic reasons, and that if this deportation actually started the abolitionists’ major movement, then it would be much more well known. That being said, as I read on, I felt as though I understood the author’s point (or at least my interpretation of it). By the time the last line rolled around it seamed as though they were suggesting that the deportation of Sims sparked not Bostonian ideas, feelings, or people, but instead sparked action. Before this Boston's abolitionists really only had to provide ideas and support, not actions like John Brown did. Seeing this sudden decision put before them, Boston's abolitionists didn’t know what to do as they had never really had to disobey a law or rebel in regards to slavery before. While they didn't stand up and take action for Thomas Sims, his deportation and the shame it caused them, showed Bostonians that it was necessary to both have the ideas and to perform the actions to support those ideas.
The Sims case proves that even though abolitionists made loud and romantic speeches about freedom in reality most of them were not prepared to act in order to prevent slavery. The way the public reacted during Sim's return to his "owner" shows that they were scared to go against the government and the majority. As much as the event is disappointing, there were some good outcomes from the case, like the fact that it opened people's eyes and made them see that most of their abolitionist movement was ineffective. After this, many new abolitionist movements emerged that not only made speeches, but acted in order to stop slavery. One of the things that I really do not understand is when they refer to "radical abolitionism". How can defending basic human rights be considered radical? It sounds like people who are devoted to ending it are asking for something too much. I do not think that the people who were considered radical abolitionists back then would be classified the same way now.
Interesting observations, everyone. I appreciate the reality check that many of you have provided over the "outrage" of the citizens of Boston showed after the fact but we were a bit....slow...to react to things earlier. Maybe this is bad history or maybe this shows the power of witnessing an incident or reading a book at the right time at the right place.
Comments are closed.
Post a Comment