In my latest story, I have a modern day African-American teacher travelling back to the Civil War era and she decides that she wants to give African-American education some more support so African-Americans can have more of a substantial political presence after the Civil War. But, how much of a difference could my modern teacher really make? I'm trying to research African-American schooling before and during the Civil War, but there's not much information. My idea for the teacher is that she creates a network of schools that is based in Washington DC and she aligns with prominent education activists like Susan B Anthony and Robert Purdue. I know African-American schools were not a new invention, but would the idea of a larger network of African-American schools make any obvious changes? Also, I have the teacher using modern days like book fairs to raise money for black schools, but how would a network like this be set up, funded, etc? If you're wondering, my story spans from the beginning to the middle point of the Civil War, so one of the conflicts is that Lincoln won't support the network to avoid annoying Unionists.
Fun stuff! The National Archives is a great resource. Also, my middle school (in DC) was one of the first schools for black students and my teacher there (who passed away a few years ago) was the first black English teacher there. In doing research in to my own family history, I found the school my great great grandfather went to (also in DC). I'm sure I can go back even further. I want to look in to this and i'll get back to you with what I find.
(also, a search term for you to use is "Freedmen's schools"... thats what the schools would be called)
Black education did have the backing of the Freedmen's Bureau who did create networks of black schools. While there were politically motivated setbacks, education was not lacking. they were very successful in educating the black community. your character's presence alone wouldnt be contributing to much in terms of a "savior" figure to lead them to education.... Your teacher would have modern insight and advanced knowledge. this could be both good and bad. good in the sense that she is making the black community far more advanced for the time. bad in the sense that the white population would not want this and would target her. Either threaten or assault her into backing down, or just outright make her disappear. National Park Services gives a list of Freedmen's schools and brief history. they also have an article on teachers in black schools during reconstruction Many teachers were white females from missionaries. Certified black teachers would have had to go to an accredited college, which were segregated. Thus the rise of HBCUs where black professionals could get educated and certified. (ref. Wikipedia) "While many teachers in the Reconstruction South were white Northerners, it is essential to recognize that both Northern and Southern Black people also made up a significant number of those who taught newly emancipated children and adults. Harriet Smith, for example, was a formerly enslaved African American woman in Texas who taught freedpeople and eventually became the principal of her own school." (please see full article about Harriet Smith, via Smithsonian.... this also links to the Freedmen’s Bureau records collection on African American Teachers) Additional articles: ...many White Texans were violently opposed to the education of Black Texans. Most White Texans desired to keep Blacks as close to their formerly enslaved status as possible; therefore, they fiercely resisted any actions that would potentially elevate Blacks to a competitive social, political, and economic status. Black education was viewed as a significant threat to the status quo and their ideal vision of a white supremacist racial hierarchy. (regarding Freedmen's schools in Texas via "Preserving a Community’s Legacy: The History of The Gregory School" from the National Archives) Black people generally were prevented from receiving a formal education. In many places it was illegal even to teach a Black person to read and write, although such laws often were not enforced—and many Black people became literate. During the Civil War, northern missionaries and Black teachers established schools in Union-occupied territories. After Appomattox, freedpeople—adults and children alike—flocked to newly founded schools. (Virginia Museum of History and Culture) Most of the Southern states, before the Civil War, made it illegal to teach a slave to read and write. Now, some African Americans did learn to read and write secretly. Some... their master or mistress actually taught them to read and write. But the vast majority had had no access to education at all....One of the ways that African Americans first begin to get access to education is in schools created by the army during the Civil War. Black soldiers get education through the army. The contrabands -- that is, runaway slaves who are now living in camps or other areas protected by the army... The Freedmen's Bureau puts money into creating schools. But most of the schools that spring up are actually created by blacks themselves. They pool their resources -- which are very meager at this time -- to hire a teacher, to find a building, to build a building, to use an abandoned building -- to create schools. And at these schools, everybody is going. It's not just schoolchildren. Adults, elderly people are seeking education. (Schools and Education During Reconstruction, PBS) Newspaper clipping highlighting the view/climate of educating ex-slaves and black community: (newspaper clipping from 1870 about how African Americans have been perceived in regards to education) (Daily Ohio statesman, January 11, 1866, Library of Congress) (key take away: "I would therefore advise those in possession of young negroes, to give them an education suitable for a rational being; learning them to read and write, which will qualify them for benefits; give them the privileges of reading the scriptures and other history, and then, I doubt not, but they would devote their leisure hours in search of useful knowledge, which, for want of such education, are employed in actions destructive to their morals. i am fully of the opinion, where such an education to be given to the young Negroes, and they to be set at liberty, from 21 to 25 years of age, that the legistlative bodies, from principles of found policy, might enact laws to maintain such as through the common accidents in life might be rendered unable to support themselves, as already provided for the poor" "The Massachusetts spy", February 27, 1772, Library of Congress) All of these would provide a backdrop for your teacher in regards to the climate of education. The fears and supports surrounding black education, and setbacks.
Thanks for all the information. I suppose I should shift my story firmly into the Reconstruction era then?
No prob. And thats up to you. Educucating black people pre civil war and during was done unofficially and secretly. If you have your teacher teaching in that eraasa free woman, she'd have to deal with a lot, including slave catchers (who kidnapped free black people and sold them as slaves). Even if she did teach at one of the schools in Union Territory with the army, it would still be rough because of white soldiers who didnt agree with it. But, i think it would make for a great story. Tons of tension. Maybe in your alt history, she helps start the Freedmens Bureau?
This is a great story plot. What if the modern teacher also ends up with a old-time Black Panther group protecting her? I mean, that would be interesting. Because she might want to make her students feel capable of defending themselves, etc. Could lead interesting places.
Hmm ... just wondering. I don't know much about slavery in the US; I know much more about slavery in the ancient world, so I hope my questions will be taken in the spirit they're asked, i.e. pure enquiry. I've no political or other axe to grind; I'm simply curious. So here goes. 1. Were there any US slave-owners who were genuinely interested in helping their slaves, e.g. by educating them and helping them find skilled work? (I don't mean working in the fields or in mines, which was probably the lot of most slaves. I mean work as scribes (what we would call "admin work") or accountancy). I'm asking because I've done my research about slavery in Roman times, when conditions for most slaves were similarly brutal; but a few slaves, who were smart, skilled and lucky (or all of the above) were prized by their owners, given admin/accounting work, and eventually freed. So, I'm wondering if that happened in the US too. 2. What did slaves themselves think of being slaves? Were there any of them who were so weary and tired that they actually refused to be freed, because they were so scared of the prospect of freedom? This may sound incredible to us, but being free can be scary. At least slavery meant protection from the outside world, a place to sleep, something to eat. Being free meant having to make do without those certainties, plus the possibility of being harassed by the KKK (or worse). In one of the stories I wrote, my protagonist (who starts out as a slave in ancient times) suffers from this. Although he's a slave, he is highly prized and given skilled work to do, a comfortable place to sleep and three meals a day. So he's scared of being free, and without his master's protection. *nod* It takes him a long time to understand that although freedom is scary, it's worth fighting for. That may be interesting, but the big question is: did such a thing exist? The Underground Railroad is probably the most famous; even I have heard of it, as well as the justly famous Harriet Tubman. But the Black Panthers was a revolutionary organization with an ideology of Black nationalism, socialism, and armed self-defense, particularly against police brutality. If a 19th-century equivalent existed, its ideology would probably include armed self-defense, but probably not Black nationalism (which would've been unrealistic in the 1860s-70s) or socialism (which, as a concept, had its origins in the Age of Enlightenment and the 1789 French Revolution). I'm not sure freed slaves would've heard of socialism or have been particularly interested in it; they'd have been more interested in immediate needs, like shelter and food, and avoiding the KKK and similar bodies. Does that sound plausible?
The poet, Phyllis Wheatley, was a slave woman and considered the first African American poet. Her owners taught her to read and write. The recognized she had a way with words and continued her education. Also, the article i shared from the 1700s urged owners toneducate their slaves. There were many educated slaves. But, educating your slaves was illegal and frowned upon. So even if they did educate their slaves, having them work in administrated roles would not fly. Yes. The National Archives Library of Congress has a document called Slave Narratives. After emancipation, a group went around interviewing former slaves and compiling all the interviews into a book. I read a few of the interviews. One woman, after she was freed, didnt have a home or education or anything. They basically gave her money and turned her loose. She said she just wandered around. And she was young so the first thing she wanted was candy. But she didnt know how to count money, so she blew all her money on candy (was cheated out of her money) and had nothing. She said the only thing she knew was how to work and the only home she ever had was at her masters house. So she went back to them and begged them to take her back again. This is how many former slaves ended back up as unofficial slaves, and added fuel to the argument of "they LIKE slavery' and "they LIKE to work' Its not that they liked it and refused to be free... its because that life was all they ever knew. Dependency. Some of the interviews, former slaves moved north in mass migrations (im pretty sure my great great grandpa was one of those migrants because i tracked him to one of the stops the migrants made on their way up to like New England. He stopped and stayed in North Carolina, presumable because he met my Great Great grandma where she lived on a slave compound). Black Panthers were also big on educating the black community. They had a free lunch program (breakfast) for kids and tutors to help at after school programs. They wanted to keep black kids off the streets and away from police brutality. More on the BPP and Education. (Typed on phone, so i cant share links just yet) (Edited to add links)
Socialism hadn't made much impact in the US, but it wasn't unheard of in abolitionist circles. The black educator Peter H Clark, who founded Ohio's first public school for black students, was a socialist. It's also worth noting that there were a lot of German emigres who were escaping the failed 1848 revolution and became militant abolitionists in the USA. Many of them were militant socialists. One of them, August Willich, became the USA's first (and only?) communist general. Willich at one time collaborated with Peter H Clark and other abolitionist activists so it's not hard to imagine radical ideas circulating. As far as black nationalism, again it's a nascent idea but the example of Haiti, where black slaves overthrew white slaveholders and established their own republic, was certainly known in the US (and absolutely terrifying to the planter class). Generally, it's by immediate needs, and not high-minded rhetoric, that socialism has gained a foothold anywhere. It's not, "wow, those people have good ideas" but "hey, these people are helping us defend ourselves, get fed, better working conditions, etc." As JT Woody pointed out above, the Black Panther Party was very much focused on immediate practical programs .
I'm sorry if this sounds naive, but: why? I mean, I'm white - but so what? If a person can do the work, the colour of their skin (white or black, olive or whatever) shouldn't matter. Of course I understand racism back then was rampant, far more so than today. But not letting people (much less children) learn how to read and write -- sorry, I can't express adequately how wrong that is. (I just read the wikipedia entry on Margaret Douglass, and I am appalled). Don't forget Nat Turner's Rebellion. *nod*
it wasnt about doing the work. it was about control. the more educated the individual, the more dangerous they were. Black Americans’ literacy also threatened a major justification of slavery—that Black people were “less than human, permanently illiterate and dumb,” Lusane says. “That gets disproven when African Americans were educated, and undermines the logic of the system.” (History Channel, "How Literacy Became a Powerful Weapon in the Fight to End Slavery") You mentioned Nat Turner... Nat Turner was who slavers used as an example of a bad educated slave, because he could read the Bible and understood how flawed slave logic was, and rebelled against it. After him, laws passed that it was illegal: 4. Be it further enacted, That all meetings of free negroes or mulattoes, at any school-house, church, meeting-house or other place for teaching them reading or writing, either in the day or night, under whatsoever pretext, shall be deemed and considered as an unlawful assembly; and any justice of the county or corporation, wherein such assemblage shall be, either from his own knowledge, or on the information of others, of such unlawful assemblage or meeting, shall issue his warrant, directed to any sworn officer or officers, authorising him or them, to enter the house or houses where such unlawful assemblage or meeting may be, for the purpose of apprehending or dispersing such free negroes or mulattoes, and to inflict corporal punishment on the offender or offenders, at the discretion of any justice of the peace, not exceeding twenty lashes. 5. Be it further enacted, That if any white person or persons assemble with free negroes or mulattoes, at any school-house, church, meeting-house, or other place for the purpose of instructing such free negroes or mulattoes to read or write, such person or persons shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding fifty dollars, and moreover may be imprisoned at the discretion of a jury, not exceeding two months. 6. Be it further enacted, That if any white person, for pay or compensation, shall assemble with any slaves for the purpose of teaching, and shall teach any slave to read or write, such person, or any white person or persons contracting with such teacher so to act, who shall offend as aforesaid, shall, for each offence, be fined at the discretion of a jury, in a sum not less than ten, nor exceeding one hundred dollars, to be recovered on an information or indictment. (Acts passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1831))(for more on this, search the term "Anti-Literacy Laws") Do you think an educated person wouldn't fight back against their oppressor's? Slaves didnt do the work for fun or for money. Black slaves werent indentured, either, so no amount of work could earn their freedom. if they could read and write and aspired for greater things than being owned, why continue to be a slave?
It should also be noted that Abraham Lincoln himself was at least a Marxist sympathizer and that Marx even wrote him a letter, whether or not he saw it is debated by historians. If socialism wasn't popular among African-Americans, it was popular among people who wanted their freedom. Very interesting.
As I recall Lincoln had read and liked some pro-Union and pro-Lincoln articles Marx had published, but it would be a big stretch to call him a Marxist sympathizer. I doubt he had much familiarity with the details of Marx's thinking. I don't think Lincoln had any intention for opposing wage labor or anything like that- if I had to guess, I think Lincoln would have seen someone like Marx as a benign extremist whose heart was in the right place, but whose ideas had to be carefully filtered and moderated by more prudent actors. I think from Marx's perspective Lincoln and the US republicans were bourgeois revolutionaries- that is, real revolutionaries and worthy of support, but as laying the needed groundwork for the more complete socialist revolution. That said, at that point in history the line between radical republicanism/ liberalism and socialism was much blurrier than it is today, and a good number of people calling themselves republicans held views that would be recognized as socialist.
Hmm ... Marx published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, and Das Kapital only saw the light of day in 1867, fully two years after Lincoln's death. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia, The Communist Manifesto wasn't published in the United States until 1871. So I'm not sure how Lincoln would have been exposed to Marx's thinking, other than an article or two (and I don't know which articles he read). So, calling him a Marxist sympathizer sounds like retro-fitting a famous historical figure to the Marxist cause; we might as well claim that Napoléon III was an ardent Democrat. *shrug*
