Frederick Douglass was correct in saying that women had a large role to play in the abolitionist movement. The anti-slavery movement also influenced the feminist movement by showing women that major change could be won, and also by giving women a template on how to make that change for themselves. Women of the abolitionist movement actually ended up leading the first real feminist movement in America.

Women made up almost half of the members of all anti-slavery organizations. Many men in these organizations tried to keep the women to secondary roles. These men didn’t want the women to be able to serve on the committees, vote, or speak publicly. Women caused the movement to split in two. The Liberty Party was the more conservative of the two, not wanting women to have much of a role in their cause. William Lloyd Garrison started the other group which was appalled at the treatment women were receiving from the Liberty party. Interestingly Garrison was also in favor of women’s rights. (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, Soderlund, 285)

Independent women’s abolitionist societies also began to form in response to the men suppressing their role. Women began circulating pamphlets against slavery and more and more women began speaking to groups against the institution. Women of the movement also were more radical than the men calling for immediate, not gradual abolition of slavery. Black women were able to offer a unique perspective since many had been slaves at some point. Autobiographies of these former slaves were promoted in support of slavery abolition.

One instance that shows the importance of women in the abolitionist movement was that of the Grimke sisters. Angelina and Sarah Grimke had firsthand knowledge of the issues of slavery having grown up around it. They were the first female anti-slavery speakers. These two women in particular had credibility where few others did because they had seen what slavery was doing to black people with their own eyes. (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, Soderlund, 284)

What initially sparked the women’s rights movement was an anti-slavery convention in London in 1840. Women were segregated to a separate seating area, much like black people were. Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott were two of the woman delegates at the convention. Their experience at the convention convinced them that they should start a movement in America for women’s rights. Though it took quite a while for them to put it together, they finally planned a convention at Seneca Falls. The premise behind both movements is that women spoke up. Women such as Harriet Tubman and Ellen Craft put together pamphlets, were quoted in newspapers, started petitions, and spoke to anyone who would listen to them. Some of these same women involved with the anti-slavery movement actually wrote a document similar to the Declaration of Independence. This document stated that women wanted the right to vote and that women should be equal to men in all aspects. (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, Soderlund, 311,312,313)

Not all women believed in the suffrage movement though. Many southern women saw no reason to fight for equal rights as they focused on manipulating the important men they had connections to. They also saw the connection between women’s suffrage and the anti-slavery movement, and being southerners wanted no part in the abolition of slavery. These women focused on other things such as orphanages and shelters for the poor. (Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, Soderlund, 313)

The abolitionist movement and the women’s rights movement were inseparably linked as several male abolitionists actually supported women’s rights. Both movements were fighting for the same ideals, and both also required many of the same tactics. Women were outspoken in many different ways on both issues, and the abolitionist movement gave women the template and motivation to fight for their own rights as human beings.

Ayers, Edward L. Gould, Lewis L. Oshinsky, David M. and Soderlund, Jean R. American Passages: A History of the United States Fourth Edition. Boston, MA.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 2010

This was considered a very controversial law! This stirred up many beliefs in the population of the United States because this law made it possible to restrain run-away slaves that ran away to the North. The South deeply loved this law because now they had control over their runaway slaves knowing they would be returned if they decided to flee their master. People like Charles Sumner and Benjamin Wade were infuriated by this regulation. This also angered the North, because that put them in a position which made them, in a way, ALL slave states. This wasn’t fair because now the runaway slaves that lived in the North either had to escape to Canada or they would be captured by law enforcement. Even though if a slave had papers that he was freed, there were mobs that wanted to earn money, so they captured these former slaves and sold them back into bondage. A suspected black slave could not ask for a jury trial nor testify on his or her behalf. Any person aiding a runaway slave by providing shelter, food or any other form of assistance was liable to six months’ imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Frederick Douglass and William Garrison led a fight against this ruling. This made Northerners support the Underground Railroad even more, which started a stronger separation of the North and South and led a step further to a war.

The US judiciary, to some experts of law, is made to make money and not to provide justice to the people who come to this institution for seeking help. The attorneys directly or indirectly “fear” judges and judicial system. They have to fear the judiciary because the system provides easy extortion to both, the attorney and the judge. The words like “Settlements”, ”Compromise” actually denote to the corruption in this system.

One of the major reasons of judicial corruption is involvement in politics. Though the judiciary implements the rules which the politicians pass, yet the judiciary in United States debunked this myth after the adventure by the legal realist movement and a lot have been written, theoretical as well as empirical  which demonstrate the politics ruining this system.

Sometimes the judges threat the prosecutors to withdraw their cases so that they could give the judgment (of innocence) to the opposition party. Another corruption is cited when parents, who have never committed any crime, are criminalized and children are taken away. This official and judicial bias and discrimination while treating specific classes of parents could be based on gender, race, nationality, and financial disposition. These judges and officials actually violate their own court orders.

There are so many reports, especially the Human Rights Commission and Transparency International, where the corruptions of the judges and officials have been identified. Some of the judges and officials are deliberately involved in multitude criminal activities. These violations take place “under the color of law”.

In US, numerous children are ‘kidnapped’ by the State courts while the conspirators are prosecutors  and higher state judiciaries. The child is given to one of the parents, surprisingly most of the times to females, just because these culprits want to collect extortion concessions and incentive in the form of money which actually is in billions annually from the voluntarily defrauded and connive federal government.

The media in US does know about the flaws of our judicial system but either due to the threat, fear or any other economical factor keep it “shut the mouth”. But as Frederick Douglass (1817-1895) once said,” The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppose”.

I realized the other day that if we lived 40, 60, or even 100 years ago this would be drastically different.  That’s not to say that all parents then were good parents, but their children tended to turn out quite differently as adults than do ours today.  What’s the difference and what can we do about it?  Let’s go back in time a bit and take our children with us.

I’m sure many of you have seen the post that goes around and around on many of the social networking sites that mentions growing up drinking from the water hose, having only three channels on the television and having to get off your rump to change them, swimming in creeks, and so on.  I’ve clicked my “like” button on many of these and posted a few myself.  What about going back there with our kids?  Would that change the morals and values they are growing up with?  Of course it would. 

And, if we go back further than that, we come to a time where there was no television, only a radio if a family could afford one.  And, instead of watching shows, the family came together around the radio once or twice a week and listened to a program together.  Life was often hard back then, but not necessarily more difficult than now.  Perhaps it was merely hard in different ways.  Frederick Douglass said, “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.”  I believe that remains as true today as when he first thought it.  Society as a whole was less angry then due to the fact that information was not available at the click of a button.  Families heard the news as it came in slowly, and it wasn’t so skewed by people trying to get ratings as it is these days.  They went to church on Sunday and it was the social event of the week.  Dads and Grandpas read the Bible to the whole family as everyone sat around together and even the little ones paid attention.  Often the Bible was the only book a family had in their home and it was cherished.  Extended family and neighbors were important and valued in that people were really there for one another rather than generally ‘too busy’.  I’m not saying everything was perfect back then, far from it.  However, there were several things that were definitely better for our children than what we’re giving them today.

Children were able to be children.  Parents then didn’t share all their worries and burdens with their kids.  Those were adult matters, and taken care of by the adults.  Expectations were set high for children then.  They worked hard, but played harder, and it was good for them.  They used their imaginations more, and didn’t dream of demanding things like the newest commercial toy from their parents.  Wow, I just used the word demanding.  It’s true, though, we have a generation of children growing up in America today that literally demands things from their parents.  Worse yet, parents are giving into these demands.  How very sad is that for them?  The reality is that as adults if they go around demanding what they want, they will be incredibly disappointed.  One must work for the things they want and need out of life.

“If a child finds no stimuli for the activities which would contribute to his development, he is attracted simply to ‘things’ and desires to possess them.”
-Maria Montessori

Families got up together in the morning, ate meals together, did chores together, and played together after the work was done.  How many of us today don’t get up early at all, or even at the same time everyday with our families?  How many of us don’t sit down to meals with our children?  How many of us play before we work, and even believe that we deserve to do so?  If children learn what they live, what are they learning from all of this? 

I have adult children and am raising two of my grandchildren aged 2 and 5.  I’ve made my share of mistakes as a parent, but as all parents do, I’m learning as I go.  There are a few concepts that are relatively new in our society that, quite simply, make me cringe. 

First, how is it that everyone should respect everyone else?  I have been fighting this inane idea since my kids were very small.  I taught them that they should treat people respectfully, but true respect must be earned or deserved.  They should, for example, not respect someone who harms them. 

Secondly, when did it become not only a parent’s responsibility, but that of teachers, coaches, and so on, to make sure that every child grows up with a perfect sense of self esteem.  Children are not born with an innate sense of self esteem.  Again, respect is earned and esteem no less so.  It’s become almost taboo in our society to tell a child no.  It won’t hurt them a bit to do so, and may even go so far as saving a life.  I recently saw an article about a woman who didn’t want her 14 month old baby to hear the word no because it would be bad for him.  She said she left him alone in the bathtub because he wanted to be alone, while she checked her Facebook account  What is the likelihood that at only 14 months old this boy had the decision making capability to insist that he be left alone in the tub?  She found the poor baby dead in the bathtub after chatting with some friends and playing Farmville for a while.  This is obviously an extreme example of the damage not saying no to a child can do, nevertheless children of all ages must have our supervision and our discipline.  Had this woman said no, or simply stayed with her son instead of focusing on her wants, he would be alive and would still have a chance to develop some self esteem.

If a child fails at something, it is beneficial for them to accept that failure, learn from it, and move on.  If a child hurts someone or bullies them, they ought to accept responsibility for this and make amends.  Conversely, if a child does a good job at a chore, hits a home run, accomplishes reading an entire book for the first time or any other positive thing, then it is good for them to receive an appropriate amount of praise.  Not only that, but the reality is that self esteem comes from working hard and dealing with the outcome appropriately regardless of whether that outcome is positive or negative.  When we constantly tell our children that they are good no matter what they do, we are letting them down.  The real world and society just don’t work that way.  In fact, I believe that so many people end up in jail because they didn’t learn at a young age that if they don’t follow rules they will be removed from society.  Is it really a huge leap from not following rules while growing up to committing crimes and not following the law as an adult?

Finally, we as parents do have a responsibility to teach our children right from wrong.  We must instill values and morals in them.  If we do not, who will?  As a Christian, I do my best to use the Bible as my guide in doing so.  We have a responsibility to teach our children to work hard and that the work they do is a path to self respect and self esteem.  We need to let them make mistakes, and to suffer the consequences of those mistakes.  We wrong them when we buffer them from the natural consequences both good and bad of what they do or fail to do in life.  While we all want happiness for our children, it’s all right from the time they are very small, to let them be sad or angry when things don’t go their way.  It’s ok as well to be sad, happy, melancholy, joyful, and even angry along with them.  Again, if children learn what they live, then seeing us deal with emotions appropriately would benefit them by showing them how to deal with their own.

Most importantly, we as parents have responsibility to our children period.  We need to turn off the TV, turn off the computer, shut off our phones, open our hearts and our Bibles, and be parents.  We need to work with them, learn with them, play with them, and pray with them.  I’ve heard and said, “I need more hours in my day.”  The truth is that I have plenty of hours, I just fill them up with too much junk.  So, let’s declutter our lives.  Let’s get rid of the junk that takes up our time and keeps us so busy and away from our families and children.  Then, we can begin to reverse some of the damage to our youth, families, communities, and society that has been done over the past few generations.  Perhaps we can raise a generation of children who will truly be upstanding, contributing members of society.  In fact, if that were to happen, society as a whole would begin to change.  Wouldn’t it?  I’m doing my best to take my children back in time, and I hope that this will touch many of you and you’ll consider taking the same journey.

As always, I look forward to hearing your opinions, thoughts, and feelings about what I’ve written here.  And, I’ll do my best to respond to any and all comments.

This year’s theme is “African Americans and the Civil War”, conceived with the aim to pay tribute to the efforts of people of African descent to put an end to slavery and achieve a truly universal freedom in the country. Started by Carter G. Woodson and observed every February throughout the United States, the marking of this month is intended to pay homage to the generations of African Americans who struggled with an adverse society to achieve full citizenship.

The origins

According to the American Library of Congress, Woodson’s wish to raise awareness of African American’s contributions to civilization led to the foundation of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and History (ASNLH), which announced Negro History Week in 1925. The date was chosen in connection to the birthdays of both Abraham Lincoln and black abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

Image via Wikipedia 

Although the first Negro History Week celebrated in 1926 triggered an overwhelming response, African American citizens continued to be deprived of their rights for many years. In his memorable speech in 1968, Martin Luther King denounced the situation that African Americans were undergoing, finding themselves as exiles in their own land. “The life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity”, he said. 

That day, his dream would become a legendary concept and a powerful metaphor to describe the Black community in the U.S. “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood”, he said. But his was not only a message of hope and faith in human understanding: it was a claim for the north-American nation to live up to its ideas. 

In the early 1970s, the Negro History Week was rechristened as Black History Week, and in 1976 the celebration was expanded to the full month of February. Since then, every February the U.S. honors its African American citizens by proclaiming the Black History Month.  

Last year, as the first African American president in the history of the U.S Barack Obama proclaimed the beginning of the celebration, he acknowlegded that there are still many barriers to overcome when it comes to racism and social discrimination. “Racial prejudice is no longer the steepest barrier to opportunity for most African Americans, yet substantial obstacles remain in the remnants of past discrimination.  Structural inequalities -from disparities in education and health care to the vicious cycle of poverty- still pose enormous hurdles for black communities across America”, he said.

Image via Wikipedia

Celebrations

Some websites and organizations are already showcasing the activities planned to mark the occasion. The Courier Post Online showcases a series of events throughout the month, such as art exhibits, panel discussions, film showcases and concerts. Other websites, such as Kaboose, offer different crafts, materials and tools for teachers to integrate Black History day into he class.  

The Washington Post recommends three children’s books to entertain and, at the same time, teach children a little about black Americans and their experiences in the country: A Nation’s Hope, by Matt de la Pena; Zora and Me, by Victoria Bond and T.R. Simon; and Freedom Stone, by Jeffrey Kluger.

Did you like this article? Find more on my home page: http://www.triond.com/users/Valentinaprimo

If you think you could be a writer and would like to earn money by writing stories, articles, poems or blogs then click here: http://www.triond.com/rw/453549

            The absolute most downplayed aspect of a America’s history was the way we handled meeting the Native Americans, of who we were guests in the New World.  Of course this has never been a deterrent to the seemingly innate imperialistic tendencies that men of European descent have.  Within a short time of arriving, the Europeans quickly took massive amounts of land historically inhabited by distinct Indian tribes, whether the methods be through trickery and manipulation, or by violent force.  The Europeans saw the Native Americans as savages, lacking the amount of intellect that they had, and they seemed to assume that the natives were gullible fools, but this was not the truth.  The great chief Tecumseh stated in a speech to Governor Harrison, “Brother, do not believe that I came here to get presents from you.  If you offer us any, we will not take.  By taking goods from you, you will hereafter say that with them you purchased another piece of land from us…” The fact that the Native Americans were aware of the travesty they were victimized by makes the situation all the more disturbing and shameful towards America’s history.

            One of the Native Americans’ involved in activism for civil rights biggest priorities was to make the public aware of the injustices Indian people were subjected to within the reservations the American government made for them in a pathetic attempt at retribution for the native people.  In William Apess’s “An Indian’s Looking Glass for the White Man”, he explains,

“It may be that many are ignorant of the situation of many of my brethren within New England.  Let me for a few moments turn your attention to the reservations in the different states of New England, and, with but few exceptions, we shall find them as follows: the most mean, abject, miserable race of being in the world- a complete place of prodigality and prostitution”

The desolate and terribly depressing conditions and state of these reservations (that STILL persist today) was a ridiculous, horrible act done by the Europeans, who again were just guests in the new continent.  Unfortunately, this was not enough to stop the white man from satisfying his hunger for land, wealth, and power.

            Another evil inflicted upon minorities in the United States was of course the instituting of African Americans as slaves, an evil that only resides as a dark memory today.  Literally infinite crimes against humanity were committed during the time slavery was not only legal but approved in many places.  Obviously the main goal for the African American slave population was singular- Freedom.  In the “Narrative of Frederick Douglass”, perhaps the most famous work of African American slave literature, Douglass describes the extent that the suffering he endured during his time as a slave drove him.  He tells of the risk that some slaves took to better their lives- running away.  “In coming to a fixed determination to run away, we … did more than Patrick Henry, when he resolved upon liberty or death. With us it was a doubtful liberty at most, and almost certain death if we failed. For my part, I should prefer death to hopeless bondage.”  Hopefully anyone can see how truly horrible this is, to knowingly provoke these thoughts within a fellow human.

            Other than the straightforward, possibly fatal task of fleeing their masters to gain freedom, the African American population in America worked for equal rights by way of utilizing their most powerful voices to demand the abolition of slavery, such as the aforementioned Frederick Douglass.  Another one of the leading voices was that of Absalom Jones, who presented a logical argument that used the white man’s religious beliefs in support of freedom for slaves, “And how increasingly is the evil aggravated, when practiced in a land high in profession of the benign doctrines of our Blessed Lord, who taught his followers to do unto others as they would they should do unto them.”  He presented a vital question- why are the African American people an exception when it comes to the Christian religion advocating equal, fair treatment among all of God’s children?  And what was the white man’s answer?  No comment.  The abolitionists were ignored far too long, but with their admirable persistence for years upon years, they finally achieved the renouncement of slavery by law in 1865.

            Finally, another group seeking equality that has been routinely downplayed in history until recent times like the Native Americans was the female population during the Women’s Rights Movement.  The desire of the women’s rights advocates was of course general equality, that they should be entitled to anything that a man can.  The most specific goal that took on a prominent role was the attempt to gain woman’s suffrage.  Like the Native Americans and African Americans also seeking equal civil rights, many of the female authors echoed the presence of constant suffering, of course not as extreme as the other two groups, but still very significant.

            The boldest women who vehemently worked to gain equality did so in an organized fashion.  Women’s Rights Conventions were held to reveal the plight of a woman’s lack of rights, namely the ability to vote and have a say in the nation they lived in that was supposed to be based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Elizabeth Oakes Smith was a seminal, passionate leader of the movement, condemning those who did not act and working with her fellow women that wished for a common goal.  She states,

“They might stay at home and fret and dawdle; be miserable themselves and make all within their sphere miserable likewise; but instead of this, they meet and talk the matter over, devise plans, explain difficulties, rehearse social oppressions and political disabilities, in the hope of evolving something permanently good.”

With a persistent effort like that of the African American slaves, the strength of women eventually shined through and enabled them to vote and diminish many stereotypes that were held against them.

            The period of time that America denied the rights to these three groups indeed brings on a feeling of guilt today.  However, the brevity and determination that these demographic groups possessed is also inspiring in the sense that they would stop at nothing to gain what was rightfully theirs.  Sojourner Truth exemplified this in a speech she gave at a Women’s Rights Convention, “But man is in a tight place, the poor slave is on him, woman is coming on him, and he is surely between a hawk and a buzzard.”  She was confident that one day, whether it was to be sooner or later, the magnificent dream of equality for all would inevitably be fulfilled.

Image via Wikipedia

Frederick Douglass was born a slave in Tuckahoe Maryland. There is no date attached to his birth because as a slave, his birthday held no importance to record. His courageous journey began when he was separated by his mother as an infant. In Maryland, the men who operated the slave trade used the tradition of separating mothers and infants to gain more control. Frederick was told by others his father was a white man, who happened to be Fredericks early childhood master. Throughout his life, Frederick caught many breaks in terms of the locations he was sent to by slave owners. He was one of the rare slaves chosen to work for a family rather than perform labor at the prison-like plantations.

Frederick schemed and fought to teach himself to read and write. In the end, Frederick decided to slowly save money so that when the time came for him to be transferred to work at a plantation; he would have the means to escape. Frederick Douglass escaped successfully, and replaced his last name with “Bailey,” for his protection. He married a woman named Anna Murray. The couple moved to Massachusetts where Frederick became an orator, writer and an abolitionist.

The profound way Douglass describes his accounts as a slave, are deeply attached to the facts surrounding America’s History on slavery. Merely reading facts cannot illustrate the extreme terror African Americans faced during the slave trades existence. Douglass also brought accounts of slavery in Maryland to the forefront, and exposed what kind of slave trade was really practiced there. During the Civil War, Maryland decided to take the Unions side which made the state less understood as a state filled with plantations. Also, the fact that Frederick Douglass not only taught himself to read and write, but wrote his novel himself justifies his accounts and experiences. He also wrote his narrative in a way that made the reader feel emotion. Even some of the fictional names Douglass chooses to use for the slave owners and overseers contained suggestive  undertones; for example, “Mr… Severe.”

Frederick Douglass’s narrative is eye opening and hard to ignore. Those not affecting by slavery during its existence might have found it easy to overlook the severity of the issue. “The Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass,” painted a picture of slavery in America. His narrative gave people the ability to understand what slavery was, rather than just being aware of what slavery was.

This narrative re-introduced the harsh reality of what African American slaves faced in America. His novel was so easy to follow, internalize and understand because it was filled with such raw human emotion. Every American should be so grateful everyday that they live in a free country, and no longer face such a mass human violation like slaves had to endure. Fredrick Douglass exposes the psychological, physical and mental abuse in a way you can understand. Novels like this give people the chance understand the cruelty of slavery in the 1800’s, while educating them from an emotional standpoint. Douglass wrote the narrative in way that didn’t try to persuade readers to believe a certain way; he just told his story letting the reader make their own interpretation. It is hard not to relate to his story because as humans we all feel pain. After reading this I personally feel more grateful for everything I have. Today, our society is very spoiled; and reading this made me realize that fact even more. My favorite part of the novel is the beginning where Douglas explains how he, and most slaves; didn’t even know when they were born. They had their freedom and families stolen from them, along with their own identity.

The fact that cows and horse’s had more records documented than humans slaves is beyond disturbing. Before this book I didn’t think about how important a birthday really is. It is just one day out of the year, but it is the beginning point on your map of life. The fact that Frederick Douglass persevered through his life successfully is another example of how people have the ability to get through almost everything. Frederick Douglass gave people a chance stop living in denial and recognizes slavery for what it truly was. When the book was first released it was a labeled as a “propaganda,” piece, but as the story became to resonate with more people it became a staple of historical literature. If anyone has a hard time internalizing slavery in America, they should immediately reference this novel.

Source Information of Book and excerpt: http://www.frederickdouglass.org/douglass_bio.html

Technorati Tags: Frederick Douglass,history,slavery,America,Biography,famous

Ira’s sister, Sarah, was married to Charles Littles. Charles was a lawyer and was known around the city as an abusive drunken lout who was obsessively jealous of his wife. Ira loved his sister dearly, perhaps literally as there were reports from family members that they occasionally shared the same bed and sometimes naked, and the abuse Sarah received at the hands of her husband upset Ira. Reportedly Ira was also worried that the drunken Littles would eventually let it slip to people that Ira had spent time in jail.

Whatever the reason, Ira and Sarah decided to do away with Charles Littles. On the evening of December 19, 1857, Sarah left the house and Ira told Charles she was going to meet her lover. An enraged Charles smashed a wooden chair and grabbed an arm from the chair as a weapon and Ira brought an iron mallet for his weapon. Ira told Charles that Sarah was headed for a rendezvous near the High Falls along the Genesee River. Ira knew about a man who had slipped off a nearby bridge and went over the high falls and died and Ira thought he could kill Charles near the falls and make it look like another accident.

Image via Wikipedia (High Falls where murder took place)

When the two men neared the bank by the High Falls, Ira struck Charles Littles with a sudden blow with the iron mallet, smashing the skull and killing him instantly. Ira then threw the body over the bank thinking it would fall into the river and be washed away downstream into Lake Ontario. But instead of hearing a splash, Ira heard a thud as the body landed on a ledge some 30 feet down. Cursing his luck, Ira began climbing down to the ledge but he slipped in the darkness and broke his left arm as he landed next to his victim on the ledge. Ira wore glasses and during his tumble lost them. He searched for them but with a broken arm he soon gave up and devoted his energy to pushing Charles Littles body over the edge into the river. With great effort he managed to push his victim over the ledge and then Ira collapsed and passed out for a few minutes. Upon awakening he called out to his sister above to come to his aid. As Sarah started climbing down the bush she was clinging to gave way and she tumbled onto the ledge breaking her left wrist as she landed. In great pain the two of them searched in vain for Ira’s glasses but could not find them. They then scrambled with great effort to the top and went home taking the iron mallet with them and then washed themselves and the mallet.

The next day some young boys were playing by the river and found the body of Charles Littles. After being pushed over the ledge by Ira Stout, the body had struck a flat rock and landed on the edge of the water too far away for the current to take it. Next to the body were the chair limb Charles had taken as a weapon, Ira’s glasses and one of Sarah’s scarves.

Ira Stout was charged with the murder and the case went to trial. During the trial it was revealed by family members that Sarah and Ira likely had an incestuous relationship as they sometimes shared a bed unclothed. It was also revealed that Sarah had been badly abused by Charles Littles. In the end, on April 24, 1858, Marion Ira Stout was convicted of murder and sentenced to hang in June. Ira’s lawyer gained a stay of execution as he argued for a retrial.

Image via Wikipedia

During this time Ira Stout became somewhat famous and both Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass wrote to the Governor asking for Stout’s life to be spared since he rescued his sister from an abusive marriage.

Stout wrote letters to the local papers and also entertained a number of female visitors during this time and even had one of them attempt to sneak poison to him so he could commit suicide. The poor girl ended up ingesting the poison herself by accident and barely survived the ordeal. Ira also attempted to slash his own wrists when another woman smuggled a lancet in to him. But a prison guard saw the blood and Stout was saved. 

The appeal for a new trail was not allowed and on October 22, 1858, Marion Ira Stout was hung. But even the hanging was botched. Despite a plunge of 8 feet from the scaffolding door, Ira’s neck did not break. According to witnesses he struggled mightily for eight minutes doing a mad jig for life that forced many in the crowd to look away. The doctors on hand took his pulse after 8 minutes and reported it to be “as full as in life”. After 30 minutes Ira Stout was finally declared dead. But that still was not the end of this mad but true tale.

Source

The next day a newspaper reported a rumor that galvanic batteries had been used on Stout after the hanging to try and bring him back to life “like Frankenstein’s monster”. But Stout was dead and buried in Mount Hope Cemetery (as are Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass).

Source (Grave marker for Marion Ira Stout)

For another High Falls story see Sam Patch: America’s First Real Daredevil and Modern Celebrity. For more about Niagara Falls see Most Popular Suicide Sites.

Frederick Douglass was born in Talbot County, Maryland on February 14th, 1818. He died in Washington, D.C on February 20th in 1895.

• He was an abolitionist, editor, author, orator, women’s suffragist, statesmen, and reformer.
• He was called “The Lion of Anacostia” and “The Sage of Anacostia”.
• He was a slave when he was born.
• He escaped on September 3, 1838 after his 3rd attempt.  He boarded a train disguised as a sailor that went to Havre de Grace, Maryland and eventually ended up in New York.  He was a free man in less than 24 hours.  This is when he changed his name from Frederick Bailey to Frederick Douglass.
• He had a strong belief for equal rights.  He fought for all rights whether black, Native American, immigrants, and the rights for women.
• He loved William Lloyd Garrison’s journal, The Liberator.
• He was an anti-slavery speaker and influenced many people that slavery was bad.
• He wrote an autobiography called, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave which sold over 11,000 copies and was even translated in French and Dutch and sold in Europe.
•  He also wrote My Bondage and My Freedom and The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass.
• He was the first African American nominated as a Vice President candidate running in the Equal Rights Party.  He ran with Victoria Woodhull, who was the first women to run for President of the United States.

Blacks’ rights were not on the agenda of the rich, and the rich held the power, so it was inevitable that these rights never received more than a trivial recognition on paper. Unger’s These United States, by contrast, holds a much wider section of the American population responsible for Reconstruction’s failure: Northerners and Southerners, businessmen and politicians, elites and average voters, scalawags and Klu Klux Klan members, conservatives and even radicals were all blameworthy to some degree for the fact that black independence never progressed significantly beyond the bare-bones legal enforcement of Emancipation. Unlike Zinn, Unger sees no master narrative by which one dominant group controlled the direction of Reconstruction and forced its inevitable outcome; each of these groups had power – albeit some more than others – and each may be held partially responsible for the failure of Reconstruction.

Though Zinn and Unger concur that Reconstruction was an overall failure, we must examine the criteria they use to make this judgement in order to understand in what respect it failed. Indeed, it appears that though the failure was significant, neither historian argues that it was complete. In areas not directly related to black independence and rights, both historians point to groups of Americans that benefited from Reconstruction. Unger refers to the reparation of physical devastation, Southern states’ re-establishment in the Union, and even the doubling price of cotton as evidence of Reconstruction’s success in some areas. Zinn, too, points out that Reconstruction was a “profitable” period for some whites. Even with respect to black rights, Zinn and Unger acknowledge that Reconstruction was not a complete failure.

Unger maintains that “considerable social and cultural gains” resulted from the North’s post-bellum insistence on rigid enforcement of Emancipation legislation in the South. Educational opportunities, leadership opportunities, and freedom of religion for ex-slaves were direct and positive results of Reconstruction. Zinn, too, refers to the Thirteenth through Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution as well as numerous Southern laws from the late 1860s and early 1870s as evidence of some limited steps towards black rights during Reconstruction. Zinn and Unger consider Reconstruction to be a failure not because black rights were completely ignored, but because the gains made in this area were inadequate for any historian concerned with human rights to judge the era to be a success.

These achievements, both historians agree, were eclipsed by a massive failure to ensure the independence and equality of freed people throughout the South. Neither historian sees any reason to blame the recently freed slaves for their plight: Zinn argues that, despite their severely limited resources, “southern blacks were determined to make the most of their freedom,” and Unger is swift to dismiss arguments that black politicians were incompetent as mere “myths.” Zinn writes that blacks simply “did not have enough strength to make real the promise of equality in the Civil War,” but implies that with sincere help from the North – including a strong military presence – this would have been possible. Unger, too, deems genuine Northern assistance to be the key to real gains for blacks in the South. Using anti-black riots in Memphis to argue that Southerners “would never accept the consequences of defeat without northern coercion,” Unger is, like Zinn, adamant that the protection of federal troops was vital for true civil rights in the conquered South. The North’s gradual withdrawal of troops from the South during Reconstruction, culminating in the Compromise of 1877 in which Republicans removed the last forces in exchange for Southern electoral votes, ensured that white supremacy, now unchecked by Federal power, would become the unchallenged status quo. Former slaves were left, in Unger’s words, “on the bottom rung of society.”

While both Unger and Zinn are disappointed in the North’s performance – or lack thereof – during Reconstruction, the two historians give different accounts to explain why Northern help was limited and ineffective. Zinn provides a class-oriented explanation. From Emancipation in 1863 to Reconstruction after the war, Zinn argues, the apparent “crusade” for black liberation was carefully “orchestrated [by] dominant groups” in America to ensure it never became too radical. To Zinn, just as the interests of the Northern “business elite” – not the morally-minded abolitionist minority – brought about the end of slavery, Northern business was the deciding factor in Reconstruction’s pace after the war. Zinn argues that powerful businessmen in the North who believed that the Republican Party was the most profitable party for business allowed for a “brief period” in which blacks could vote and be elected to state legislatures and Congress.

However, Zinn points to the actions of the “Southern white oligarchy” – including Klu Klux Klan murders, rapes, and burnings – to demonstrate that unchallenged white supremacy was simply a “more stable” situation. Zinn contends that as soon as it became clear that the costs of supporting black rights outweighed the benefits, businessmen promptly switched sides. A “new coalition of northern industrialists and southern businessmen-planters” thus emerged in opposition to black independence, powerful enough to later influence crucial Supreme Court decisions such as that in Plessy versus Ferguson of 1896. With no immediate economic benefits to securing black equality, all hope of Northern help evaporated. Congress ordered the removal of the Union army – whose presence in the South, to Zinn, merely “delayed” the onset of hardened inequality – because there had never been a moral cause in the North for its presence in the first place, and because the influential Northern elite’s economic interest in equality was regrettably short-lived. 

Unger recognizes the key aspects of Zinn’s argument. He writes that “stability in the South would be better for business,” and recognizes that the white supremacy necessary for this stability would be disastrous for black independence. He also recognizes that businessmen, both Northern and Southern, “were attracted to the Republican party because of its pro-business, pro-growth policies” and not because of any moral desire for black equality. Businessmen across the country and planters in the South are important actors in Unger’s explanation for the course of Reconstruction, but he does not go so far as to declare them to be the members of a “new coalition,” as Zinn maintains. With this interpretational discrepancy in mind, we must ask if there is any good reason to posit such an alliance; indeed, neither Zinn’s nor Unger’s account provides any explicit evidence for its existence. In defence of Zinn’s argument, perhaps some charity is in order: of course there may not have been an actual coalition in the strictest sense, but powerful Southern businessman-planters and influential northern elites were nonetheless inseparably linked due to their common interests, interests which clashed with black rights. As such, we may reasonably conceive of them as a single dominant and oppressive bloc.

However, Zinn’s implicit division of Americans into two more-or-less distinct groups, a rich minority of oppressors and a poorer oppressed majority, ignores any impact that poor white Americans may have had on the issue of black rights. Unger’s account, in contrast, calls attention to the negative influence of American society’s masses. He refers to an almost unanimously held belief in the North that blacks “were ill-equipped to exercise the rights of citizens.” In Unger’s judgment, the North was “full of “doughfaces” [Northern men with Southern principles].” Accordingly, “the majority of all northern white voters” were wholly opposed to black suffrage. The Northern majority’s disregard for black equality was magnified by its strong desire for post-bellum reconciliation with the South and the accompanying view that former Confederates should be allowed to determine their own course without federal imposition. Reconstruction’s failure to secure black independence in the South was thus met with profound and widespread indifference in the North. Radicals in Congress, always a minority, received fewer and fewer votes until these politicians disappeared altogether. For this reason, Unger holds white Americans as a whole – not just the rich elite – responsible for the failure of Reconstruction; he writes, simply, that “Americans of this era failed to meet the great challenges that faced them.”

Though Unger and Zinn agree on the factual details surrounding the failure of Reconstruction to secure independence and equality for black Americans in the South, their viewpoints clash over the issue of blame. Zinn presents a class-based analysis, concluding that a coalition of elites across the country should be held responsible for the North’s eventual military and political withdrawal from Southern states, leading to an inevitable reversion to white supremacy. Unger ascribes blame to a much wider section of the population, arguing that virtually all white Americans should be held accountable due to their racist attitudes. With every citizen answerable, Unger’s account does not portray Reconstruction’s failure as an inevitable outcome forced upon an oppressed majority. Rather, it hinged upon a racist societal consensus; as the more hopeful among us would hold, societal consensus can change.