Many abolitionists have complained to me that, as a traveling performer, I have not spoken to my audiences on the issue of slavery. I have received many angry letters attacking me based on assumptions about what my silence means.
Allow me to make my position clear: I oppose the institution of slavery. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, I believe it is a "moral depravity." I feel that way about other things as well.
After the raid on Harper's Ferry, the mood among Southern leaders was an existential panic and unstoppable lust for revenge. It reminded me of the Alamo. There was no reasoning with those leaders, nor could action be taken by congress. It would have required replacing most of congress and overturning decades of bipartisan negotiation and compromises. Even in the best case, it would have taken years.
But even worse, the abolitionist, pro-Negro movement quickly decided that their primary goal was not merely opposition to the reprisals or specifically cruel owners, but opposition to the entire institution of slavery, that is, opposition to the entire way of life of Southern plantation owners. And here they decided to draw the line between decent people and oppressive tyrants, which had the following consequences:
It shrunk the coalition. Most southerners support slavery. Anyone who supports the solution of having slave states and free states supports slavery.
It was politically infeasible. What is the pathway that takes us from the present situation to the abolition of slavery as an institution? I do not see how it could happen without a total collapse of the union. As usual, these Jacobins have championed a doomed cause.
The abolitionists have been distributing hundreds of pamphlets about the horrid conditions of slaves. The main effect of this has been to create a population of people in a constant state of bloodboiling rage with no consequential political outlet.
I fear this may be worse than useless. Yes, there are disingenuous proponents of slavery dismissing and censoring all criticism of slavery on the pretext of "states' rights." But there's also valid fear of historical government overreach and that fear gives power to pro-slavery leaders who say that only they can protect Southern culture.
Does this mean slavery should not be criticized? Absolutely not. But it's something I do not wish to contribute to unless if not outweighed by tangible benefits.
Many abolitionists have been single-mindedly focused on slavery, and the willingness of the Republicans to compromise on the issue, and that focus has had the following effects:
Not a single slave was freed by their efforts. Not one fewer lash was delivered by the owners.
It may have slightly contributed to the election of James Buchanan, ensuring that nothing can be done to stop the expansion of slavery into new states. Buchanan also does not support giving women like me the right to vote. A perfectly enlightened being would feel no bitterness about this, but I do.
None of this is the fault of slaves, of course, who are overwhelmingly the victims here.
But if women like me are ever going to get anywhere in this country, we need a broad movement that stands up for the rights of ALL women, REGARDLESS of their views on slavery.
I see this talking point all the time and I have no idea why anyone would think it matters at all.
Country A has a population of 200 million people and each one has X tax dollars going to the military. Country B, which is directly threatened by Country A, only has a 20 million people and each spends 2X dollars on the military. That means Country B's spending per capita is twice that of Country A's, but Country A's military spending is five times that of Country B. Obviously, Country A is more deserving of criticism for building up a five times larger military with no legitimate threat, while Country B's spending is more reasonable, and might even need to be higher, despite the fact that it's already twice as high per capita. Per capita is almost entirely irrelevant in the discussion.