I don't disagree with the general thrust of Henry Wiencek's
point, below.  As I will develop here, however, he has
misunderstood the claims I am advancing.

Wiencek suggests below that there is a wide spread ignorance
of manumission and emancipation, shared by much of the
literate reading public.  He also argues that this
ignorance--even perhaps amnesia--should be dispelled.  He
suggests that the publication of books like his own, and those
of Ely and Levy, are valuable in part at least because they
contribute to dispelling this popular ignorance.  If I have
understood Wiencek's argument correctly, I do not disagree
with it.

But Levy does not make the arguement this arguement.  Rather,
Levy argues that the historical profession as a whole shares
this amnesia.  And the notion that Ira Berlin, David Brion
Davis, Eugene Genovese, Peter Wood, Phil Morgan, and a host of
less luminary scholars, indeed, the vast majority of less
luminary scholars, are ignorant of the broad phenomena of
which Levy's book is an example--that notion is ludicruous.
For at least two generations now, the emancipation of slaves,
the passage of manumission laws, the development of southern
thought about the question of slavery--all of this has been of
broad scolarly interest.  I did a literature search last night
using JSTOR, and found examples of this kind of research in
articles dating back to the 1960s.

I do not dispute the value of Levy's book in dispelling
comfortable popular mythology.  I do dispute the inference
that I, and large numbers of people like me, are not committed
to the same project.  It may very well be super popular
history.  But Brent's question--the question to which I
responded--was not about popular history.  It was about
historiography.  And when it comes to historiography, I find
Levy's arguments to be hyperbolic.

All best,
Kevin

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:28:31 -0500
>From: Henry Wiencek <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Andrew Levy's FIRST EMANCIPATOR
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>I must disagree with Kevin Hardwick because I do see a
collective historical
>amnesia regarding slavery in the founding era.  If the
general reading
>public knew all about Robert Carter's emancipation, and about
the similar
>emancipation by Richard Randolph, then "The First
Emancipator" and Mel Ely's
>"Israel on the Appomattox" would not have found publishers.
I think most
>people--I'm talking about the David McCullough/Joe
Ellis/Dumas Malone
>audience--the college-educated reader of non-fiction
history--would tell you
>that it was impossible to free slaves, and they'd cite the
example of
>Jefferson.  They'd say that the laws prevented it, the Bible
approved
>slavery, the planters had to have slave labor, the
African-Americans were
>believed to be a different, inferior species.  Joseph Ellis's
formulation
>has been that the founders "were trapped."  And then you tell
them that
>George Washington freed his slaves.  That's a surprise.  And
that others did
>it as well, and that Lafayette and Kosciuszko begged
Washington and
>Jefferson to give up slavery, that thousands of
African-American troops
>fought in the Revolution, and that the morality of slavery
was openly
>debated at the Constitutional Convention.  Carter's
emancipation is the most
>effective rebuke to the notion that emancipation was so
impossible that it
>was not even considered at the time.  I agree that Levy
labors a bit at the
>beginning of his book to make the historical amnesia point,
but he has to
>huff and puff so much because he's fighting against a very
heavy barrier of
>received wisdom.
>
>Henry Wiencek
>
>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the
instructions
>at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html