California’s African American Slavery: Where Has This Been Hiding?

Slavery of African Americans in California? No, California’s history is one of friars, missions, the Donner Party, miners, the Gold Rush, and the 1906 Earthquake. Correct? Many people believe California to have been a state exempt from the polarizing issue that tore a nation apart in a horrific war between friends and brothers. Despite the best intentions of the population at large to place California in an exempted and angelic position above the controversial issue of slavery there remains the fact that California was in fact a pivotal player in the debate over the institution. As University of Massachusetts professor and noted historical author, Leonard L. Richards, writes in his recently released book The California Gold Rush and the Coming of the Civil War (pictured at left), California’s past held much more then people give it credit for having sat as the corner stone for numerous senatorial debates over the admittance of states as either free or slave in the nation of the United States of America.

In a recent article by New York based freelance writer Claire Lui, appearing in the publication American Heritage Magazine published on Tuesday, February 27 she describes the economic, legal, and political approach of Richards’s book in which he focuses on, as Lui describes as, the “dehumanizing” Senate and House debates that took place on the status of admittance of California and other states in to the union. Continuing her review of Richards’s book Lui draws attention to the fact that he leaves out both the abolitionist and slave views by stating that Richards “captures the reasoning and thinking of prominent white Californians” excluding the “moral issue” of slavery. She states that by reading the book she began to view slavery as an economic, legal, and political issue not as an institution that was repressive and damaging to an entire race of people. She began to see the numbers not the faces that made up the labor system. Richards’s book and Lui’s article triggered intriguing questions as to the nature of slavery and California: when it is addressed and how do individuals address it.

Through a thorough and broad exploration of the sources available on the internet using numerous search engines to investigate the role of slavery in California’s history produce limited successful results. The main focus of much of the search results produced is a similar slant that Richards takes in The California Gold Rush of a governmental debate over an issue that does not address the moral aspects of the debate, but strongly concentrates on political and economic elements of California’s history. It is more concerned with the status of California as a free state upon admittance (as pictured on the right of an 1850 map where California is pictured as a free state in red) than the slavery that was taking place. For example, in an article written by Dr. Rockwell D. Hunt for The Virtual Museum of the City of San Francisco entitled How California Came to Be Admitted, Dr. Hunt stays far removed from the moral issue of slavery, but addresses it from the political perspective of history. There exists little to no information of the actual individuals who were a present part of California’s slave history. The source that is available that comes the closest to helping to satisfying the historical need to help to deal with the matter of slavery in California’s history is the website The California Underground Railroad presented by California State University, Sacramento’s Library on which they have several primary sources and images available concentrating on the topic of slavery in California.

The alarmingly low number of resources available on the internet to a digital population on the topic of African American slavery in California’s history speaks to what Claire Lui described in her article as the concept that Richards “has added” to California history which is how many people will view this book. However, California did not suddenly gain a new aspect of its history the slavery of African Americans was always there. A more appropriate description of what Richards has done, with the writing and publication of his book, is that he has brought to the surface a matter that has been overshadowed by the miners (pictured at left is the typical face of California's history) and missions in California’s history. Hopefully with that addition of Richard’s book and the realization that California’s history is not so very different from those states in the heart of the South and the North during the Civil War that there will become a wider array of sources on the topic of African American slavery in California. With the addition of those sources on African American slavery in California there will develop a perspective and a voice of both the slaves and abolitionists who were as much a part of the debates as the economic, legal, and political issues of the day. They were the moral opposition contingent and they need to be acknowledged to have complete history of the topic. The fact remains that yes, there was slavery in California.

Virginia’s Slavery: Which side of the Fence Post Do You Sit Virginia?

Throughout much of the 19^th century Virginia (pictured at left with slave population concentrations) became a line of separation between the North and the South and the free and slave states. It also bordered Washington, D.C. in one of the most unsettled time in American history. Virginia once again stands at the edge of issues that appear as if they were plucked for the heads lines of those years of the War Between the States. In recent news Virginia has been on both sides of commemorating slavery and those involved in dismantlement of the institution. As stated in the February 21^st posting What Goes Around..., on the blog A. Lincoln Blog presented by an Associate Professor of history at Anderson University, Virginia recently decided that it would not celebrate the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln coming in 2009. What makes this decision so shocking is because not only is the state refusing to acknowledge President Lincoln and wheat he helped to accomplish, but they made the decision only shortly before they decided to apologize for slavery in Virginia. Larry O’Dell attempts to relay, in his February 25^th post Virgina Apologizes for Role in Slavery on the Capitol Hill Blue blog, how progressive Virginia believes itself to be by apologizing for its part in the history of slavery in the United States. These interesting legislative decisions made by Virginia that could be described as opposite decisions prompted me to explore other blogs within the internet and to leave my opinions with others.

A. Lincoln Blog Comment

I find the fact that you presented Virginia’s recent decision to not to celebrate “the Lincoln bicentennial” as you labeled it, due to the overwhelming influence of Sons of Confederate Veterans extremely an thought provoking event and it encouraged me to look into the topic for myself. Upon reading an article presented, on George Mason University’s History News Network cite about the issue; it further discussed the influence of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. It quoted Robert Lamb saying that when Lincoln sent armies into Virginia they “laid waste to the land” (pictured at right is the "waste" when Lincoln entered Richmond, Virginia) it appeared as though Lamb was attempting to bring about the issue of states rights. The fact still remains, as you point out in your post, that it is President Lincoln’s bicentennial and he was an extremely influential President of the United States worthy of celebration. Virginia is once again a part of the United States and the Sons of Confederate Veterans need to acknowledge the fact, they do not have to accept it, but must at least recognize it. A very thought provoking post.

Capitol Hill Blue Comment

Though long over due, the fact that Virginia is now apologizing for its role in slavery is a strong step to overcoming strong racial stigmas of the South (to the right is pictured 80 year-old Republican representative Frank D. Hargrove addressing the measure). It appears that despite the fact that the measure is apologizing for the establishment and fostering of inhumane and degrading labor system and the resulting horrific segregated society, the document is nothing more then an apology note. Will this request for forgiveness truly help Virginia in “overcoming its segregationist past” or is it really just that: a document? What I find most intriguing, and would like to call attention to, is that fact that this apology comes on the heels of another decision that was made by the Virginia State legislature in which they decided not to celebrate the bicentennial of President Abraham Lincoln in 2009. There appears to be strides in reconciling the racial history of Virginia, but celebrating a man who was instrumental in laying the ground work for that shift in history look to be contradictory acts. The post was extremely informative and induced a deliberation of ideas.

To Preserve or Not to Preserve: Will the Civil War Survive?

Wide breadths of lush green open fields, dotted with stately trees, winding roads, and sporadically marked with humble buildings; a developer’s dream where the possibilities for profit are only dependent on how many houses can be squeeze onto the location. However, above described scenery on the left is the typical view that numerous tourists appreciate every year in their visits to the Civil War battlefields spread throughout the United States. As the years pass and generations become farther removed from the nostalgia of the Civil War and its historical ramifications the struggle to protect the sites were America was forever changed intensifies. The debate that rages among developers and preservations is: which locations are to be saved and how much must be saved?

Developers rest on the appeal of economic advantage in the form of surplus of jobs for the community as their primary tool of negotiation to develop around the battlefields. However, in a 2003 economic impact report conducted by the independent consulting firm of Davidson Peterson Associates, commissioned by the Civil War Preservation Trust, found that of the 13 Civil War battlefields they surveyed all were economically advantageous. It found that the battlefields support on average 295 jobs, bring in about $1,178,923 in state revenue and finally $597,307 in local revenue. Although the battlefields may not produce the expansive wealth either a casino or multiple luxury homes would produce, the Davidson report supports that the historic sites are still economically supportive to the local communities.

In addition, to the economic support that the battlefields uphold they also provide the states, and nation as a whole, with transportation into a time when the nation was split against itself teetering on the verge of destroying the nation. The ground that the tourists walk on became graves for the numerous men that fell in the heat of battle. Just as Abraham Lincoln described in his address at the dedication of Gettysburg the fields became “consecrated” by the men who gave their lives in the battle, holding their remains ever interned in the lush fields of today. It is not only the enduring words of President Lincoln that holds the importance of the battlefields in history. Each one of the battlefields must fit within the guidelines of the National Park registrar to be considered of historical importance and worth preserving. The fields must meet the three basic criteria of identification, verification, and registration. The criteria requires that the land be placed in its historical importance, checked by several researchers, surveyed, and finally registered with the National Park Service determining the dimensions of presentation.

The culmination of the dispute over the quality and quantity of the preservation of American history came in the form of an argument over one, if not the, most famous and popular battlefields in American: Gettysburg. Crossroads Gaming Resort and Spa proposed a casino to be constructed adjacent to the battlefield claiming that they would bring with them economic benefit while respecting the historical integrity of the Gettysburg battlefield location. David LeVan the CEO of Crossroads Gaming informed USA Today in April 2006 that, “It’s not on the battlefield. It will not be visible from the highest point of the battlefield…We believe the two can coexist.” On the other end of the debate stood the Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) which believed that the addition of the casino would bring urban sprawl to the battlefield lessoning the sacredness of the events that took place. The CWPT collected over 34,000 signatures in opposition to the establishment of the casino from the surrounding community helping to bring the December 2006 decision by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to deny Crossroads a gambling license, halting construction of the resort. Despite the fact that the resort company can appeal the decision to the state supreme court, to date the project is canceled.

In the debate between preservationists and developers there remains the question of whether or not the expanses of land that were once such dynamic locations of the fate of the United States is whether or not it is economically sound for the communities to preserve them and how much is sufficient to save to honor the memory of the events that took place on the site. The answers ultimately lie in the fact that though the fields do not amass the amount of money that casinos or housing developments, but they still sustain a stable amount of revenue. However, the amount of the land that is “worth” saving is that which should be enough to allow for the proper respect to be paid to the resting places of those fallen men. The evidence in support of preserving the battlefield falls heavily in favor of the economic and historical importance for the nation as a whole, instead of yet more uniform housing and greedy monetary gain.