ethnomethodolog* |
ethnonurs* |
"field stud*" |
"focus group*" |
"grounded theor*" |
hermeneutic* |
heuristic* |
interview* |
"life experience*" |
"lived experience*" |
narrative* |
"observational method" |
phenomenol* |
"purposive sample" |
semiotics |
"thematic analysis" |
2. Use controlled vocabulary
Databases use controlled vocabulary to categorize each record stored. The terms they use are known as thesaurus terms or subject headings . The thesaurus terms vary for each database according to their indexing system.
For example, qualitative research is indexed in PubMed as "Qualitative Research" or "Nursing Methodology Research", while in CINAHL their subject heading "Qualitative Studies" is complemented by more detailed terms, including "Phenomenological Research" and "Grounded Theory".
Tutorials for searching subject headings:
| ||||
uses ) | uses |
3. Use qualitative research filters
Qualitative research filters are pre-formulated search strategies that have been constructed by librarians to help you retrieve articles in databases that deal with qualitative research. You can use the filter and then combine the results with your subject.
Modify your search strategy accordingly by using thesaurus terms, such as qualitative research, grounded theory, interviews, observation methods, etc.
Introduction.
Have a question? Need assistance? Use our online form to ask a librarian for help.
Chat with a librarian , Monday through Friday, 12-2 pm Eastern Time (except Federal Holidays).
Chronicling America is a searchable digital collection of historic newspaper pages through 1963 sponsored jointly by the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Library of Congress.
Follow @ChronAmLOC External and subscribe to email alerts and RSS feeds.
Also, see the Directory of U.S. Newspapers in American Libraries , a searchable index to newspapers published in the United States since 1690, which helps researchers identify what titles exist for a specific place and time, and how to access them.
Slavery and abolition are closely connected; for as long as humans have known about slavery, humans have also objected to, resisted, and opposed it. Slavery and abolition are also tightly interwoven through the history of the North American colonies and the United States of America. Read more about it!
The information in this guide focuses on primary source materials found in the digitized historic newspapers from the digital collection Chronicling America .
The timeline below highlights important dates related to this topic. You can find articles in Chronicling America about each of the items in the timelines. A section of this guide also provides some suggested search strategies for further research in the collection.
1789 | Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery resolves to seek improved conditions for free blacks. |
---|---|
1820 | The (prohibits slavery north of 36°30´). |
January 1831 | William Lloyd Garrison founds newspaper in Boston, demanding immediate, unconditional, uncompensated, and universal emancipation. |
August 1831 | Nat Turner leads a violent revolt of the enslaved in Southampton, Virginia. |
1833 | Formation of the American Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia. |
1836 | Congress passes a rule that antislavery petitions sent in by constituents will not be discussed ("Gag rule"). In force until 1844. |
1850 | Congress passes the Fugitive Slave Law, part of the . |
1851-1852 | Author Harriet Beecher Stowe publishes Uncle Tom's Cabin, a work of fiction, but based on research using documents collected by abolitionists. The work first appears in installments in The National Era newspaper. |
1854 | Congress passes the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which effectively repeals the Missouri Compromise restriction on slavery's expansion. |
1856 | Antislavery U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Charles Sumner gives a speech in Congress titled, "The Crime Against Kansas" which calls out some fellow Congressmen's support for slavery. The next day pro-slavery U.S. Representative from South Carolina Preston Brooks finds Sumner at his Senate desk and beats him unconscious with a heavy cane. |
1857 | The U.S. Supreme Court issues its decision in the case of Scott v. Sandford ("Dred Scott") maintaining that slaveholders may enjoy the protections of their human property anywhere in the Union, that black Americans are not U.S. citizens, and that they "have no rights which the white man is bound to respect." |
October 1859 | Abolitionist John Brown leads a biracial armed group in an unsuccessful assault on the U.S. Armory at Harper's Ferry. |
December 1859 | John Brown is executed. |
November 1860 | is elected President of the United States. |
December 1860 | South Carolina secedes from the Union, followed over the next several months by ten more states (the Confederate States of America). |
1861 | Civil War breaks out between the United States and the Confederate States of America. |
April 1865 | The Civil War ends in victory for the United States; days later, President Lincoln is assassinated. |
December 1865 | The to the U.S. Constitution is ratified, abolishing slavery. |
The most comprehensive and authoritative history site on the Internet.
I have some questions regarding “Slavery” that I would like to know more about.
What were the concerns about banning slavery? Why did they want to ban it? Also why did they want to allow slavery (other than labor)?
Have a wonderful day.
Sincerely Mariam
Dear Mariam,
Slavery originated from two sources: the exploitation of free labor and the belief in the “otherness” of fellow human beings of another race, religion, nationality or even tribal group. American Indians enslaved captives taken from rival tribes and the English used Irish slaves in their Caribbean plantations. In communist nations, most notably the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, political prisoners did slave labor in the gulags. In Nazi Germany, some races, most notably Slavic Russians, were marked for permanent slave labor, while others, such as Jews, Poles and Gypsies, were intentionally put to work with reduced food and medical care, deliberately calculated to literally work them to death until they were completely exterminated.
Red Amazon ants (genus Polyergus ) are known to raid black ant nests for eggs and breed them from birth to do the “heavy lifting” in their own nests. The only practitioners of slavery among their own species, however, are Homo sapiens . Slavery need not be permanent—throughout history slaves in Roman and Islamic cultures often attained free status. Western nations came to be less flexible in the course of the 17th and 18th centuries, a major economic factor being the growth of cotton and tobacco farming, which is spread out and labor-intensive, but requires quick harvesting before rot sets in (until machines took the place of labor). The other economic drawback to ending slavery was competition for low-paying jobs, which often led to race riots from New Orleans to New York between black American freemen and incoming Irish immigrants in the antebellum years.
Why Western nations came to abandon slavery might be explained by the growing rediscovery that one human depriving freedom of choice from another, for any reason, was morally wrong. The most prominent firebrand in that cause was William Wilberforce, who served in the British Parliament from 1784 through 1825, and who after becoming an Evangelical Christian in 1785, became a staunch abolitionist after 1787. He devoted much of his career thereafter to ending the slave trade, leading to the Slave Trade Act of 1807. One month after his death on July 29, 1833, his efforts bore their ultimate fruit with the passing of the Slave Abolition Act of 1833, which set the standard for slavery’s eventual end throughout the Western world. One of the reasons the United States was a latecomer with the 13 th Amendment in 1865 was the widespread claim that blacks lacked the intellectual ability to live with free choice—a racist rationalization to which they had already repeatedly put the lie to in other countries, and to which black Americans have repeatedly put the lie to ever since.
By the way, if Wilberforce seems like too recent a moral voice against slavery, might I also recommend that you go back a bit farther and read the section in your Bible called “Exodus”? The concept of freedom over slavery goes back at least that far. Sadly, it also continues in certain parts of the world—recent examples including the so-called Islamic State and Boko Haram. Sincerely,
Jon Guttman
Research Director
World History
www.historynet.com
More Questions at Ask Mr. History
Don’t miss the next Ask Mr. History question! To receive notification whenever any new item is published on HistoryNet, just scroll down the column on the right and sign up for our RSS feed.
Whether they produced battlefield images of the dead or daguerreotype portraits of common soldiers, […]
In 1964 an Ohio woman took up the challenge that had led to Amelia Earhart’s disappearance.
From the OSS to the CIA, how Wild Bill Donovan shaped the American intelligence community.
If you needed some motivation during the war years, there was probably a poster for that.
The hidden history of how some enslaved people exercised legal rights
There’s a traditional narrative about the history of Black people and the law. It describes how slaves were entirely shut out of the legal system, disenfranchised and bereft of even a modicum of legal know-how or protection.
The UC Berkeley professor Dylan C. Penningroth upends this narrative in his book Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights , which traces the forgotten history of how slaves used the law—how they forged contract and property rights and other “rights of everyday use.”
Penningroth makes clear that although slaves obviously did not have equal protections under the law, the needs of slave owners and the regular interactions between slaves required legal relationships. This use of the law by Black communities flourished, even under slavery and Jim Crow, often because rights are regularly enforced even without government intervention:
“And so, when you think about, How does a white person in 1850 own a cow? ” Penningroth asks, “Well, it’s not because there’s a policeman standing behind waiting to arrest anyone who touches the cow. It’s because most people in that area have seen the white person with the cow, understand the white person’s relationship to the cow. In other words, property, in general, isn’t so much a relationship between a person and a thing; it’s a relationship among people about a thing. And enslaved people are participants in the same system of property that white people are.”
Listen to the conversation here:
The following is a transcript of the episode:
Jerusalem Demsas: In a just society, the law both constrains action—prevents us or punishes us for certain behaviors—but it also outlines our liberties: domains where we are free from interference of others and the government. It outlines the rules of the road so that anyone can play and demand fair treatment. The laws that govern contracts, govern marriage, govern what we owe to each other—all of these bind and free us in turn.
But what was the law to a slave?
My name is Jerusalem Demsas. I’m a staff writer here at The Atlantic . And in today’s episode of Good on Paper , I’ve asked Berkeley historian Dylan C. Penningroth to join me to investigate this very question.
Dylan wrote a highly acclaimed book titled Before the Movement: The Hidden History of Black Civil Rights where he complicates the traditional narrative about how slaves interacted with the law, and the unexpected ways they interacted with the legal system.
But I’ll let Dylan explain that narrative. It’s the one we’re familiar with:
Dylan Penningroth: The master narrative of African Americans in the law is, I think, at some level, pretty simple. It’s that they were oppressed by law. They were outsiders to law. That if they had any contact with law, it was as an oppressive force. And so that, I think, is true as far as it goes, but it has some consequences. When you think about Black people as outsiders to law, it’s part of this larger narrative that I call the freedom-struggle narrative. Which, broadly speaking—and I’ll sort of caricature just for a moment—it tells a story of Black people who are outsiders to America and who, over the course of 250 years, gradually move toward greater inclusion, more equal rights, from no rights to equal rights, from slavery to something like freedom.
In his telling, this traditional narrative misses the full picture. Dylan’s argument gives us a window into life under American slavery where slaves often interacted with the law—were clearly understood to have some rights to property and contract—and particularly in interactions among slaves, understood how the law worked.
That is, we’re used to thinking of the history of Black Americans and the law as being the relationship between Black and white Americans. What Dylan’s book does is show how much of Black Americans’ relationship to the law happened among Black people themselves.
And perhaps most surprising to me was that even white slave owners and the soldiers defending their rights couldn’t ignore the obvious humanity of the people they were enslaving. That’s where we begin, with the story that pushed Dylan to write this book.
Demsas: You start off the book with a story. It’s a 1976 tape recording that your uncle, Craig Baskerville, made. And I know you say that you’re not trying to overturn the freedom-struggle narrative, but it was shocking in the way that you described it to be shocking. So I’m hoping, for the listeners, you can tell that story and explain how it pushed you down the road of telling the new history of Black Americans.
Penningroth: Sure. This is a story that I probably heard a few times when I was growing up, but I really didn’t grasp it until I got a recording from my mom.
It was a little cassette tape that her brother made, Craig Baskerville, of his great uncle, Thomas Holcomb. So on the tape, one of the very first things that Thomas Holcomb says—and Uncle Craig’s asking him about the family history—Uncle Tom says that his father, Jackson Holcomb, was a slave, that his mother was a slave, too: Louisa Brown.
And then he says Jackson Holcomb had a boat. And then he goes on to tell this story about how, in the last days of the Civil War, after the Battle of Richmond, there are all these Confederate soldiers running through the woods, and they come to the Appomattox River, where Jackson Holcomb has his boat. And he carries them across the Appomattox—ferries them across—and then when they get to the other side, they paid him.
And so I’m thinking about this story and wondering, Hold on a second. These are heavily armed white men—Confederate soldiers—fighting to preserve slavery, to keep men like Jackson Holcomb in slavery. They have no legal obligation, and they don’t really need to pay him anything. But they do.
And so that set me off wondering, not just, Why did they pay him? but, Why did it seem so taken for granted for them to pay him? And as I dug in, I realized that the story that I just told, the story of Jackson Holcomb and his boat, it’s part of this larger world of privileges that’s very much intertwined with—it’s mixed up with—not a world outside law but with law itself.
The reason they paid him is because white people in the South in 1865 were used to paying enslaved people for services rendered. They were used to seeing enslaved people having boats, having property, chickens, horses, and so forth.
Jackson Holcomb could not have sued to get his boat if they had taken it. He couldn’t have sued for breach of contract if they hadn’t paid him. He didn’t have rights, but he had privileges, and those privileges were powerful enough and broadly enough understood that these Confederate soldiers paid him without any questions. And that’s the story that begins the book and sets up this longer story that I want to tell about Black people’s relationship to law, their relationship to one another, and about civil rights.
Demsas: So when you dive in after hearing the story and deciding to look into this question of what sorts of what you call privileges were available, what did you find? What sort of privileges was it? I mean, it sounds like what’s implied here are contract rights and property rights. What other things were you finding and kind of what are examples of that?
Penningroth: Right. So when we think about what civil rights meant in, say, 1850, most Americans would have said something like, It’s the right to contract, the right to property, and the right to go to court—sue and be sued . I call these the rights of everyday use.
Abraham Lincoln campaigned for president on a platform that said that all men, including free Black men, are entitled to these basic, fundamental rights. For him, that was the line between slavery and freedom. So slaves didn’t have civil rights, so they couldn’t sue over property, and they didn’t have legal rights of contract or property, but they had these privileges.
And I’ll just give an example of one privilege that slaves had and why it was that they were allowed to have these privileges. So one privilege that many slaves had was the privilege of working after hours and to earn money. And so in many different parts of the South, you had enslaved people who would come home after working 12 or 14 hours in the fields, and they would go and they’d spend an hour or two working a garden of their own. They would raise chickens. If they were lucky, they could raise cows and more expensive livestock. And they would basically use the proceeds of these things to make their lives better. But a lot of what slaves are doing is they’re trying to nourish themselves beyond the corn and fatback that their masters are giving them.
Now, why did masters let enslaved people do that? The answer is that it saved the masters money. It was good for the bottom line, for their profits. That’s why they did it. The second reason they did it is because they never had to acknowledge these things as rights. Again, they were powerfully understood, broadly shared understandings. But, of course, if an enslaved person had tried to go to court and say, Well, my master didn’t allot me the garden plot that I’m entitled to , the court would have laughed him out. But there is this kind of baseline understanding.
And so one of the things that I say in the book is that, because enslaved people had these privileges, when freedom came, the advent of civil rights—that is, the idea that Black people could have rights and be citizens—was actually not such a huge step for white southerners to take.
Now, of course, there are all these questions about dignity; they weren’t willing to grant that. They weren’t willing to grant what they called social rights, and they certainly weren’t willing to grant political rights to Black southerners. But when it came to these basic civil rights of property, contract, and standing, it wasn’t such an enormous transition for white southerners, and that had consequences.
Demsas: Well, I want to dive into a little bit why it was that white people and masters were, in any way, respecting these privileges or these quasi rights. You write, at some point, that slaves owned property in every legal sense of the word, except that no court would protect their ownership as a right. You just made that argument here, too. But that feels like a significant exception, right?
If no court protects that ownership, how is it meaningful? Why are they respecting it? What does it mean to the bottom line? If the slave has the energy to plot the garden, why doesn’t the master make them continue working for a couple more hours? What is actually playing out there that makes it in the interests of the dominant class to allow this to go on?
Penningroth: I think there are two ways to answer that. One, as I said, is that it was good for the master’s bottom line. There’s what Derrick Bell, the founder of critical race theory, called an interest convergence, where the interests of the master converged in some small measure with the interest of the slave. So that’s one answer.
But the other answer that I think you’re getting at here is that enslaved people didn’t have civil rights, and so when I say that they owned property in every sense of the word except the legal one, that’s a very significant one. They couldn’t go to court, but that raises a secondary question: How often do we go to court over property or contract? We really only do it when something goes wrong. And even then, we tend not to do it. Most people, when something goes wrong with a contractor, suing is a last resort. We generally try to work things out outside court because court is expensive. It’s unpredictable. All sorts of things can happen in court that you may not anticipate. And things were not that different in the 1840s and 1850s.
So the fact that enslaved people couldn’t go to court meant that, yes, they couldn’t do anything about it, legally, if the master decided to take away that privilege. They could go on strike. The master could punish them. But then you’re into a spiral, which is profoundly unprofitable for the master and dangerous for the slave. So there’s this kind of negotiated balance. When it goes wrong, the slaves are out of luck. But when it is working, the masters are perfectly willing to let enslaved people have these privileges as long as they don’t try to claim them as rights.
The other part of the story is that white people are operating in this same world. If slaves aren’t going to court over property, neither are white people. And so, when you think about, How does a white person in 1850 own a cow? well, it’s not because there’s a policeman standing behind waiting to arrest anyone who touches the cow. It’s because most people in that area have seen the white person with the cow, understand the white person’s relationship to the cow. In other words, property, in general, isn’t so much a relationship between a person and a thing; it’s a relationship among people about a thing. And enslaved people are participants in the same system of property that white people are.
Demsas: You know, it’s funny. I write a lot about housing, and I’ve done a lot of research on segregation and how the color line broke down and residential segregation. And there’s this great paper: Economist Allison Shertzer and her co-authors—they talk about how they were able to look block by block and see how it segregated and desegregated and the prices that were paid for different homes and rentals.
And they find that “to induce incumbent white owners to sell to a Black family, these pioneers paid a premium of roughly 28 percent relative to the prices that white homeowners were paying on the same block.” And so, in that story, that’s much further past where we are right now. But you see that the color line is not broken down because you have individual white homeowners deciding, Out of my own beneficence or desire to be a good person or belief that Black people are actually equal partners in the law . It is that there’s a financial incentive here.
And it seems like a through line that you’re drawing all the way back to slavery is that it just was easier. It just was easier. It was less costly. It was less difficult to allow people their dignity. And I wonder how much of that is a theme of your work.
Penningroth: Absolutely. It’s a theme throughout, and it threads through a bunch of different things that I talk about in the book. So, for example, efficiency or the efficiency costs of going to the trouble of carving out a separate law of property for Black people—that’s a through line. The costs that white lawyers would have had to endure if they had either declined to take Black clients or segregated them on their books—that’s another theme.
In many different ways, you see white people, over and over again, recognizing Black people’s rights, not so much because they are committed to a cause but because it’s good for them, in some sense. We could talk about why, for example, white supremacist lawyers, like Senator James Eastland of Mississippi—who blocked dozens of civil-rights bills during the 1950s—why it was that he had a great number of Black clients, who he represented in lawsuits against contractors who refuse to pay, tort lawsuits for accidents. He had Black clients. It didn’t seem to bother him. And at the very same time, he’s a member of the White Citizens’ Council, and he’s blocking all these civil-rights bills.
And I think the reason he does that is because he wants to make money. And there really isn’t a threat to him or a threat to the system of white supremacy. In other words, his interests are converging with those of Black people. And you see that again and again in the stories that I tell.
Demsas: It feels like there’s a big tension within historical and economic scholarship about whether these markets are helping break down racial inequalities or they are a part of perpetuating them. Obviously, it doesn’t have to be one or the other. There are ways in which both of those things can be true at the same time.
But how do you think about that? Because obviously this is something that is happening because these markets are allowing people to sell their labor or sell goods and services. And then, of course, the housing markets were the way they were because of a lot of capitalist tendencies. And, at the same time, there’s a lot of scholarship about racial capitalism that indicates it is a system of exploitation that’s really built on slavery. How do you think about the tension?
Penningroth: Just taking the example of slaves owning property—that did not do anything to break down the system of slavery, and it didn’t challenge the idea of white supremacy, either. It actually helped slavery. It helped the master’s bottom line. It made slavery more profitable. What you see going on there is enslaved people super-exploiting themselves. You remember: They’re working 10, 14 hours a day for a master, and then they have to go home and work in a garden so that they can grow the vegetables that they need to survive. I don’t think that this interest convergence undermines institutions like slavery.
It’s a difficult question, and I think that the literature on racial capitalism is really important in understanding what’s going on there. What I would add to it, though, is that Black people—to the extent that they’re participating in these systems, to the extent that they’re exercising rights of property and contract—that opens up a way for us to think about Black people’s relationships with one another, as well as their relationships with whites. And a lot of the way that Black people negotiated their relationships with each other—as parents and children, as friends, as neighbors—was through law.
And when I say law here, they’re not negotiating their relationships through what we think of as civil-rights law—that is, antidiscrimination law, federal antidiscrimination law. It’s not in the Supreme Court. That’s not how they’re doing it. They’re doing it through face-to-face negotiations over a horse, over a fence, over a contract to carry someone across a river. That’s the way that civil rights help us open up this dimension of Black life that I think has been underexplored because we’ve been so rightly concerned with the struggle against white supremacy.
Demsas: It’s interesting. I don’t have a definitive point of view on this yet, but, in my sense, it does feel like there are ways in which these interactions do help break down white supremacy. Even having to recognize that this person is capable of these interactions—I mean, this is Confederate soldiers, right? These are not repeat players trying to cross the river when they’re coming to your ancestor there. These are people who are just like, All right. Well, this is a person who’s making a claim to me. I’m recognizing, at some level, this humanity in this interaction that we’re having together.
It’s interesting that you don’t see that as playing a role in breaking down the idea that there is no dignity. No one would ever pay, you know, an animal to cross them across a river, so I wonder how you see that.
Penningroth: That’s a really important thing to point out, and I’m glad you’re pushing back here because it gets at a really important point that I’ve tried to make. So I think what you’re articulating—this idea that whites thought of Black people as subhuman, as something other than human—is something that you see a lot in African American history scholarship. There’s this idea that the essence of slavery was the chattel principle—the idea that slaves were property, just like a horse or a cart, was the animating spirit, the driving engine of slavery.
And I just think that’s not true. Or, at least, it’s not the whole story. If anything, the genius of slavery is that it could be so many different things at once. In one situation, a master could treat a slave as a thing. But in another situation, a master would treat a slave as an agent—someone who is exercising the master’s prerogatives on his behalf. And so, the mutability of slavery, I think, is what gives it its enduring power.
There’s a larger issue tied up here, though, and that is that the chattel-principle idea—this idea that the essence of slavery is that the slave is a thing, a person with no rights—that actually is, at bottom, or, at least, it echoes an abolitionist argument that later becomes an important component of the Republican Party’s platform that sends Abraham Lincoln to the White House. That is to say: They portrayed slavery as an institution that reduced people to things, and they portrayed freedom as an institution that made people the opposite of slaves. And they went a step further, and they said that the difference between slavery and freedom was civil rights, that the powers, the rights that made you more than a thing—more than a horse or a cow—was the right to property, the right to contract, and the right to go to court.
That, I think—you can see where this is going—it’s a powerful argument. It also, I think, is part of the animating spirit of the ultraconservative Roberts court. It animates a lot of libertarian discourse. And the basic idea is—you take it a step further—those mark the difference, the bright line between slavery and freedom. And that’s all you need.
Demsas: All right, time for a quick break. More with Dylan when we get back.
Demsas: I think you got at this a little bit, but why isn’t this the traditional story? Because when I read your book, I realized that, implicitly, had absorbed this idea that there really wasn’t anything going on amongst slaves and the law. And, even during Jim Crow, the idea that people would really be doing anything other than being oppressed by the law—I mean, that’s just not how I thought about history.
That period of time felt like a black hole, to me, about what was even going on in the lives of slaves, until you get to this traditional narrative that you’ve described about the civil-rights movement and these lawyers and organizers from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee coming down. And so, how does it get erased? What happened, and why?
Penningroth: Let’s take it into the Jim Crow period. And I’ll just take one important example of what we’re talking about here: Think about Black colleges, like Spelman, Howard, Morehouse. These are all founded in the late 1800s. So are Black fraternities, many Black churches. These are among the most important and wealthy institutions in Black communities. They all get founded in the late 1800s, and they represent enormous concentrations of Black wealth—less than white people but, nevertheless, they’re important.
Then, too, consider that Black people in about 1915 owned about 15 million acres of land, and almost all of it was in the South. That’s around the peak of lynching. So there’s this way in which the story that we tell about Jim Crow fails to account for—or, at least, it has to shunt off on a separate track—this story of Black achievement.
And what happens when we don’t take account of the story in this way is, I guess, a couple of things: One is it’s hard to make sense of it. And two, the only way to make sense of it is to take account of, number one, this interest convergence, and number two is to take account of power dynamics among African Americans. Because the only way that Black people—remember, they’re just a generation removed from slavery—the only way that they could accumulate property on that scale is by mobilizing the labor of family. They literally had to work like crazy for generations and then keep that wealth together, concentrated in the hands of a few people.
In other words, they needed to mobilize members of a family, even members of a community, to go in one direction and to pool their resources. That’s not something people necessarily do just because they’re all Black or just because they’re all members of a family. Somebody had to exert power. And so a lot of the story that I tell about Jim Crow—and, indeed, this has implications for the period of civil-rights struggle—is about how Black people formed organizations or how they thought about existing social organizations like family, how they made decisions about the structure of power, rights and privileges to resources within those social organizations, and who was part of it. To put it in a nutshell: Who got to decide who belonged in the family, and what did it mean to be a member of a family?
Demsas: And so you talk about this in your book, about how SNCC organizers—who are usually cast as the heroes of the civil-rights movement, or one of the heroes of the civil-rights movement—you talk about them kind of critically. It seems that you view them as having perpetuated the idea that Black southerners had no sense of the law. What led you to see them as being perpetrators of that narrative? And why did that happen?
Penningroth: Well, it was really some of the SNCC organizers’ own words that I was reading. Some of them were quite critical of SNCC. John Lewis was one, and one of the things that he wrote in his autobiography was that SNCC had horrendous troubles with governance. I think there’s a line that he writes in his book, quoting members of SNCC, saying something like, SNCC isn’t a democracy. It’s not an organization. It’s not a union. SNCC is a movement.
And to John Lewis—he’s on his way out when he writes these words—but to John Lewis, that was a symptom of one of the fundamental problems with SNCC, which is that, in its pursuit of radical democracy, it failed to embark on the kind of organizational work that it needed to do. It didn’t concentrate power in a president. Anyone could object, at any time, to any decision that it made.
And so, of course, you have these meetings that drag on for hours and nothing gets done. And furthermore, SNCC—although it said that it was all about power to the people and empowering the grassroots—many of the grassroots organizers they were trying to recruit, they actually wanted SNCC to appoint leaders, to elect leaders and empower them, maybe even to incorporate. And so SNCC only lasted for, I think, seven years. And then it collapsed in infighting.
You can contrast that with an organization that came a few years before SNCC—the Montgomery Improvement Association. So that’s the organization that drove the Montgomery bus boycott. And not many people think about this, but about five months into the boycott, in June of 1956, the organizers of the MIA go down and they incorporate the MIA.
In other words, they turn it into a corporation. Martin Luther King is its president. And what that does is it empowers the board of directors to make decisions on behalf of the organization, to speak for the organization. And the members have very few rights within the organization. They can’t speak out against what MIA is doing. That power to take in money, to speak for the organization, to dole out money and do it legally through a corporation—that’s what enabled the MIA to prevail over the ferocious onslaught of the Montgomery white power structure.
And so that contrast, for me, points up a couple of things. One is: Black people knew about law. They were using law for a century before SNCC even came along. And second: That law was essential to the civil-rights movement. So, in other words, they’re seeking changes in federal law, but what powers the movement, often, are these ordinary rights of property, contract, the right to go to court, and this right to incorporate and delegate power.
Demsas: I wonder what you think would have been different if there had been a focus on these rights of everyday use that you call them, instead of focusing on the civil rights and this kind of movement politics that it seems you’re lamenting left behind something important. What would it have looked like for a civil-rights movement to focus on those laws and to see civil rights as something all people have in common with one another rather than something the law is granting to Black people?
Penningroth: I think, really, this is more a matter of messaging than anything else, or the public face of the movement. So the public face of the movement is about anti-subordination, antidiscrimination. It’s about federal law. But it’s clear as day that everyone in the movement, every day, is relying on these rights of everyday use. Another part of it is that what I’m calling rights of everyday use, people didn’t call them that. That’s just a word that I’m bringing to them.
And people also, by the 1940s, they were no longer tending to refer to those as civil rights anymore. So in popular discourse, like in Life magazine or in presidential addresses, when people talk about civil rights, they’re now talking about things that in 1850 would have been thought of as social rights, like the right to go to school with someone else, the right to marry someone of a different race, the right to ride on a train or other public accommodation with members of a different race.
The civil rights that they’re talking about in the 1960s and ’50s are social rights and also political rights. So in the 1850s, you’ve got this three-part division of rights: social rights, civil rights, and political rights. By the 1950s, those categories are starting to blur in interesting ways. And property, contract, and the right to go to court—those are kind of an unmarked category. People don’t really refer to them explicitly anymore as civil rights. So that’s how I would answer that question, is that it’s there all the time. It’s hiding in plain sight, but that’s largely because of this change in the public meaning of the term civil rights .
Demsas: I write a lot about exclusionary zoning and local government and the ways in which local governments have been really the front lines of discrimination and segregation in the history of the United States—and often kind of seen as the federal government coming in and enforcing civil-rights law, whether it’s desegregation, or preventing it, you know, during reconstruction. And even now, we see that how people conceive of how to get local governments to do the right thing is to get the federal agents involved, whether it’s the Justice Department coming in to do consent decrees or things like that.
In your story, local and state courts are really avenues where Black Americans were able to navigate areas of freedom and these rights of everyday use but also carve out, really, their own dignity. Should I be thinking better of local governments? I really don’t want to, but I will hear you out if you tell me to.
Penningroth: Well, I don’t know if you should think better of them, but I think that it’s worth considering that they were, in fact, dealing with Black people all the time. So I like to think back on this famous scene from the movie Selma because I think it captures what you’re talking about really nicely. So, Ava DuVernay’s wonderful movie from 2014 has this scene—many of you may have seen it—where a character played by Oprah Winfrey goes to the courthouse to try to register to vote, and she’s treated horribly by the registrar, the voter registrar. That is true.
But the larger implication of the movie is that Oprah Winfrey has never been to that courthouse before, or that she’s scared to be there. She’s scared all right, but the reason she’s scared is because she’s registering to vote. I know, because I’ve looked at 14,000 of these cases, that Black people were in local courts all the time. They were there exercising these other civil rights. They weren’t trying to register to vote—that’s political rights. They weren’t trying to go to school with white children—that’s social rights. But they were there to argue over a horse or a cow or to get divorced or to sue their minister. These sorts of everyday uses of law are the stuff of Black legal life, and they don’t challenge white supremacy.
I don’t necessarily think that you should think better of state and local officials, but I do think that there’s a story that hasn’t been told about those local courthouses. And it’s a story that’s as much about Black people’s relations with each other as it is about dealings with the registrar or the sheriff or the county clerk.
Demsas: Well, as long as I get to continue thinking badly of these groups, then I’ll continue to read—
Penningroth: ( Laughs .) Yes, you have my permission.
Demsas: ( Laughs .) When I was reading your book, I actually started thinking more about how common it is to miss the details of the lives of people who are oppressed. I think that a big part of this missing story you’re talking about is not seeing Black communities and Black people as fully human, and to see them just as members of an oppressed class.
A year ago, I was in Frankfurt. I went to the Museum Judengasse, and they have a preserved block of the Jewish ghetto from the 1400s and 1500s. And they’ve preserved, somehow, many of the informal legal documents that governed Jews’ relations to one another. So it’s people fighting or stealing from one another or getting married. And they have this exhibit where you can listen to a dramatization of a lot of these documents read aloud and give you a picture of that life.
And it just struck me then—and again while reading your book—it’s a very common thing to see, in historical narratives about oppressed groups, that they’re really flattened in this way. Do you view the civil-rights arc that you talk about in your story as somehow being particular to the experience of Black Americans in not seeing that full humanity? Or is this a kind of trope that is employed time and again because of how effective it is at getting more support—you have to really erase some of the humanity and human interactions and the privileges that people do have in order to make your case to a broader public?
Penningroth: That’s a great question. And, of course, I’m not an expert in European history and these other fields, but it absolutely makes sense that a powerful way to organize a social movement and to attract support from people beyond the affected minority group is precisely that. You have to engage in storytelling—and storytelling, by definition, flattens. And so there are some aspects of the freedom-struggle story that are absolutely true, and it is also absolutely true that the activists who did that work—many of them unsung—were indeed heroes. But I also think that treating them as heroes and treating them as outsiders to law, as you say, flattens our understanding of what Black life was like.
Demsas: Mm-hmm.
Penningroth: I’ll just give one example that comes from the early period and actually has a through line to today, and it’s about Black churches. So in 1966, there was a woman named Vernita Wimbush, who’s a member of a CME church—what they called a Colored Methodist Episcopal church, now Christian Methodist Episcopal church—in Washington, D.C. She writes a letter to her bishop where she says, Do you remember the March on Washington of ’63? And she basically threatens that she and a bunch of her fellow members are going to march on the bishop’s house if the bishop does not reappoint the minister they want in their church.
So what she’s doing here is she’s co-opting the language of the freedom struggle in order to fight a battle that she has with her bishop. Vernita Wimbush is one of many Black women who are essentially fighting a two-front war. There’s a war against white supremacy in society, and then there’s a war against male supremacy in church. I think that these sorts of questions ought to change the way that we see Black life by focusing attention on Black people’s relationship with each other and by focusing on the way that Black people used law and tried to turn privileges into rights.
Demsas: It’s so interesting because you talk about this in your book, and it’s interesting how much women were willing to subordinate their cause as Black women to just the cause of Black people and civil-rights movement and how much that story was necessary in order to get them to do that.
I wanted to move us to modern day because one of the things I couldn’t help thinking when reading your book is there’s another group of people, I think with very different political goals than your books, that use some of this rhetoric, too. There’s been push by some conservatives to recast the era of slavery as having had many privileges and benefits for slaves. For instance, in Florida, there was a debate on an education bill, and the Republican state rep said, “There is only one way to teach about slavery in Florida, and that is that it was evil. But if we can’t have an honest discussion and say that some slaves were paid for their work and were able to actually get a portion of payment that slave owners receive for their labor, then we’re afraid of teaching accurate history.”
I could imagine someone reading your book, coming across the first chapter that’s titled, “The Privileges of Slavery,” and seeing that as somehow simpatico with this argument that slavery wasn’t that bad for slaves or, at least, that we’re missing some of these privileges. How do you think about that debate that’s going on and how your scholarship fits into it?
Penningroth: Oh, goodness. That’s just politicians being politicians. They’re twisting the past for their own ends. I thought about this issue—what bad actors might do politically with the things that I was writing about. That gets at a really big question: What is the obligation of a scholar? Is it solely to uncover the truth? Or how much should we worry about what Ron DeSantis and his cronies on the Florida education board are going to do with our work?
What I decided is that I was going to tell the story, and that story is not very complimentary to the argument that DeSantis and his people are making. On the one hand, they want to say that slavery was evil. On the other hand, they want to say that there were some good things about it. I mean, evil is sort of a categorical statement, right?
Demsas: Yeah.
Penningroth: Something can’t be evil but also good. So their argument is contradictory, at bottom. But I think the most damning point about this is that the argument that DeSantis is making is that there’s something inherently liberating about having property. And, of course, that fits into a longstanding component of Republican Party ideology—again, it goes back to Abraham Lincoln—which is that civil rights are the things that make us free and that if you have civil rights, you are free and nothing else. We don’t need to worry any more than that. I think you can see elements of that coming out in the idea that, somehow, slaves owning property and having gardens means that slavery wasn’t evil. That’s a testament to what I view as one of the fundamental flaws of Republican Party ideology.
Demsas: You know, I really appreciate you sharing that weighing with me because, as someone who—I’m not in the academy, but I’m often talking to academics about their work, and it’s really useful to know that people are thinking about this stuff but also choosing, at the end of the day, to do the scholarship anyway. Because you just never really know how your stuff is going to be used, but if you are doing good scholarship, you have the chance to move the needle toward the truth, which is incredibly important for understanding and getting toward progress.
So I talk to a lot of academics all the time who wrestle with this in their own work, and it is useful to me, and I think to a lot of people, that there is still a strong norm of, You still have to publish . It’s not about what someone right now might do. Scholarship is supposed to live for decades, if not centuries.
Penningroth: Absolutely. I’m not going to say that I published everything that I found. I mean, there is this—
Demsas: What are the secret files?
Penningroth: Yeah. Well, what I mean by that is that the kinds of records I was looking at—a lot of them are very personal. They’re very intimate, especially when people get divorced or when there’s inheritance. Again, my book is largely about Black people’s relationships with each other. And those relationships were often angry. Sometimes they were petty, and so there were times when I thought, Well, there are stories that I could put in here, and I’m just not going to do it. I’m not going to put that into the book, because I don’t know how that might get used.
And, at bottom, it’s not really essential. It’s not necessary for me to make the argument that I’m going to make. The more important thing that I want to take from this part of the conversation is precisely that these records are so incredibly rich. You could write 20 books from these records about Black life. I’ve just scratched the tip of the iceberg. And I want to give a shout out, too, to the people who are the caretakers of these records. These are local county clerks and deputy clerks in little towns all over America. They often have very small budgets. And they made it possible for me to do this work.
Demsas: Well, when you write one of those potential 50 books, we’ll have to have you back. But, for now, it’s our final question: What is something that you initially felt was a good idea, but it turned out to only be good on paper?
Penningroth: I’m thinking back on a bicycle trip that I took with my father when I think I was 11. We used to do that from time to time. I lived in central Jersey and Princeton. And I remember that one trip we took, we were going to the Pine Barrens, and we mapped out the whole thing on the table. This is back when you had paper maps.
And one of the places we wanted to go was a little town called Friendship and then take the road from Friendship to the Carranza Memorial, which is an interesting local monument. So we bicycled down these roads, and we get to where Friendship is supposed to be, and we can’t find it. And we’ve realized that Friendship is a ghost town. And then, you know, finally we got back on our bikes, and we start down the road to the next stop, at the Carranza Memorial. It turns out that the whole road was sand after that point.
Demsas: Oh, no!
Penningroth: And so we’re spending hours—you can’t ride a bicycle on sand. These are not beach bikes. I had a ball. I was 11, and I was going back and forth, and—I’ll add—I did not have all the sleeping bags and tent and food on my back. So my dad is back there sweating. His wheels are digging into the sand, and he finally gets off and walks. Like I said, it looked good on paper. But when we actually got there, it was even more fun.
Demsas: I do feel like some of these stories about—I think that we’ve had a couple of these now where it’s about someone making the wrong turn while on their bike or driving or whatever. And it’s funny. It feels like GPS has taken away this rite of passage for us. Now it’s like everyone knows—you can even see on Google Maps—the exact walkability. What’s it going to look like? And you don’t get lost anymore.
Well, thank you so much for coming on the show. This was incredibly fun. I feel like I just learned so much, and I really appreciate you taking the time.
Penningroth: Oh, I so appreciate you having me on. Thank you.
Demsas: Good on Paper is produced by Jinae West. It was edited by Dave Shaw and Claudine Ebeid, fact-checked by Ena Alvarado, and engineered by Erica Huang. Our theme music is composed by Rob Smierciak. Claudine Ebeid is the executive producer of Atlantic audio, and Andrea Valdez is our managing editor.
And hey, if you like what you’re hearing, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts.
I’m Jerusalem Demsas, and we’ll see you next week.
More Stories
Kamala Harris Defines Herself—But Not Too Much
You May Miss Wokeness
Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website
New Haven, Conn.— Yale University’s Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition today has announced the finalists for the twenty-sixth annual Frederick Douglass Book Prize, one of the most coveted awards for the study of the African American experience. Jointly sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History in New York City and the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition at Yale University’s MacMillan Center, this annual prize of $25,000 recognizes the best book written in English on the topics of slavery, resistance, or abolition copyrighted in the preceding year.
The finalists for the 2024 prize are: Kerri K. Greenidge for The Grimkes: The Legacy of Slavery in an American Family (Liveright Publishing Corporation); Sara E. Johnson for E ncyclopédie noire: The Making of Moreau de Saint-Méry’s Intellectual World (Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture and University of North Carolina Press); and Emily A. Owens for Consent in the Presence of Force: Sexual Violence and Black Women’s Survival in Antebellum New Orleans (University of North Carolina Press).
The winner will be announced following the Douglass Prize Review Committee meeting in the fall, and the award will be presented at a celebration at Trinity Church Wall Street in New York City on February 11, 2025.
From a total of eighty-two submissions, the finalists were selected by a jury of scholars that included Amy Murrell Taylor (Chair), T. Marshall Hahn Jr. Professor of History at the University of Kentucky; Natasha J. Lightfoot, Associate Professor of History at Columbia University; and John K. Thornton, Professor of History and African American Studies at Boston University.
The jury’s descriptions of the three finalists follow.
Kerri Greenidge’s beautifully written The Grimkes is a transformative account of a long-celebrated American family. Alongside the sisters Angelina and Sarah and their White kin, it is the Black Grimkes—Nancy, Archie, Frank, John, Charlotte Forten, and Angelina Weld Grimke—who take center stage. Telling a fuller, richer story of the Grimkes across four generations, Greenridge brings remarkable research and a sensitive reading of evidence to bear on a story that adds up to much more than a retelling of one family’s saga. The Grimkes is instead an unsparing and gripping meditation on the long reach of slavery well into the twentieth century, its legacy perpetuating the privilege of some and the trauma of many others.
Moreau de Saint-Méry was one of the most diligent and thoughtful of French writers on many issues of colonial history in the late eighteenth century. His description of Saint-Domingue (the present-day Haiti) was massive and is still a critical primary source for that colony on the eve of the Revolution. Sara Johnson’s Encyclopédie noire takes a careful view of Saint-Méry’s work, his life, his outlook, and above all his sources and their interpretation. In this remarkable study of Saint-Méry’s connections and attitudes, Johnson’s meticulous collection of material serves as what she calls a communal biography of him written by others. Both rigorously researched and fluidly and often cleverly written, this is a real monument of scholarship, crossing many disciplines and exercising well-reasoned judgments.
Emily Owens’s Consent in the Presence of Force is a well-written and theoretically daring take on the history of the so-called fancy trade and sexuality in antebellum New Orleans slavery. At its heart is a critical question: How did sexual violence become so ordinary? The analysis pivots on Owens’s conception of consent as something that enslaved women complicatedly gave to their White male sexual aggressors as part of a transaction, or contract, from which they derived better status in enslavement or eventual freedom. Fluid prose, careful reading of fraught legal records, and theorizing that evidences a consistent mind at work on the page, all combine to make a very familiar subject—namely rape as a building block of slavery—appear reinvented anew.
The Frederick Douglass Book Prize was established by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History and the Gilder Lehrman Center in 1999 to stimulate scholarship in the field by honoring outstanding accomplishments. The award is named for Frederick Douglass (1818–1895), an enslaved person who escaped bondage to emerge as one of the great American abolitionists, reformers, writers, and orators of the nineteenth century.
The mission of the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition (GLC) is to support academic excellence in the study of slavery and its enduring legacies, make this knowledge freely available to the public, and foster work toward social justice. Launched in 1998 through contributions from philanthropists Richard Gilder and Lewis E. Lehrman, the GLC is affiliated with the Whitney and Betty MacMillan Center for International and Area Studies at Yale University. The Center supports research fellowships, the Frederick Douglass Book Prize, scholarly working groups, publications, free public programs, and educational workshops for secondary school teachers and students, domestic and international. For further information and to find out how you can support the continuing work of the GLC, visit glc.yale.edu , e-mail: [email protected] or call (203) 432-3339.
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History was founded in 1994 by Richard Gilder and Lewis E. Lehrman, visionaries and lifelong supporters of American history education. The Institute is the leading nonprofit organization dedicated to K–12 history education while also serving the general public. Its mission is to promote the knowledge and understanding of American history through educational programs and resources. As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public charity, the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History is supported through the generosity of individuals, corporations, and foundations. The Institute’s programs have been recognized by awards from the White House, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Organization of American Historians, the Council of Independent Colleges, and the Daughters of the American Revolution. For further information, visit gilderlehrman.org or call (646) 366-9666.
PRESS CONTACTS:
Yale University
Michelle Zacks
203-432-9238
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Josh Landon
646-366-9666 x137
Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.
Thursday, September 12, 2024 7:30 PM
About this Event
595 College Ave, DeKalb, IL 60115
This conversation, moderated by Christina Abreu, Director of the Center for Latino and Latin American Studies, draws on Smith’s 2021 book , How the Word Is Passed: A Reckoning with the History of Slavery Across America, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller, winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction and selected by the New York Times as one of the 10 best books of 2021.
Smith’s bestselling books include How the Word Is Passed , which Publishers Weekly called “an essential consideration of how America’s past informs its present.” It has won numerous awards, including the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, and was named one of the best books of the year by TIME , The New York Times , The Economist and The Washington Post .
His latest book, Above Ground , was named to TIME magazine’s 100 Must-Read Books and NPR ‘s Books We Love. Smith’s first book, Counting Descent , won the 2017 Literary Award for Best Poetry Book from the Black Caucus of the American Library Association and was a finalist for an NAACP Image Award. In his forthcoming book, Just Beneath the Soil , he will explore the little-known stories behind World War II sites and discuss how they shape our collective memory of the war.
His essays, poems, and scholarly writing have been published in The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine , The New Republic, Poetry Magazine, The Paris Review, the Harvard Educational Review and elsewhere. He is a staff writer at The Atlantic .
The W. Bruce Lincoln Endowed Lecture Series brings to campus distinguished scholars who address topics of interest to both the academic community and the general public. The lectures engage key issues and are often interdisciplinary, in the spirit of Professor Lincoln’s research, writing and teaching.
Target Audience
Contact Name
Anne Hanley
Contact Email or Phone
Your browser does not support iframes.
2 people are interested in this event
Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World
Read our research on:
Full Topic List
Read Our Research On:
Wide differences over cultural issues, role of government and foreign policy, table of contents.
This spring, Pew Research Center conducted a major study of American political values . This survey examined the public’s views of topics including immigration, race and ethnicity, government, family, gender identity, religious values, and foreign policy. Reports released earlier this year looked at these attitudes among supporters of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump – then the likely major-party nominees for president.
Because the Pew Research Center interviews the same adults over time using the online American Trends Panel, for this analysis we are able to link respondents’ voter preferences across multiple surveys. As a result, we can analyze results from the spring survey by vote preferences collected in a more recent August survey – when we asked voters about their preference in the presidential contest between Donald Trump, Kamala Harris and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
This analysis uses responses from 4,527 registered voters who took both surveys. The values survey was conducted April 8-14, 2024. The vote preference survey (support if the presidential election were held today) was conducted Aug. 5-11, 2024.
Everyone who took part in these surveys is a member of the Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), a group of people recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses who have agreed to take surveys regularly. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection. Surveys were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The results are weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology .
Refer to the original reports (linked in the text of this report) for the full toplines. Here is the survey methodology for this analysis.
The 2024 presidential campaign has changed dramatically since Kamala Harris replaced Joe Biden as the Democratic Party’s nominee.
What has not changed is the vast differences in political values between voters who support Harris and those who back Republican nominee Donald Trump.
Following Harris’s extraordinary ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket, this publication and the accompanying detailed tables serve to update Pew Research Center data on political values that we released earlier this year, when Biden was still in the race.
Some of the widest gaps between Harris and Trump supporters are on issues that have divided Americans for decades, such as the role of guns in society, race and the legacy of slavery.
In addition, voters who back Harris and Trump have sharply different views on immigration, gender identity, and whether society should prioritize marriage and having children.
Here’s the original report on cultural issues , released June 6, 2024.
And here is updated data on Harris and Trump supporters’ views about: Race and racial diversity | Immigration and language | American history | Gender, family, reproductive issues | Gender identity and sexual orientation | Religion | Crime and policing | Guns
For decades, Republicans have mostly expressed a preference for smaller government, while most Democrats favor a larger government that provides more services.
This remains the case today, with Trump supporters over three times more likely than Harris supporters to favor smaller government.
Other attitudes about government – including its role in providing health care coverage – show similar patterns.
However, large majorities of both candidates’ supporters oppose any reductions in Social Security benefits.
Here’s the original report on views of government , released June 24, 2024.
And here is updated data on Harris and Trump supporters’ views about: Government’s scope and role
Supporters of Harris and Trump also have fundamental differences on America’s place in the world.
Harris supporters are more likely than Trump supporters to say the United States should take into account the interests of its allies, and that is at least very important for the U.S. to have an active role in world affairs.
Trump supporters are more likely to support policies aimed at maintaining America’s role as the world’s lone military superpower.
Here’s the original report on foreign policy , released Aug. 2, 2024.
And here is updated data on Harris and Trump supporters views about: Foreign policy, U.S. military strength
Related: War in Ukraine: Wide Partisan Differences on U.S. Responsibility and Support
Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings
Weekly updates on the world of news & information
Harris energizes democrats in transformed presidential race, many americans are confident the 2024 election will be conducted fairly, but wide partisan differences remain, joe biden, public opinion and his withdrawal from the 2024 race, amid doubts about biden’s mental sharpness, trump leads presidential race, most popular, report materials.
901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries
ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .
© 2024 Pew Research Center
COMMENTS
Analysis of Slavery in United States. The main points highlighted in the lecture are focused on the socio-economic differences between the two systems, the actual life of slaves, and methods of blacks' rebellion. "Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades" by Patrick Manning.
Explore the rich history of slavery through our comprehensive guide on slavery research paper topics. This page is designed for history students seeking in-depth insights into various aspects of slavery, including ancient, medieval, Islamic, and modern periods. We present an extensive list of slavery research paper topics categorized into 10 ...
1 Argumentative topics about slavery. 2 Compare and contract slavery topics. 3 Definition research paper topics on slavery. 4 Topics about slavery in art and literature. 5 Research paper topics on slavery in world history. 6 Topics about slavery in US history. 7 Topics about slavery today.
1864 August. The New York Times attacks Yale for its alleged "draft-shirking," accusing Yale students and their faculty and administration of "plotting evasion and desertion.". At the college, claims the Times, "how to escape the draft" is the issue of the day. "The gutters are dragged for substitutes….
Part I. The article uses primary sources to tell the story of slavery from 1619 to 1865. To begin thinking critically about primary sources, look at the cover image for the article, which uses ...
The first phase of the initiative's work was to uncover the truth of Harvard's ties to slavery through deep research guided by a committee of distinguished faculty drawn from across the University. This research provides a strong foundation for our next phase: the process of reckoning and repair. ... We explore these questions through ...
As with views of reparations, racial and ethnic differences on this question are notable. Black Americans (85%) are more likely than Hispanic (64%) and White (50%) Americans to say the legacy of slavery affects the position of Black people in the U.S. a fair amount or a great deal. The partisan gap on this question is also wide.
Teaching Notes by Samir Goswami. January 16, 2018 11:30 am (EST) Ahmad Masood/Reuters. Slavery disproportionally affects women and girls while also victimizing men and boys of all backgrounds, and ...
As questions about racial reparations have entered public and political discourse again, research about the long-term impact of chattel slavery—so called "legacy of slavery" research—has taken on new significance.
Freely Available Databases. Slave Voyages: The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database. Contains information on more than 35,000 slave voyages involving the forcible transport of more than 12 million Africans to the Americas between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries. Offers researchers, students and the general public a chance to rediscover ...
To generate the evidence required to make data-driven decisions and to empower the private sector to make targeted changes, greater investments in modern slavery research need to be made ...
Among Black Americans, political party affiliation, educational attainment and income are important points of difference in views on this question. The share of Black Democrats and Democratic leaners (57%) who say the legacy of slavery affects Black people a great deal outpaces the share of Black Republicans and Republican leaners (39%) who say ...
Slavery in America was the legal institution of enslaving human beings, mainly Africans and African Americans. Slavery existed in the United States from its founding in 1776 and became the main ...
Slavery is the condition in which one human being is owned by another. Under slavery, an enslaved person is considered by law as property, or chattel, and is deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons. Learn more about the history, legality, and sociology of slavery in this article.
Individuals or groups might be challenged to research and gather a set of primary sources on a topic other than slavery. Additional activity suggestions for different types of primary sources: Objects - Hypothesize about the uses of an unknown object pictured in an old photograph. Conduct research to support or refute the hypothesis.
Europeans developed the Atlantic slave trade, and American plantation slavery, at a time when they had turned their back on slavery at home. African slavery was encountered in the early European trading missions, but it was the shortage of labour in the Americas that sealed the Africans' fate. The swift collapse of the population of native ...
1 answer. Aug 12, 2023. Because the output of economic slavery is social slavery and cultural nakedness! Relevant answer. دکتر محمود دهگان. Aug 12, 2023. Answer. Any government that ...
👍 Good Slavery Research Topics & Essay Examples "The Escape, Or: A Leap for Freedom", "Uncle Tom's Cabin": The Need for Social Action on Slavery. Stowe and Brown wrote plays with different intentions, but both shared a single purpose - to convince their white audiences that the practice of slavery was an inhuman practice.
A multi-disciplinary research project led by the University of Liverpool and University of Nottingham is investigating the key ethical issues involved in conducting modern slavery research, informed by the perspectives of people with lived experience. Research ethics covers the benefits, harms, agency and equity of the research, including ...
The core argument of the reparations movement is that America's wealth was built on the backs of slave labor and that black Americans have been systematically denied access to that wealth. Black slaves were the engine of the American cotton industry, the most profitable enterprise of the 19th century.
Doing Research on Sensitive Topics by Raymond M. Lee This book is a comprehensive guide to the methodological, ethical and practical issues involved in undertaking research on sensitive topics. Raymond M Lee explores the reasons why social research may be politically or socially contentious: its relation to issues of social or political power ...
Antislavery U.S. Senator from Massachusetts Charles Sumner gives a speech in Congress titled, "The Crime Against Kansas" which calls out some fellow Congressmen's support for slavery. The next day pro-slavery U.S. Representative from South Carolina Preston Brooks finds Sumner at his Senate desk and beats him unconscious with a heavy cane. 1857
The concept of freedom over slavery goes back at least that far. Sadly, it also continues in certain parts of the world—recent examples including the so-called Islamic State and Boko Haram. Sincerely, Jon Guttman. Research Director. World History. www.historynet.com. More Questions at Ask Mr. History . Don't miss the next Ask Mr. History ...
The following is a transcript of the episode: [Music]Jerusalem Demsas: In a just society, the law both constrains action—prevents us or punishes us for certain behaviors—but it also outlines ...
Evolution of the enslaved population of the United States as a percentage of the population of each state, 1790-1860. Following the creation of the United States in 1776 and the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789, the legal status of slavery was generally a matter for individual U.S. state legislatures and judiciaries (outside of several historically significant exceptions ...
Jointly sponsored by the Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History in New York City and the Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition at Yale University's MacMillan Center, this annual prize of $25,000 recognizes the best book written in English on the topics of slavery, resistance, or abolition copyrighted ...
This conversation, moderated by Christina Abreu, Director of the Center for Latino and Latin American Studies, draws on Smith's 2021 book, How the Word Is Passed: A Reckoning with the History of Slavery Across America, which was a #1 New York Times bestseller, winner of the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction and selected by the New York Times as one of the 10 best books of 2021.
This survey examined the public's views of topics including immigration, race and ethnicity, government, family, gender identity, religious values, and foreign policy. Reports released earlier this year looked at these attitudes among supporters of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump - then the likely major-party nominees ...