In search of the Truth, in African-American History Month

It is African-American History Month here in the States, and this year's theme is the contribution of African-American women to American culture and history. So I thought I would take the time to draw attention to a particularly remarkable nineteenth-century woman.

Isabella Baumfree, or Sojourner Truth, as she later re-named herself, was born into slavery in New York State in 1797, and passed between several masters before escaping in 1826, a year before she would have become free under New York's emancipation programme. However, she later maintained that she had not run away: 'I did not run off,' she said, 'for I thought that wicked, but I walked off, believing that to be all right.'

In 1829, Truth moved to New York City, where she worked as a housekeeper and became associated with several unorthodox religious societies. In 1843, she declared herself a Methodist, and left New York City to tour as an itinerant preacher, speaking on a variety of subjects, including the abolition of slavery, temperance, and rights for women.

After a spell at a utopian, silk-manufacturing collective in Northampton, Massachusetts, Truth settled privately in that same town, buying a house and supporting herself by selling her memoirs, which she had dictated to a friend. She left Northampton in 1857, moving to Battle Creek, Michigan, and then on to Washington D.C. during the American Civil War. Here she worked for the National Freedmen's Relief Association, helping the thousands of emancipated southern slaves, freed during the war, that flocked to the capital looking for safety and work. She also met President Lincoln in his office in 1864.

After the Civil War, Truth toured the north and west of the U.S., speaking in behalf of the freedpeople, and campaigning for government land to be set aside for the former slaves. No land was ever granted, however, but Truth continued to work in support of the freedpeople until her death, at Battle Creek, in 1883.

Throughout her life, Sojourner Truth spoke on gender equality and racial equality, and never conceded that there could be a difference between the two concepts. She concentrated on each issue when it was relevant, and often severely castigated men for refusing to grant rights to women, but she never let that get in the way of her belief in the universality of human rights.

One episode in her life that particularly appeals to me is her stubborn reluctance to choose sides in the debate over voting reform in the late 1860s, between those who supported African-American male suffrage, on the one hand, and those who supported women's suffrage, on the other. The American Equal Rights Association, which had been formed in May 1866 as a way of co-ordinating the supporters of the two causes, split over which should be the priority. Truth refused to oppose the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would enfranchise only African-American males. But she also refused, unlike many other suffragists, to disassociate herself from those women who did oppose it - women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, who turned to racially-insensitive invective to further their argument. It always saddens me when supporters of different progressive reform movements come to blows, especially when those people seem to be unable or unwilling to empathise with other groups in seemingly similar positions to themselves.

One final point - Sojourner Truth lived and died illiterate. I have spent the last few minutes trying to write something on that fact, attempting, unsuccessfully, not to sound either patronising or as though I'm underestimating the problem of illteracy, so I'll leave you to make up your own minds about the relevance of that fact. But I wanted to mention it because it gave rise to probably my favourite quote of hers:

'Sojourner, can't you read?' asked Harriot, the young daughter of the aforementioned Elizabeth Cady Stanton. 'Oh no, honey,' Truth answered quickly. 'I can't read little things like letters. I read big things like men.'

What Price Principle?

A bit over a week ago, as I’m sure you’re aware, in exchanges in the House of Commons Prime Minister David Cameron called the MP for Bolsover, Dennis Skinner, a ‘dinosaur’. I was probably not alone in being somewhat irritated by this. Aside from the obvious and initial outcry that this was an ageist provocation (Skinner is 80 next month), you have to question to what extent someone who is a product of the archaic institutions of Eton, Oxbridge, landed wealth and the old school tie can call somebody else a ‘dinosaur’. However what I was particularly annoyed about was that the likes of Dennis Skinner, who would appear to be one of the few good guys left in British politics, could be sneered at for being stuck in his ways by Mr. Cameron. For me, politics aside, his compassion is something others in the House would do well to emulate.

Skinner has stayed loyal to the ideals that he came into Parliament to represent, for a long time using his position on the National Executive Committee to fight against Labour’s drift to the right. He has consistently been recorded as the MP who votes the most, refusing to miss a debate on the grounds that if he had skipped a day at the pit, he would have been sacked. He has always refused to use the Westminster bars, on the grounds that you should not drink and work, and will not use the pairing system of abstaining from votes. He emerged completely unscathed from the expenses scandal and allegedly won’t even accept a cup of coffee from an interviewer. He has rebelled on numerous issues. I could go on. It is probably a reflection of our political system that someone of this ilk who was elected to an incredibly safe seat at the age of 38 has made relatively little forward progress.

However, it could be said that he clings to his ways to the detriment of the greater good. He has told others that he is prepared for his socialism to hurt him. He has been suspended from the House at least ten times, and this disrespect for its traditions has been explained as a result of his ardent views. If this is the case it’s somewhat counterproductive, as is his refusal to participate in all-parliamentary groups. His reaction to Cameron’s jibe was perhaps also evident of this inability to accept that there could be validity to another’s viewpoint. Normal procedure would have been to respond with a wry smile; Skinner flapped his arms and looked to those on his side of the House in outrage.

Principles on the whole, rationally, are not wholly useful things in politics, which necessarily requires some compromise and opportunism. Often little separates the holding of strong principles from the belief in an ideology of some form. These unyielding views are not good. It’s unlikely that one will come across someone holding perfectly matching views and so they are prone to making people good haters. One of the most successful politicians of recent times stole the middle ground and can’t be described as loyal to the principles of his party; though as we now know, Tony Blair’s Britain was built on foundations of sand. However these centrist politics hold the widest appeal and logically, though crudely, the most straightforward way to a reasonable compromise between left and right.

I’m focusing a lot on principle here, though I believe it to be the main reason for Skinner’s harrying of Cameron, and his constant positioning of himself on one of the front benches, the best position to rile his Tory counterparts. Their views on the world could barely be more different. Also I believe it to be paired fairly solidly with compassion, especially in the mind of the public; the most admirable of Skinner’s qualities as mentioned earlier. I’m aware I’m perhaps blurring the two in an excuse to discuss principle, though I feel in this case the link is justifiable. The holding and keeping of strong principles suggests an attachment and a care for things, regardless of whether or not they may appear outdated, friendships, loyalties, etc. In Skinner’s case it represents a desire to push through the policies he still considers to be best for his ex-coalmining constituents. In short we shouldn’t really respect Skinner due to his principles (not politics, just principles) but we do.

It’s probably for the same reasons that I hold a grudging respect for Margaret Thatcher. I don’t advocate Skinner’s politics but I despise Thatcher’s. She of course could hardly be described as compassionate, but she was certainly brave, another noble asset that we attach romantically to being principled. In our minds those who appear to flit unpredictably from one policy to another are portrayed as somewhat slimy, though I would argue this flexibility often requires equal bravery. However I would still rather have a chamber full of Skinners and Thatchers (and equally principled moderates, if there are such things). Perhaps this belies my own hopes, maybe the historian within me longs for ideologies again, and there is certainly an element of romance to this wish. Mostly though I think it’s because in an age of spin and scandal, it’s good to know that some MPs are definitely there for a reason, which is that they care.

No votes! No golf ! Alice Hawkins and the Leicester Suffragettes

Alice Hawkins and the Suffragette movement in Edwardian Leicester by Richard Whitmore is an interesting read.

Alice Hawkins worked in the Leicester shoe industry at the turn of the century and was a founder member of the local branch of the Women's Social and Political Union. The Leicester branch was notable for the level of interest it aroused among working class women

Hawkins was a trade unionist and a socialist who became disillusioned with the hostility women trade unionists received from their male counterparts and in 1911 she helped found a independent women's union in the industry.

Although from 1908 the Chistabel Pankhurst directed the focus of the movement to middle class women-Hawkins remained a committed member-convinced that if women got the vote this would enable an avalanche of change.

When the militant campaign was in full force in Leicester during 1912-1914-women attacked pillar boxes in Leicester either burning them or pouring ink(or some other black liquid) through the slot. They also burned down Blaby railway station and inscribed 'No votes -no golf' on the turf at the Leicester Golf course in Stoughton Drive.

Alice Hawkins kept a scrapbook about the movement and her relatives loaned this to Richard Whitmore for his research.

UNESCO

Today's events (or more specifically the following news http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15527534) have prompted me to seek the LAB's insights.

Surely it cannot be right to prevent a group of people having representation?
After all 'in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people ... to assume among the powers of the earth , the seperate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ...' (US Declaration of Independence)

When is the right time for recognition?
Who decides when it is time?

Can other people sense that something is wrong?

Of course the 'Arab-Israeli' is not straightforward but I can imagine historians writing about how the USA's foreign policy contributed to a very slow 'peace process'.

What do you think Labbers? Have I missed something?

Political History Network

Last Wednesday I convened a meeting of the Political HistoryNetwork at the University of Leicester, a place for political historians to gettogether to discuss methodology, the latest research in the field and to catchup (yes, political historians can be quite a friendly lot). It was a goodexperience for me to chair a discussion and organise an event. However, I mustthank Jason Parry (original convenor of the Network) and Dr. Stuart Ball fortheir help behind the scenes. The Network works so well because those in attendancetend to be familiar with your field or at least the general context of it.

I was thinking about the return of the NEW HISTORY LAB thisFriday and realised that the LAB has such a wide scope, which undoubtedly addsto its value. From the material culture of Trekkies to History and Theory orfrom Speed Researching to Jack Jones. Although one may come into topics cold, even the seemingly most unrelated topic or concept can have a relevance to yourwork that you had not considered before.

So, although it was great getting together with thepolitical historians last Wednesday, I am looking forward to the return of theLAB this Friday where you never know what you will get, except a nice cuppa anda couple of slices of homemade cake.

Political History Network

On Wednesday 9 March I went to the first meeting of the Political History Network at the University of Reading. It was an invaulable opportunity to meet other students working on Political History and it was good to see what all this 'networking' lark we are always told about actually is! I fully recommend that any research students should go to as many conferences ect. as possible. In many ways they are what you make of them.

The Political History Network had lots of tasty biscuits that I saw as my duty to help get through but there was no cake! See you all on Friday 18 March with Dr Jonathan Foyle at the only place with History and Cake - the NEW HISTORY LAB.

Nick Clegg: Similarities to Lloyd George

Nick Clegg's recent prominence has encouraged me to think about the similarities between him and another well known Liberal politician = David Lloyd George.

Clegg made a tremendous impact during the TV debates (particularly the first) during the general election this year. Lloyd George, often dubbed 'the Welsh Wizard' was an equally, if not greater, electioneer.

Of course there are significant differences - Lloyd George when he was Prime Minister was not the leader of the Liberal Party whereas Nick Clegg is the Deputy Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Party.

However, there is one characteristic that they both have in common - their ability to powerfully advocate one policy and then to powerfully advocate the complete opposite when the sutuation arises. In Clegg's case this is his well documentated U-Turn over Tuition Fees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXw7yqHfxDI (Apologies for the overt political nature of the YouTube link but it does contain genuine clear and unambiguous statements from Nick Clegg). In the general election of 1918 Lloyd George and the Conservative dominated government promised social reform and 'homes fit for heroes to live in'. After this election, 'excessive criticism of government expenditure built up within the Conservative ranks' and Lloyd George appointed Sir Eric Geddes to recommend cuts in expenditure - often known as the 'Geddes Axe'. The governments social reforms were quickly forgotten about.

I wonder if Nick Clegg will speak in the House of Commons on Thursday (9 December) during the vote on the increased Tuition Fees, and if so, will my comparison to Lloyd George be given further substance.