Did American Capitalism Basically Build Soviet Communism?

One of the greatest threats to Western democracy and capitalist economics over the past century would be the existence of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This regime dominated military and foreign policy for many nations from 1917 to 1991. This system based on Marxist ideology brought an empire mired in feudalism to its knees and propelled a nation into the twentieth century. Within a decade after a revolution and civil war, the Soviet Union began to rival top tier nations for economic and military power. How did this parachronism of twentieth century Europe so rapidly propel itself forward to meet and match its neighbors? This becomes the leading question of this research journey.

The focus of this research will center on an ironic twist to the potential cause. Did basic American capitalism stabilize, then propel this young and tenuous Soviet Union forward to compete with the world’s top economies? To answer this question, the targets and target dates of research must be determined. The timeframe for this effort will cover a decade of work from 1922 to 1932. This period begins with the end of the Russian Civil War and then ends with the conclusion of Joseph Stalin’s first Five Year Plan and official recognition by the United States. Industrialists and corporations such as Ford Motor Company, General Electric, Westinghouse, Occidental Petroleum, RCA, Averill Harriman, architect Albert Kahn, and others serve as the targets of American movement eastward. These particular corporations provide historical archives, which offer primary source information in the form of contracts, communications, and photographs from their involvements in the USSR. The individuals provide memoirs that offer firsthand accounts to decision making, observations, and analysis.

Other sources from the American side of the topic will include newspaper articles from leading papers such as the New York Times. Records from Amtorg, a foreign investment banking corporation, provide the financial link between these American interests and the Soviet Union. As the saying goes, “follow the money”.

Once this connection is established, the trace will continue to the USSR. How in depth will the Soviet research be? It will be limited just in availability of access. The Soviet Union published economic data during this period to the world. Joseph Stalin’s memoirs and speeches also document economic data during this period. The question is whether this information will be completely reliable due to documented bias against the West and for their own Soviet system. To bolster the reliability, data from Western banks, investment firms, and governments will be compared to the Soviet data.

Having a solid, diverse slate of sources and data will provide a sound foundation for the direction of this research. Economic, political, and government sources through Western and Marxist historical and historiographical research will help alleviate concerns over singular bias and reliability. This method will create a better argument and case for a conclusion to this research.

Questions to be answered in this research:

• To what extent did US corporations aid the Soviet economy?
• What motivated American investment in an ideologically hostile regime?
• What was the overall financial effect of US aid to the Soviet economy?
• Could the Soviet economy manage to stabilize itself without US aid?
• Did the Soviets sacrifice their own ideology to receive aid from the US and private corporations?
• Was this ideological hypocrisy? And was it willing and intentional?

The goal for this project is to research, analyze, and interpret this data to answer these questions in order to draw a solid, sound conclusion on American involvement with the economic formation of the Soviet Union. Previous research and knowledge of the Soviet Union and presently Russia provide a foundation of experience to begin this research. Basic knowledge of the Russian language or the means of translation will assist the foreign component of the project. The interest of Russia and the Soviet Union through an expanded personal library provides the background for this research to be a foundation for a future post-doctoral agenda.

This research could potentially lead to further discussion and analysis along two lines of thought. One thought leads to the irony of the Soviet Marxist system owing its existence to the American capitalist system. The other thought would be how the US created a monster that led to decades of military, economic, and political anxiety. Was there an actual winner? And who did actually win? Did this foreign investment buoy American corporations to remain afloat during the Great Depression? Did Stalin hide the fact the Soviet Union received this aid and investment from their ideological enemy? The hope upon completion of this research project is that it opens the door for a continuation of research and analysis on this topic. 

The Great Depression: Easier to Describe What DIDN'T Cause It

 The Great Depression of the United States saw a period of economic despair and government expansion. For decades, economists debated responses and the consequences of those responses. The greater debate occurs when examining the actual cause of the Depression with most economists and historians pointing to a more complex cause including multiple factors. With the US economy being a complex system linked to domestic production and global trade, no single event can accept blame for the Depression. A complex, interconnected set of policies and events over a period of two decades contributed to a perfect storm of economic collapse. The major factors include “easy money” policies, President Herbert Hoover’s government interventionism, Franklin Roosevelt’s interventionism through the New Deal, and government actions such as labor laws, which created and accelerated the crisis.

An argument can be made that both World Wars I and II served as bookends to the Great Depression and the policies that created it. Historians and economists begin the debate pointing out several events and policies that then lead to that perfect storm of years of economic despair. As soldiers returned home from World War I, they returned more globally aware. Many soldiers left rural towns they never left prior to the war. They returned with a new perspective that transitioned into the “Roaring Twenties”. Government economic policies from both President Calvin Coolidge and the Federal Reserve created a surplus in available cash as well as an expansion of available credit amounting to $500 million. By 1925, this expansion resulted in over $4 billion of credit expansion. Between 1921 and 1929, the volume of farm and urban mortgages doubled in the US. Interest rate drops added to the rush to take advantage of the easy credit. This created a massive boom but one built on massive debt. By 1928-29, the markets began self-correcting with interest rates sliding up to normal levels. The boom slowed down which resulted in the slowing of the economy. October 1929 saw a tightening of policies that resulted in higher interest rates and a drop in confidence in the markets. On October 24^th, the stock market witnessed the bubble popping through the “Black Thursday” crash.[1]

Prior to this market correction, earlier corrections even in the 1800’s were resolved on their own or with minimal government interference. Recovery usually resulted within a year or two. This crash actually drew in government intervention from the beginning. President Herbert Hoover wasted no time urging Congress for action to stave off any further decline. The Federal Reserve’s mismanagement added to those woes. The Reserve’s initial response created a 30% drop in the nation’s money supply. Hoover’s response was the recently passed Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The goal was to push for high tariffs on imports to promote buying of American goods to boost the domestic economy. Hoover’s push for substantially high tariffs created trade wars from global markets. US exports, primarily agricultural, plummeted, which expanded the Depression to the middle and working class families. In a three year period, US exports fell from $5.5 billion to $1.7 billion. Farm loans were called in as farmers lost land owned for generations.[2]

Government response saw a creeping effect of control over the economy. Hoover’s initial policies increased the government’s share of GNP by a third. Hoover pushed for subsidies for rail lines, ship-building, and farming. The Revenue Act of 1932 doubled the level of income taxes paid by Americans. Taxes on gas, checks, telegraphs, telephones, and automobiles spread the pain to even more Americans. At the local level, city, county, and state governments were forced to increase taxes to offset their own losses. The fiscal burden of government on the people went from 16% to 29%.

Franklin D Roosevelt’s election in 1932, brought even more government interventionist policies. Roosevelt and the majority Democratic controlled Congress ignored interventionist failures of the previous administration. The Democrats moved forward with their massive government restructuring through the New Deal programs. The minimum wage was increased while work weeks were limited to 35 hours for industrial workers and 40 for white collar workers. Unemployment increased to 13 million and 500,000 Blacks in the South lost their jobs.[3] Hoover’s farm subsidies were increased to record levels but offered little relief to farmers across the country. More money was printed and pumped into the economy to help boost purchasing power. Labor unions were given extraordinary powers for contract bargaining, strikes, and labor disputes. Unions utilized these new powers in ways that crippled industry in most Northern cities.[4]

It was a culmination of events building upon previous events that not only created the Great Depression but prolonged it all the way until the US entering World War II. Most economists and historians will look at the war as the stopping point of the Great Depression for the simple fact that the US had entered a war economy as well as a massive pool of labor now returning to work in the form of military service. The policies of Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt presented good intentions to better the American economy. Each President’s actions only created instability that passed on to the next President, who in turn created further instability. The situation that began after the American return from war saw itself ending with yet another return to war.

Bernanke, Ben S. "The Macroeconomics of the Great Depression: A Comparative Approach." Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, no. 1 (1995): 1-28.

Cecchetti, Stephen G. and Georgios Karras. "Sources of Output Fluctuations during the Interwar Period: Further Evidence on the Causes of the Great Depression." The Review of Economics and Statistics 76, no. 1 (1994): 80-102.

Crafts, N. and P. Fearon. "Lessons from the 1930s Great Depression." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 26, no. 3 (2010): 285-317.

Taylor, Jason E. "Work-Sharing during the Great Depression: Did the 'President's Reemployment Agreement' Promote Reemployment?" Economica (London) 78, no. 309 (2011): 133-158.

---

[1] Stephen G. Cecchetti and Georgios Karras. "Sources of Output Fluctuations during the Interwar Period: Further Evidence on the Causes of the Great Depression." The Review of Economics and Statistics 76, no. 1 (1994): 80-102. 

[2] Ben S. Bernanke. "The Macroeconomics of the Great Depression: A Comparative Approach." Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 27, no. 1 (1995): 1-28.

[3] Jason E. Taylor.  "Work-Sharing during the Great Depression: Did the 'President's Reemployment Agreement' Promote Reemployment?" Economica (London) 78, no. 309 (2011): 133-158.

[4] N. Crafts and P. Fearon. "Lessons from the 1930s Great Depression." Oxford Review of Economic Policy 26, no. 3 (2010): 285-317.

 

Asa Griggs Candler: Pharmacist to Philanthropist

In an analysis of leading entrepreneurs of the early twentieth century, one name strikes a tone of familiarity across the globe in the present day: Asa Griggs Candler. While his name is not immediately recognizable to many, the product he marketed immediately brings recognition with its distinguishing logo and glass bottles. In the late 1800’s Asa Candler bought a carbonated drink formula and turned it into one of the greatest marketing giants using methods emulated by companies even in the present day. 

The legacy of Asa Candler and Coca-Cola began with another Georgian, Dr. John Pemberton. In 1886, Pemberton began selling a beverage composed of carbonated water, extract from coca leaves, and extract from the kola nut. This elixir sold as a fountain drink for medicinal purposes. After some legal maneuvering and pressure, druggist and local businessman Asa Griggs Candler purchased rights to the formula through payments totaling a rumored $2,300.[1],[2]

Candler was uncertain of the potential for success and sold bottling rights for $1. This contract was fixed with no end date. Candler would only see maximum profits from maximum volume of sales with the price being fixed at $.05 per drink. The predicament drove Candler to begin a massive advertising campaign that would become a fixture of Coca-Cola throughout its history. Candler would eventually renegotiate bottling prices in 1921.[3]

Candler would make several changes to his product and marketing strategy. Knowing he needed additional capital and that the drink faced scrutiny over the coca ingredient, Candler worked to remove the cocaine portion and sell that to pharmaceutical companies in 1903. By 1911, the advertising budget for Coca-Cola reached over $1 million. Four years later Candler worked with Root Glass Company to design the iconic curved glass bottle still seen today.[4]

Within five years after acquisition, Candler took a beverage selling about nine drinks a day locally to one available in every state in the nation. Coca-Cola came with a formula and a logo. Within 15 years, the company had over $1 million advertising budget and sales that included multiple countries. Coca-Cola became a publicly traded company in 1919 with a stock price of $40 per share. By 1929, Coca-Cola drinks sold in vending machines strategically placed in pharmacies, grocery stores, and gas stations.[5]

In 1919, Candler and his children stepped out of their roles in the company and sold it to an investor consortium led by Ernest Woodruff. By this point, Candler had been serving as mayor of Atlanta for two years. Candler also began investing in real estate and developed several projects in and around Atlanta. Developed in 1906 and completed soon after, the Candler Building served as a headquarters for the business in the tallest building in Atlanta at that time. It remains a historical landmark in Atlanta. Candler duplicated this building in New York City six years later.

As mayor of Atlanta, he balanced the city budget for the first time in decades. After the Great Atlanta Fire of 1917, Candler led an effort to rebuild the city in a more modern effort to include commercial districts, better housing options, and an updated sewer system formatted for massive future growth. To ensure enough funding for these projects, Candler offered personal loans to the city. In addition to these efforts, Candler gave over $7 million to Emory University and paid for the school to relocate from Oxford, GA to Atlanta. He donated 50 acres of property to create Candler Park, which remains in use today. Buildings used by the Candlers while heading Coca-Cola remain in use in Kansas City, New York, and Baltimore. Candler died in 1929 in Atlanta, GA.[6] He did not live to see the market crash seven months later. His legacy with Coca-Cola is recognized around the world. The iconic logo and bottle created over 100 years ago remain popular in our culture and find themselves at sporting events, parties, vacations, and favorite restaurants.

---

[1] “Cola History: The Coca-Cola Company,” Coca-Cola Company History (Coca-Cola Company, n.d.),

[2] Bahar Sharareh. "Candler, the Real Thing when it Came to Coke Sell it: The Company Founder Built a Soft-Drink Empire." Investor's Business Daily, 2012.

[3] Terri Lonier. "Alchemy in Eden." Enterprise & Society 11, no. 4 (2010): 695-708.

[4] Murray Hunter. "A Short History of Business and Entrepreneurable Evolution during the 20th Century: Trends for the New Millenium." Geopolitics, History, and International Relations 5, no. 1 (2013): 44-98.

[5] "Coca-Cola in History." New York Times (1923-Current File),1929.

               [6] "A.G. CANDLER, MAKER OF COCA COLA, DIES: …”, New York Times (1923-Current File),1929.

 

The Postbellum Cotton Competition: A New North vs South

 

In the antebellum economy of the United States the cotton economy was based on production in the South and processing in the North. Slave labor and an abundance of farmland made conditions for cotton production favorable in Southern states where the crop was dominant. Well established industry in the form of factories made Northern states the dominant region for cotton processing through textile mills. After the Civil War, the dynamics of cotton production and processing changed. Southern states began seeing a growth of cotton mills in new mill towns while Northern states saw a decrease in textile mills in this transitioning postbellum economy. The transition of cotton mill production dominance from the North to the South in postbellum United States can be attributed to a change in the dynamics of the labor force.

The economics of the cotton industry focused on the bottom line for each level of production of cotton and cotton-based products. In order to manage the greatest profit margins for cotton in the South, land and labor were the critical components. Prior to the Civil War, cotton farming took place on large plantations. Free labor in the form of slaves provided the greatest potential value for profits. After the war and with the end of slavery, cotton plantations declined with the loss of slave labor. Labor costs would now rise and land would be distributed to lower class Whites and some former slaves.[1] Many of the statistics on labor and land ownership are somewhat skewed in the postbellum South. Slaves no longer existed. A transition to a free labor force countered efforts to doctor antebellum numbers. While it was important to count slaves or free Blacks for purposes of representation, counting property ownership by free Blacks was not. Addressing children in the labor force was also a controversial issue for both regions. Immigrant children in the North and poor White and free Black children provided a means of additional labor with very little cost.[2]

In the North, cotton processing took place in various mills predominantly in the Northeast. These mills were well-established going back decades prior to the war. Labor was local with a mixture of family and neighbors. As immigration increased, labor increased. This increase provided an expansion of factories. Most of the mill production at this point was for domestic consumption with raw cotton typically being shipped to foreign buyers.

In analyzing the data presented in the sources, there are notable differences in the transition of manufacturing of cotton through mills. This transition for both North and South takes place during the Civil War. Prior to the war, Southern states were the source for cotton farming. Northern states dominated in numbers of textile mills. Postbellum numbers shows a decline in Northern mills and exponential growth in the number of Southern mills with some areas tripling and quadrupling total numbers in a period of twenty years after the end of the war. Output of raw cotton and number of cotton farms increased in Southern states as well.[3]

Among the labor changes seen, Northern mills declined in total number but increased in size and production. Labor forces were influenced by the influx of immigrants. Southern mills developed in new towns along rail lines. Labor in the mills included many poor Whites losing land and income due to the war. In search of jobs, many families relocated to these new mill towns. The mills employed entire families with even younger children working in roles suited for their size.[4] Most northern states saw at minimum 50% declines in the number of cotton mills in the postbellum era. Maine was the only Northern state with established antebellum factories that saw growth in numbers. While Northern states saw a decline in the number of cotton mills, they saw a proportional match in capital investment with Southern states. The factories themselves saw an expansion in production abilities as well as upgrades in technology. These Northern mills were able to offset the drop in mill numbers with production increases.[5] The increase in production could not offset the efficiency of the Southern system of having farms, mills, railroads, and ports in proximity for a more efficient process.

While there are no doubt other factors playing a role in the change in farming and production of cotton in a postbellum economy, there is enough data to note a shifting of the processing of cotton from Northern mills to newly established Southern mills. With competition based on cheaper labor and proximity to cotton farms, rail lines, and Southern ports, Northern mills reduced in numbers, having to either retool for other production options or consolidate through upgrading the remaining mills. This shift provided the means for the South to become more industrialized as mill towns drew in population from the rural areas.

 

---

[1] Louis A. Ferleger and John D. Metz, Cultivating Success in the South: Farm Households in the Postbellum Era. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

[2] McHugh, Cathy L. "Child Labor in the Postbellum Southern Cotton Textile Industry." Business and Economic History 11 (1982): 136-46.

[3] Douglas Flamming. Creating the Modern South: Millhands and Managers in Dalton, Georgia, 1884-1984. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2000.

[4] William H. Phillips, "The labor market of southern textile mill villages: Some micro evidence." Explorations in Economic History 23, no. 2 (1986): 103-123.

[5] United States. 1975. Historical statistics of the United States: colonial times to 1970. Washington: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.

 

The Hunter Becomes the Hunted

During the Civil War, very few places saw a long, drawn out bitter struggle through guerrilla and partisan warfare than the Shenandoah Valley. Union forces used the valley as a means to skirt around Confederate units in the Piedmont and Tidewater areas in the east. Confederate forces saw the valley as a path to conduct operations up through Maryland into Union territory. Considered the breadbasket of the Confederacy, the Shenandoah was also seen as strategic for supplying grain to feed Confederate forces. Generals such as Jackson, Sheridan, and Early earned their reputations leading many campaigns up and down the valley throughout the war. Many of these battles were low-key skirmishes among partisan ranger attacks. One such example of this is the raid conducted by Major General David Hunter (US).

General Hunter was known for his staunch abolitionist views on slavery and advocated for enlisting free Blacks into the Union Army. His notoriety came after his issuing of General Order No. 11, which called for the freeing of all slaves in the territories of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina as of May 9, 1862.[1] President Lincoln immediately rescinded the order but Hunter left his mark while continuing to press for allowing free Blacks to serve as active duty soldiers.

Hunter was issued a command in the Shenandoah theater after Gen. Franz Sigel was removed by Gen. Ulysses S. Grant for losing momentum and being defeated by cadets from Virginia Military Institute.[2] Grant ordered Hunter to carry out scorched earth tactics to disrupt the Virginia Central Railroad lines and communications as well as destroy farming in the valley. Ultimately, Hunter would pose as a distraction for General Robert E. Lee’s forces in the east currently being engaged by General Grant.

One such account of Hunter’s raids focused on his attempt to take the town of Lynchburg with his force of 26,000 soldiers. He had just completed a burning of VMI as retaliation for the cadets defeating his predecessor at the Battle of New Market.[3] On June 16, 1864, Hunter and his staff arrived at Liberty Hall, the home of William Read, son of the local Dr. J.T.W. Read. The Read family offered their home along with their hospitality with no desire to inflame the tense situation of Union forces advancing in the area. Because it was still morning, William Read offered Gen. Hunter and his staff breakfast. Among the staff were future Presidents Rutherford B Hayes, James Garfield, and William McKinley. Mint juleps were served before bringing the staff into dining on one of the largest meals they had in some time.[4]

While receiving such hospitality, Gen Hunter and his staff failed to realize the hidden intent in the Read family’s actions. The Reads had been stalling Hunter’s forces to prevent the seizure of Lynchburg as well as waiting for the arrival for what would be General Jubal Early’s own raid tasked by General Lee to deal with the Union forces in the valley. The ‘hunter’ had now become the ‘hunted’.

Early’s forces arrived to drive Hunter’s raiders not only out of the Lynchburg area but out of the Shenandoah Valley and back into the area of West Virginia. The delay tactic by the Read family provided just enough time for Early’s own raiders to reach the area to take the offensive and drive Hunter completely out of the war for weeks. Mint juleps and a Southern breakfast saved the Shenandoah Valley allowing Jubal Early’s forces to recapture the burned remnants of VMI and protect Lee’s western flank for the next few months.[5]

---

[1] Ezra J. Warner (1964) Generals in Blue: Lives of the Union Commanders. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

[2] Edward A. Miller Jr. (1997) Lincoln's Abolitionist General: the Biography of David Hunter. University of South Carolina Press.

[3] Charles W. Turner, editor. "General David Hunter's Sack of Lexington, Virginia, June 10-14, 1864: An Account by Rose Page Pendleton." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (vol. 83, No. 2, April 1975, pp. 173-183).

[4] Daisy Read, New London: Today and Yesterday. Lynchburg, VA: J. P. Bell, 1950.

[5] Jubal Early, (1866). A Memoir of the Last Year of the War for Independence. Toronto: Lovell & Gibson. p. 51.

When Roots Determine Leaves & Branches

One of the most important elements of teaching history is truly understanding my own history. To make history relatable to students you have to make it personal. My own personal history and the history of my ancestors is something I have always found an interest in. Growing up, I always remember just sitting around listening to tales of family history with my maternal grandparents. After they both passed away I wanted to start tracking down and documenting as much of this family information as possible.

Never being close to my biological father’s family, I always wanted to know more about that side. The last name of Godwin was not that difficult to trace.  A few other researchers had already put pieces together of the history of that side. The first Godwin of my line that came to America was Thomas Godwin arriving in Jamestowne, Virginia Colony in 1650.[1] Thomas served as a colonel in the militia, as a Burgess, and was elected as Speaker of the House of Burgesses during Bacon’s Rebellion. His son, Thomas Jr., and through the next two generations became active in the Quaker movement in Virginia becoming opponents of slavery. Thomas Jr. refused to accept a slave mentioned in his father’s will out of religious principles.[2] It was through this line that my ancestors traveled through Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia, and stopping in Alabama in the early 1830’s. They arrived in an area of Alabama called Sand Mountain – named for its higher elevation and poor soil. This was a newly formed county from Cherokee lands called Marshall County.[3] Coming from more fertile soil previously in Georgia, farming became much more difficult.

The part of this line I found the most intriguing was the family’s response to the Civil War. Many families in northern Alabama were opposed to the idea of secession. Many of these Jacksonian Southerners were very loyal to the United States rather than the state of Alabama. Very few families owned slaves. They viewed secession and the war to come as an act of treason. When conscription began, many men fled to Tennessee or hid in caves along the Tennessee River. Once General Ulysses S Grant arrived in Tennessee, many of these men were allowed to form a unit of volunteers under Union Army command.[4] My great-great grandfather along with his father joined this unit in 1862, serving in it until after the war ended.

For a southern family to have men fighting for the Union is a rare occurrence. There are stories of Confederate soldiers deserting throughout the war to then serve in the Union Army. But there are very few stories told of men who joined early on or as soon as Union forces reached them. I was definitely intrigued by the whole story of two generations, a father and son, going off to war to fight under General Grant. I decided that more had to be learned about this unit. There are a few small books from local researchers mostly only available in Alabama libraries. The books that were still in print, I ordered copies for myself. Glenda Todd wrote several books on the First Alabama Cavalry telling of their exploits and stories about some of the men who fought in the unit. Looking at more information I read that this unit was transferred from direct command under Gen. Grant and sent to Gen. William Sherman’s command in Chattanooga. General Sherman had the First Alabama detached from the main units choosing instead to have them as his vanguard and escort in his march through Georgia. The First saw battle in Chattanooga, Dalton, Resaca, Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta, Jonesboro, Savannah, and followed Sherman’s forces through the Carolinas to the end of the war.[5]

To have this father and son fight for the Union Army during the Civil War but be from the heart of the South was an amazing story. To imagine the hardships of living essentially in hostile territory and fearing for the lives of your family had to be difficult. With some of this line having kin in Georgia fighting in Confederate units across the battlefield makes it even more intriguing. My own family story here revealed a solid historical example of brother versus brother facing off at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain just north of Atlanta. Digging into this history even back to the early days in colonial Virginia, I saw how an opposition to slavery and a deep sense of patriotism to the United States carried over through time and even to the next few generations that served in the military in several wars and conflicts.

---

[1] “Resources,” Jamestowne Society (Jamestowne Society, n.d.), accessed June 16, 2020, http://www.jamestowne.org/resources.html.

[2] John Bennett Boddie, Seventeenth Century Isle of Wight County Virginia: a History of the County of Isle of Wight, Virginia, during the Seventeenth Century, Including Abstracts of the County Records (Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co., 2003).

[3] 1850 U.S. census, Marshall County, Alabama, population schedule, Kirbys, James A Godwin; digital image, Ancestry.com, accessed April 18, 2013, http://ancestory.com.

[4] Glenda McWhirter. Todd, First Alabama Cavalry, U.S.A.: Homage to Patriotism (Westminster, MD: Heritage Books, 2006).

[5] “Soldiers and Sailors Database,” National Parks Service (U.S. Department of the Interior, n.d.), accessed June 18, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/soldiers-and-sailors-database.htm.

Christianity in Early America: Leading the Cause for Abolition

In studying the importance of Christianity on the early history of the United States, you cannot ignore the connection Christianity had with the cause of abolition of slavery. Many leading religious figures, pastors, academics, and orators brought their deeply-held faith into the political realm and controversy of slavery. We tend to recognize names like Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, and Frederick Douglass. We may recall the Beecher family, or at least recognize Harriet Beecher Stowe as the author of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. There are other names less-known by the mainstream of America. Morgan Godwin, an Anglican preacher to Virginia and Barbados, and Presbyterian ministers Samuel Davies, Charles Finney, and Albert Barnes were other names impacting American Christian views on the cause of abolition. Even the most controversial abolitionist John Brown based his entire beliefs on abolition through his Christian faith.

One of the greatest examples of the role that Christians played in the abolitionist movement is the Underground Railroad. This system or network of activists helping slaves escape to free Northern states was predominantly run by pastors and other religious leaders in Northern and border states.[1] And this effort was not a homogeneous effort on the part of a few Christians. Quakers worked with Presbyterians who worked with Methodists who worked with Congregationalists. Denominational differences were set aside as a unified purpose of helping slaves gain freedom became the mission. The scope of this mission included feeding, housing, clothing, and educating the new recipients of freedom. Many of these same people even remained within the movement to train, educate, and help integrate others like them into society.[2]

One of the names I mentioned has a significance to me as a family connection in my own genealogical research. Morgan Godwin was an Anglican minister educated at Oxford College in England. Godwin traveled to Bermuda and colonial Virginia to expand missions efforts originally intended for Native Americans. On his journeys, he witnessed the horrors of slavery, noting how the law considered slaves as property. Seeing them as a perfect focus for missions effort he began ministering to many in early Virginia settlements. The trouble he found himself in was on the issue of baptism. Church and government policy at the time forbade baptizing slaves. The reason given was that in doing so, slaves would be considered children of God equal to White Christians. This would undermine the whole concept of chattel slavery by using Biblical principles for justifying slaves’ humanity. Godwin continued his efforts for outreach, ministering to the slaves regardless of how the law viewed them. His efforts were seen as a challenge to authority in civil government. The Anglican Church did not quite see this as heavy a crime as the civil government did. Because his ministry posed a risk to the order of society and the outcry of local plantation owners, the colonial government in Williamsburg ordered him removed and banished from the colony. Insisting on continuing this new cause and focus, Godwin moved to a hub of the transactions of slavery in Barbados. He saw this move as a method of being able to get a message of the Gospel into the colonies but through the efforts of slaves he ministered to in Barbados. Using the template of Paul in the early church, he sought to be the hub of the Gospel in the hub of slavery. His efforts were greeted with hostility in Barbados. The traders and plantation owners had greater control over access, which neutralized Godwin’s mission efforts there in Barbados. Facing failure and the possibility of jail, he chose to return to England to begin writing several texts in hopes of educating other religious and political leaders of his cause.[3] [4]

Godwin’s efforts didn’t necessarily attack the institution of slavery itself or call for abolition. His efforts were seen as a first step and the earliest case of addressing the issue of slavery from a Christian viewpoint. His works and deeds were noticeable enough that they made it into mention by abolitionist leaders William Wilberforce and Frederick Douglass. Godwin’s acknowledgement of seeing slaves as people deserving of the Gospel counter to civil and Church law became a foundation in an effort that grew in colonial America and later the United States of America. Soon, other Christian leaders would look at the issue from a Biblical perspective and lead the charge in an effort to promote freedom in the earthly sense as much as in a spiritual and eternal sense. Soon, pastors were preaching fiery sermons to their flock that brought the cause of abolition to a greater scale. The names I mentioned earlier became a voice to the voiceless in projecting the cry for freedom.

---

[1] Alden T. Vaughn, "The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth-Century Virginia." The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 97, no. 3 (1989): 311-54. 

[2] Junius P. Rodriguez and Sharpe Reference (Firm). Encyclopedia of Emancipation and Abolition in the Transatlantic World. Armonk, NY: Sharpe Reference, 2007;2015;. doi:10.4324/9781315704753

[3] Philip D. Morgan. "Religious Diversity in Colonial Virginia: Red, Black, and White." In From Jamestown to Jefferson: The Evolution of Religious Freedom in Virginia, edited by Rasor Paul and Bond Richard E., 74-107. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011. 

[4] Jon Sensbach. "Slaves to Intolerance: African American Christianity and Religious Freedom in Early America." In The First Prejudice: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Early America, edited by Beneke Chris and Grenda Christopher S., 195-217. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011.