okay. people have to have things to say about this. yeah. >> i think a large portion of her story is she was constantly torn between wanting her own freedom and wanting to be a good mother for her children. >> okay. so motherhood and the ties that she has to her children are definitely an issue here. what else? what else stands out in her experience specifically as a female slave? ellen. >> i think a lot of the slaves depended on religion like as a comfort. it was very, very important to them. and her religion was sort of threatened in that she was constantly facing the threat of being sexually abused by the master, when she was even forced

to go back against her moral and religious principles to avoid being abused by him and she went and had relations with the other man, mr. sands. >> mr. sands, right. >> so yeah. there was the sexual abuse that really threatened her religious principles. >> so she's trying to kind of balance or deal with this issue of -- there's sort of the whole question of the morality, the christianity that's connected to it, and this constant threat that she's facing in terms of sexual abuse and how she's going to manage that. so she says, just to kind of refer you to a couple of places, she's sort of very conscious that she has particular concerns that confront her as a slave who's a woman. she says on page 58, for example, this is the bottom of that first paragraph. she says the influence of slavery had had the same effect on me that they had on other young girls.

they made me prematurely knowing concerning the evil ways of the world. i knew what i did and i did it with deliberate calculation. then she says again on page 85, and this is when she has given birth to her second child and she finds out it's a girl. she says when they told me my newborn baby was a girl my heart was heavier than it had ever been before. slavery is terrible for men but it is far moore terrible for women. super added to the burden common to all, they have wrongs and sufrgz and mortifications peculiarly their own. so you're right. and i think these are some of the distinctive wrongs and sufferings they encounter in terms of the constant threat of sexual abuse, the question of how to be a mother, and the sort of constant fear as a mother this slave women have for their children. what's going to happen to their children. how do they protect their children?

how in fact -- in a very specific way how does motherhood complicate harriet jacobs' plan for escape? what is her plan for' cape? does she just get on a boat right away and leave? no. what does she do? >> in order to secure her own freedom she wants to secure her children's freedom first to make sure that if she can go up to the north then her children can go up to the north with her. so she has a responsibility of securing three people. >> yes. she's worried not only about her own freedom but shows worried about what's going to happen to her children as well. so what does she do? what does she do to kind of try to manage that problem of her children's freedom as well?

>> even if she's on the run she tries to talk to mr. sands to make sure he will buy the children and free them. >> so she's constantly in negotiation with the children's father to see if she can get some help and support from him. she goes -- the whole seven years in the crawlspace is really all about protecting her children. the seven years in the crawlspace, she calls it, she says it's her loophole. right? doesn't she call it her loophole of retreat or something like that? page 128. right. the title of that chapter. the loophole of retreat, which sort of underscores this dilemma that she has as a female slave, which is she's going to try to exploit a loophole right here. she's going to make it look like she's gone. but in fact she's not really

gone. so instead of completely taking yourself out of the community she's going to be in a place where she can watch, where she can sort of have some kind of supervision, even indirectly over what happens to her children, where she hopes she can intervene in their situation. so can you imagine a male slave pursuing these kinds of strategies? what do men do? like how do they sort of approach the hole -- a slave who is a man, what is their escape plan basically? >> he wouldn't feel to have as many ties as he was. so he would just go up to the north by himself. >> at least that -- yes. you're absolutely right. and i guess the only thing i would add to that is at least that's the way he would portray

it, that he doesn't have ties, he's not bound by any other commitments, relationships, and that he's simply going to pursue a strategy on his own. one of the things to me that's so interesting about frederick douglass's slave narrative. he also goes through this, this was my experience and then i ran away, and he does make it seem like he did the whole thing on his own. in fact, if you know a little bit more about frederick douglass you find out he got help from heflts, from his fiance. there were a lot of people who were instrumental in the process. but there is a way in which men who are slaves sort of portray an experience that says they did it on their own. and women like harriet jacobs emphasizes these relationships. all right. so let me get a little more specific about this. there are three themes that i think are very important in understanding harriet jacobs' slave narrative. the first theme is pretty much

what we talked about, which is that her experience is unique. because she writes as a slave woman and so in that sense she has certain kinds of experiences that are different from the kinds of experience that's men have. she has different experiences in slavery as a woman, in terms of the threats of sexual abuse that she faces. in terms of how to deal with being a mother and protecting her children. and she has unique circumstances in terms of how she's going to pursue her freedom. the second theme that i think is important comes up in terms of how she tells the story. and when it comes to telling the story i think she faces two choices. she kind of does a combination of both. but there are sort of two strategies that are the p

predominant writing strategies she could pursue. she could write along the lines avenue male slave narrative, something like what frederick douglass wrote when he came to the north. or she could write in the tradition of a sentimental no l novel. which we talked a little bit about but we'll come back to. and the third thing i think is important here is that stemming from this second one, one thing i -- one reason i think she feels the need or sflunsed by this model of the sentimental model is she's trying to appeal to a very specific audience. and we talked in fact -- aaron, in fact you made this point. who is that specific audience that she's trying to appeal to? >> i guess white people in the north who may already have abolitionist leanings but she feels aren't doing enough to stop it or trying to create

sympathy in people who aren't really address the issue at all. >> right. so she's writing for northern white probably abolitionist leaning people or kind of vaguely anti-slavery. and even more i think she's writing to northern white women. in fact there's a couple of points in the book where she says very explicitly this is who i'm writing to on page 58. and she's talking about this is right after the other quote that i read to you, about how slave girls have these influence that's can be destructive of their morals and right after that she says on page 58 but oh ye happy women whose purity has been sheltered from childhood, who have been free to choose the objects of your affection, whose homes are protected by law. do not judge the poor desolate slave girl too severely.

this is a kind of direct appeal she's making to women, white women in the north. on page 60 she has again a part where she talks about this. in the middle of the page she says pity me and pardon me oh virtuous reader. you never knew what it was to be a slave, to be entirely unprotected by the law or custom. there's other parts too. but she makes it very clear that is the audience she's interested in and she's appealing to. and i would say even more there's probably a kind of suspicion on her part that these northern white female readers, even if she doesn't say this =m explicitly, are influenced by the idea we talked about about feminine difference. these are women who feel women's moral goodness, women's moral virtue are especially important

qualities for women to have and to cultivate. so i think she sort of suspects that these are women who put a very high premium on that, which is why, to get back to the first point, she's apologizing so much. okay. so just to kind of pursue then -- i think we talked quite a bit about one. but in terms of two, the sort of different options she has in terms of how she's going to write about her experience and whether she's going to follow the male slave narrative or whether she's going to follow the sentimental model. if anybody read anything else about slave narratives by men, erin, this is all going to fall on you but maybe somebody else has also. so for example, like frederick douglass, how you might compare harriet jacobs' account to things that happened to frederick douglass. if you can sort of remember -- >> it was years ago.

but i don't think he placed as much emphasis on like the female aspect of it for obvious reasons. there are a lot of things that stood out to me about what she had to say about white women as well. and the effect it had on them. and he wouldn't have had the same insight. i don't remember. middle school. >> i only frread pieces of frederick douglass's, but i remember he makes it more of an account -- i think hers more reads like a diary where it more pulls out your emotions. ooez his is more like i did this and i did this and i did that this and that's how i bought to this. >> yeah. there's less of a kind of emotional quality to it. right. and if you remember, there's sort of some kind of key moments in frederick douglass's narrative. one really critical moment is when he has a fight with this guy who's trying to break him in. a white slaveholder who's triek to break animal hymn in and make

him a more obedient slave. he has a fight with this guy and he wins the fight, he beats him up. and he says this is a moment that i started to feel like i was a man and i could attain my freedom. there are these kinds of moments i think in male slave narratives. and again, it sort of puts this emphasis on doing it yourself. struggling as an individual. achieving things as an individual. these were important markers in the sale slave narrative. and as a whole the abolitionism emphasized freedom, being free, as kind of a male experience. that in other words, the kind of relationship people understood was once you were free and not a slave anymore you were a man. they wouldn't have said once you're free and not a slave anymore you're a woman. you know what i mean? being a man was critical.

for example, this was one of the chief symbols that was used in the abolitionist movement. it was sort of this decal. i think it was made by wedgewood in england, the pottery firm in england. it was a widely circulated image. in the abolitionist movement. can you read what it says around the -- >> am i not a man and a brother? >> right. so this was the sort of -- the trope really of the abolitionist movement. am i not a man and a brother? sort of the juxtaposition here is either you're a slave or you're a man. which makes it hard if you're a woman. it makes it hard to know how do you write about your experience and how do you write about achieving freedom. and i think harriet jacobs is very aware of this. so there's points in the course of her narrative where she makes some reference to the genre of a male slave narrative, of trying to like, you know, like this juxtaposition of if you're not a

slave you're going to be a man. can you think of any parts in the book where she might be saying something sort of referencing this idea of being a man? yeah. >> at one point she's talking about how her brother is like really prideful and not used to having to respond to a master and he was afflicted by his male energy. >> she uses it to talk about her mother. there's a part where -- can anybody think of any other parts? because there's also a part i think where she's talking about her uncle maybe. let me check. it's wherever chapter 4 begins on page 14. the title of the chapter, "the slave who dared to feel like a man." right. which i think in fact -- right. this is a whole discussion about her uncle benjamin and she sort of talks about his quest for freedom. and she writes it in this kind

of form of the male slave narrative, the slave who dared to feel like a man. but i think there's also ways in which harriet jacobs herself takes on some of these kind of masculine qualities because she knows this is the way the struggle for freedom has been phrased, that this is the way people talk about being a slave who seeks their freedom. you sort of present it as being a man. and so in fact on page 16, also in chapter 4 she says -- right. and this is sort of on the bottom. and again it's sort of in reference to the experience of her uncle. she says -- and then she talks about herself. she az "it was the very knowledge of my shortcomings that urged me to retain if possible" -- this part is about her brother. "to retyne if possible some sparks of my brother's god-given nature." she wants to take on some of those masculine qualities herself because that's what this

quest for freedom is about. so the other part of point 2 here is she's sort of torn between these two ways of presenting her story. one being the male slave narrative. and the other the sentimental novel. we have talked briefly about this idea of the sentimental novel. what have we said about it? anybody remember? i'll help you out here. one of the things we said was it puts a lost emphasis on feelings, on emotions. we've seen that here. that's one of the things harriet jacobs emphasizes quite a bit. the sentiment aal novel, also, e kind of formula for the sentimental novel was it told the story of a virtuous christian heroine who has all these kind of challenges in her life and adverse circumstances

but nonetheless through it all it despite the kind of threats that are made against her she manages to retain her virtue over evil-practicing men. right? and in the end the way the sentimental novel concludes is that she finds a romantic partner and she marries him. obviously harriet jacobs, her story does not lend itself completely to this genre because she doesn't retain her virtue. but i think she tries manage the problem of her virtue and her sexuality because she is in some ways influenced by that genre of the sentimental novel. can you think of ways in which she tries to somehow explain and manage that problem of her virtue? which again gets back to that first point, that she's constantly apologizing.

maybe think about the way she's kind of making her apologies or the way she's trying to explain herself. >> she says if she didn't have children with mr. sands, right? mr. sands. then her other slave owner, dr. flint, wouldn't want to sexually abuse her anymore. so it would take her out of the equation completely. >> so if she does enter this relationship with sands, then she thinks she won't be bothered so much by flint, right? >> right. and she says if dr. sands or mr. sands can buy her children's freed freedom. so it like works as a double-edged sword. >> she's saying yes, i know, i gave myself -- that's where she has that whole long thing about yes, i made this horrible thing, don't judge me, you happy free women, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and that's when she says but i made this choice to go with mr. sands because that would at least be -- it would be

a way i could control what happens to my children. she said it gave me a little measure of freedom to make that choice. and i think she also says -- part of what she also tries to explain at this point and i think there's a part about this on page 58 -- right. in some ways the quote i read to you before when she says "the r5e8 source of the problem, the reason i didn't retain my virtue, the reason i went with sands was because of slavery. it wasn't my fault as a woman. it wasn't that i have some moral failing as a woman. i know precisely what's correct and what's not correct. but the problem was slavery. so she, you know, tries to make it clear that that's the thing that corrupts a young girl's moral situation. she also i think then tries to

redefine what it means to be free. she says at one point on page 59 when she makes this decision about picking mr. sands, she says "it seems less degrading to give one's self than to submit to compulsion. there is something akin to freedom in having a lover who has no control over you except that which he gains by kindness and attachment." so let's actually talk for a minute about this whole business with sands. do you think that was a choice that she had? would you call that a moment of choice for harriet jacobs? >> i think it was a moment of relative choice but it was really picking the lesser two of evils. nothing was really good or free. she had to make a tough

decision. >> so it doesn't feel like a wide open choice there. yeah. >> i think choice kind of implies that she's free, but she's not. so i don't think that it was a choice at all. like -- >> right. >> that's not a choice of freedom. she wasn't freel free when she made that choice. i didn't think it was a choice. >> the decision she made was sort of shaped by the fact that she's a slave, in other words. >> yeah. >> and here's this thing that i read later, which i thought was so interesting. this is actually another historian who's writing about harriet jacobs' situation and sort of had a very interesting insight about it. she says norcom's threats, or dr. flint's threats, and harriet's distress alerted norcom's partner's son, the unmarried young lawyer, samuel treadwell sauer, that is sands, to -- he began courting her through letters and other

expressions of sympathy, caught between two older stalkers, harriet gave in to the younger evil. so in other words, this analysis, which seems toe kind of interesting i hadn't really thought about because she doesn't explain it this way in the book. here's sands or sawyer who knows harriet. it's a small town. everybody knows everybody else. he's actually the son of flint's partner. he knows very well what's going on between flint and harriet and he knows harriet's trying to get away from flint. so he's like, hey, here's an opportunity for me. i'm going to introduce myself to harriet. i'm going to be friends with harriet. so you know, she says he's actually sort of playing this situation, knowing full well the kind of distress that harriet's in at that point. to the extent you might think maybe he's a nice guy. by the time it's over who would think he's a nice guy? because he doesn't give the children their freedom. until he's badgered to death about doing it. so you know, i think it sort of

goes to this point, that how much choice really is there for harriet jacobs at this point? okay. so at the very end of the book, just to kind of conclude this point about these different genres that harriet jacobs writes in response to or tries to figure her narrative into, at the very end she confronts outright the fact that she is not writing a sentimental novel. do you remember what she says at the very end? i'll give you a hint. it's on page 227. [ sneezes ] >> bless you. >> bless us. >> bless us all.

exactly. >> my freedom not in the usual way with marriage but like with being free instead of -- >> exactly. my story ends with freedom, not in the usual way with marriage. in other words, the usual way here is the sentimental novel. the usual way anthony like this might end is the virtuous heroine goes through all these ordeals and in the end she finds the man she truly loves and she marries and settles down. but she says i'm not going to end this way, this book doesn't end this way. but it ends and maybe she's sort of saying maybe it ends in a more important way. it ends with freedom and not with marriage. okay. so i'm going to throw out one other point here. and maybe i'll have time for something else too. which is there are some interpretations that i have read in which people say that in fact harriet jacobs was not successfully able to resist the

threats and sexual abuse of dr. flint and that he did in fact rape her but that a sense of propriety compels her to tell the story in a different kind of way. what do you think about that? like did you read this book and think oh, yeah, i'm sure he did? >> yeah. i did agree with that. it seems really unrealistic to me that he would go through like all of the notes and that mrs. flint would be so upset about it if it never physically escalated to that point. >> mm-hmm. mm-hmm. >> the only thing i could think of is he was so afraid of the grandmother and that's why he wouldn't do it. but besides that it seems like he probably did. >> yeah. >> where she is so apologetic

through it i would understand if she did leave that out. because she has all this pressure, especially if she does want to appeal to the most northern white women where it makes it seem like -- it looks bad on her almost. >> it's totally plausible it could happen but you could see why she would present it differently. i suppose another way of saying this is given what she describes it feels like a pretty escalated version of sexual abuse no, matter what we call this. that he throws her down the stairs, that all the kind of in a sense physical abuse that she actually does endure, you know, almost like -- it's a gray area in terms of what we would actually call it.

okay. i'm going to move on to something else. and we're going to sort of switch gears here and talk about the coming of the civil war. as i mentioned, harriet jacobs' narrative is published right on the eve of the civil war in 1861. so i feel like chronologically at least we sort of got to that point so it makes sense to move on to that next topic. at the time of the civil war i would say most people knew that slavery without question, slavery had something to do with causing the civil war and somehow or other people knew that the war was linked to the struggle for abolition. and in fact, the story was often told that sometime in 1863 in the middle of the civil war abraham lincoln, who was then the president, met the famous woman writer harriet beecher stowe. we've talked about stowe and her novel "uncle tom's cabin" which took the country by storm in the 1850s. and according to this story, which i don't think is actually true but it's a story a lot of people like to tell, lincoln

greeted harriet beecher stowe by referring to her as "the little lady who wrote the book that started this great war." i have to say i've always been a little confused about that. is that a compliment to harriet beecher stowe? like do you feel good if you're harriet beecher stowe? oh, thank you, yes, i did it, it's all my fault. i don't think the way the story is presented -- it's more ton like how influential harriet beecher stowe was. and whether or not lincoln actually said this i think there's a reason why lincoln might have said it. because bhut things like, this here's the lady who wrote the book that started this great war, it implied that the union cause had a standing and moral credibility. and it had that kind of standing and moral credibility because here was a woman like harriet beecher stowe who'd kind of put her stamp on it, who said this is what it's all about. and if we can refer back to this

woman's concern then it gives our cause moral credibility. by 1863 lincoln of course was now pursuing a policy of emancipation to end slavery. he himself was trying to put the war on a higher moral foundation. and so i think it makes sense that he would in some way try to draw on the endorsement of somebody like harriet beecher somebody like harriet beecher stowe. captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac

be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning at 7:00 eastern on friday morning. join the discussion. next on american history tv, historians discuss general sherman's march flew georgia. after that, historian dennis fry talks about the impact of john brown's raid in the 1860 goals. the new york historical society

hosted this hour long event. welcome, it's great to be back in the same seats as we always occupy. for those of you who have come to a number of our sessions. we are promised and we are promising each other that we'll do more in the coming seasons. we have a topic today that we think is one of the best that we've come up with, it's a neglected civil war story. because of the focus on sherman's march through georgia. there's a little less attention on sherman's other march, which followed the march through

georgia. take a look at this scowling man in a fantastic coat, as we begin talking about him. i'm going to start with john who as you heard has written two wonderful books about william sherman, and i think we need to know how you can do it in a few minutes his family, his psyche, tell us something about this fellowhe d in tble breasted uniform coat. >> this picture that you see was taken of sherman and he didn't want to have that picture taken 37 he's not a happy camper, this is not the best picture of him. very briefly, sherman has a very difficult childhood. his father dies when he's nine years old. he lives with a neighbor while his mother is living up the

street. because she simply can't afford to take care of all the children. and one thing leads to another. throughout his life, he never quite gets over this reliance that he has to place on thomas ewey, his foster father. he ends up going to west point. he gets too many demare its. the most important thing to remember about sherman before we get into the marches is, he spent most of his precivil war years in the south. and some of his best friends were southerners if you want to understand why destructive war developed. a lot of reasons, obviously, one of the main reasons was sherman did not want to continue the warfare of annihilation he didn't want to keep killing people, because he would be

killing his friends. he comes up with the idea from various sources. comes up with the idea to use destructive war. psychological war. convince southerers who he knows, that they have no chance of winning, by using this destruction. by using the psychology. and that's what he does. there's a lot more to sherman, but i think -- >> that's a good start. i wab the to show another picture. clearly he liked having his picture taken sometime. there's a lot of pictures of william sherman. >> yeah. jim, in 1861, sherman is already a veteran. and yet something happens psychologically. there are headlines that sherman is quote -- tell us what happened there in your medical

assessment. >> sherman was a command. devastating experience for him. he did pretty well, he was put in charge of the union forces in kentucky. he confronted sydney johnston. was building a defensive force. and sherman wasn't ready for that responsibility. and he became very nervous about the confederates he was facing. like mcclellan at that stage of the war, he exaggerated the number of confederates he saw, that he felt that they were going to invade, that he needed a couple hundred thousand troops to confront them. and he made some rather wild statements about that that were not based on fact.

the newspapers started claiming he was insane. the burden of the responsibility caused him to have a nervous breakdown fortunately, general henry halek, who was in command of all of the western union armies at that stage of the war gave sherman another chance to send st. louis to train new troops. sherman went home for a leave of absence for a while. and sherman recovered his stability that fought under grad. that began the partnership between grant and sherman which as many historians have said, the partnership that won the civil war. >> just to add something, the previous picture. sherman on horseback is a famous one. and that allegedly is the sight

of where the jimmy carter library is, as you drive in, there's a circle there. whether it is or not, i've never checked out the story. >> sherman at shiloh, first major battle as grant's lieutenants. tell us about his experience there -- >> this is where i think the relationship between grant and sherman is solidified. what happens as you probably know, the first day the confederates surprised the union troops pushed them back. at the end of the first day, grant and the union troops are hanging on by their finger nails.

and the famous story of sherman going to see grant that night. it's pouring down rain. and he's going to ask grant for the retreat orders. grant is not an impressive looking individual, there was something thatq8[: sherman saw instead of saying what are the retreat plans he says, hellof a day we've had. >> yes, we have had a terrible day, but we'll lick 'em tomorro sherman is taken aback. here's a guy that's not going to quit. he's going to keep moving forward. i think you talked about what jim and harold were talking about, the emotional difficulty that sherman had, and i argue that it's because he was fighting his friends and it bothered him, the point is, when

the the two of them got together, this began this friendship. each saw something in the other that was going to let them support each other and allowed grant to allow sherman to do what sherman wanted to do, give very basic orders. >> we're going to jump ahead out of necessity, grant heads east in the spring of 1864 to take kmabd of the entire union army and base himself with the army of the potomac. and sherman is alone and that's the beginning of the atlantic campaign. walk us through the capture of atlanta and the beginning of this storied martha will come after that. >> grant's plan was a coordinated offensive. principally the army of the potomac in virginia. the army of georgia which was

now a combination of the old army of the tennessee, cumberland and ohio. three armies are now combined under sherman and grants orders are to get into the interior of georgia, wreck their war resources and capture atlanta and drive joe johnston, commander of the confederate army of tennessee defending georgia, out of georgia. and so they -- sherman begins that campaign in the second week of may at the same time the armies are fighting in virginia, unlike the campaigns in virginia, which were a series of head on collisions between grant and lee, sherman engages in a series of flanking moves.

usually moving to his right under general james mcpherson, no relationship although i'd like to claim we were related. getting into the confederate rear, forcing them to retreat. this happens over and over again from dalton to rosaka, and from rosaka to cassville and on and on. and at kennesaw mountain sherman does attack and gets a bloody nose. crosses the chattahoochee river and johnston retreats to the defenses of atlanta having not stopped sherman over the course of nearly 100 miles and jefferson davis gives up on johnston and appoints john