Reform or Abolition; Liberal or Leftist? Or: Would you have helped the Underground Railroad? (Really?)
Most contemporary Quakers, including this unruly gal right here, take not a little pride in the Quaker history of abolition. We talk about our Quaker forebears who were conductors on the underground railroad. We may cite the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the first American abolition society, of which many members were Quakers. We might speak of John Woolman or Benjamin Lay, of the Grimke sisters or other Friends who were outspoken abolitionists.
We might even feel chuffed about the (possibly apocryphal?) Harriet Tubman quote about us:
The history is compelling.
But it is not the full story.
The full story is that, for a long time, the majority of Quakers — especially in the south — were reformists.
It took many, many years —decades— of pestering and persistence from a few unruly asshole Quakers for Meetings to change from reformism to abolitionism.
What is the difference between reform and abolition?
Great question.
I’ll let Professor Richard Wolff explain.
This clip comes comrades at Revolutionary Baddies, an excellent podcast that I highly, highly recommend. Thank you, Baddies!
What Dr. Wolff says, in case the video doesn’t work for you:
“In the struggle against slavery in the nineteenth century (American slavery), you might divide the people who found slavery awful into two groups.
“One group was horrified by how slaves were treated: how they were fed, clothed, their families broken up, beaten, all of that. And they devoted themselves to a struggle to improve the condition of the slaves: better diets, better clothing, keep[ing] their families together.
“And then there was a second group of people who were horrified not only by slavery, but by the first group of those who opposed it. They looked at their brothers and sisters in that other movement and they said, ‘You’re missing the most powerful and basic moral issue of the time. The problem is not how we treat the slaves. The problem is that there are such a thing as slaves.’”
This may seem obvious, right? Chattel slavery was evil. It needed to be abolished, not reformed or appeased. Obviously.
Most of us tell ourselves we would have been abolitionists. We would have opened our homes to the Underground Railroad.
You do tell yourself that, right? Of course you do. Because you are a decent human being.
But the thing is: I don’t believe you.
Oh, I believe you are a nice person.
I believe you are a decent human being.
But I don’t believe you would have been an abolitionist.
I certainly could be wrong.
There is an easy test to see if we would have been abolitionists at that time.
It is this:
Are we abolitionists now?
“That’s a weird question,” you might be thinking. “Chattel slavery is over.”
Hmm. Are you, like those reformists back then, missing the most basic and moral issue of our time?
Before we continue, I invite you ask yourself:
Where do I direct my political or social justice energies and efforts?
How do I conceive of social change? What is my overall vision?
What on-the-ground campaigns am I engaged in?
Let’s get brass tacks. Granular.
What was the last concrete action that you took? Think about the past week. Month. Year. What activities did you engage in?
Did you call or write your elected officials?
Did you donate to a nonprofit that lobbies electeds?
Did you donate to a nonprofit or charity that helps people?
Did you vote in elections? Donate to Kamala’s campaign?
Did you attend a permitted protest like the “No Kings” march?
Did you sign petitions through email?
Those are all fine things to do.
And all of them are REFORM.
None of those things change the systems of oppression under which people are suffering. Not one.
And before we move on, I invite you to engage in a few more reflections:
Who were you engaged in these activities with?
Were you doing them from home, alone?
Were you with your church (or Quaker Meeting), or a group of local activists, or your friends, who share your own racial and socioeconomic background?
Did you look around at the protest you went to? Was it majority —and I mean vast majority— white people?
Oops I lied. I have one more question:
What was the structure of the organization behind the action?
Was it an official nonprofit?
An organization with a hierarchical structure?
Was it an “expert” telling you what to do?
Was it a group with leaders who told you to “keep the protest peaceful,” “isolate trouble-makers,” “stay on the sidewalk,” and otherwise obey the state and do law enforcement’s job for them?
Why am I asking these questions? I bet you’ve guessed.
HOW we do things and WHO WE DO THEM WITH are just as important as WHAT we do.
Your answers to these reflections tell you who you are in solidarity with. They show whether you are upholding white-supremacy in systems and organizations. They tell us who you are aligned with: the oppressive state (laws and law enforcement) or the oppressed-by-the-state.
It’s really all quite simple. Interconnected, yes. Intersectional, yes. Interrelated, yes. But simple.
So … what have your reflections led you to conclude?
Are you a reformist or are you an abolitionist?
“But slavery was abolished. There are no abolitionist movements today.”
Au contraire, mon frêre.
There are abolition movements right here, right now.
And if you are not working with them, well … as the abolitionists Dr. Wolff was imagining would say,
You’re missing the most powerful and basic moral issue(s) of the time.
What are the abolitionist movements I’m talking about?
Hmm. As Dr. Wolff said, “the problem is not how we treat [so-and-so]. The problem is the fact that there ARE [so-and-so].”
We can start with prisoners and detainees.
The problem is not how we treat [people in prison or detainment]. The problem is that there ARE [people in cages].
The problem is the Prison Industrial Complex.
And:
The problem isn’t how we treat [“undocumented immigrants.” ] The problem is that there is even [a concept of “undocumented immigrants”].
And:
The problem isn’t how we treat [people who are homeless]. The problem is that there ARE [people who can’t afford housing].
And on and on.
Don’t you see?
All these systems. All these oppressions. They are all human-made, state-made, white-supremacist policies and concepts.
Many of us see these concepts as fixed.
And many of us align ourselves with them. Many of us benefit from them in very real and tangible ways.
Like reformists who thought it unrealistic to abolish slavery — a system that was foundational to the U.S.’s economic and physical existence, especially in the south — we might think it’s unrealistic to abolish the system. These systems just ARE.
But they don’t have to be.
I’m talking about abolishing prisons. I’m talking about abolishing borders. I’m talking about free universal housing. I’m talking about abolishing rent.
If we’re not talking abolition, what are we even doing here?
Borders are imaginary lines on a living Earth.
The idea of land ownership is a made-up concept. (My brother from another mother, John Brown, thought chattel land ownership was one of the cardinal sins of the nascent U.S.)
Private property is also a made-up concept. And not too long ago, private property could include ownership of human people. Entire systems of laws were created to instantiate legal concepts of private property (and production). Law enforcement itself was created to “protect” the pretend concept of ownership.
These concepts, these systems, these walls: they were all built. They can be unbuilt.
And they must be.
Because people are suffering, right here, right now, from these cruel systems.
My God, the number of our brethren in cages, to start with.
My God, the mass starvation of the people of Gaza (countries, borders, are made-up concepts, remember?).
My God, the neighbors being kidnapped by ICE.
In the U.S. are witnessing an ethnic cleansing in the U.S., politely called “mass deportation.” This is based on made-up ideas about who has crossed a made-up border “illegally.”
And how are we responding? Are we saying, “Wait wait wait. ICE needs to show a judicial warrant! Wait, ICE shouldn’t take innocent people! Wait, ICE detention centers should be more humane!”
OR are we saying:
“ABOLISH ICE. ABOLISH BORDERS. NO ONE IS ILLEGAL ON STOLEN LAND.”
Are we in solidarity with people being rounded up? Are we fighting back? Or do we think about the private property we want to protect?
Are we building mutuality and mutual care networks? Or are we donating to nonprofits?
Are we working together in community to build alternative systems of justice, or are we waiting for courts to mete out “justice”?
Are we doing all of these things at the same time we work to tear the oppressive systems down?
“Those who build walls are their own prisoners.
I am going to go fulfill my proper function in the social organism.
I’m going to go unbuild walls.”
—Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Oh dear.
Is this all a bridge too far?
Does it feel too … revolutionary?
Do we want to just kind of … feel safe … feel comfortable … and yes, make the system better for people?
You know what?
Just please be honest. If that’s how you feel, that’s how you feel.
You get to make your own choices, of course you do.
But let me be clear: I will not, I will never, believe you if you say you would have been an abolitionist against slavery.
(And yes, it’s fine to push for short-term reforms while we work for abolition. By all means, join an ICE-watch. Demand a judicial warrant. Hide your neighbors. Learn how to unarrest people. As long as these are a both/and. Because the truth is, unless we abolish these filthy, rotten systems, any reforms we win are temporary. All of them can go away. Whoever is in charge can undo whatever we do. Because the system still stands. The powerful are still in power.)
And here’s another really important thing:
The Underground Railroad?
The one that you tell yourself you would have been a station on, or helped with?
How do you think people knew about those stops?
How do you think folks knew who to trust?
Do you think folks escaping enslavement just … showed up at your door? Because you looked like a nice person?
Nah, fam. You had to earn trust. And how do you do that?
Same way then as now. By showing up. By being consistent. By living your values. By mutuality. By being in solidarity with people who don’t look or act or talk like you. By opening your home to these folks, again and again and again.
And you know what else?
That Underground Railroad was illegal as hell.
You could be jailed, imprisoned, or worse. Your neighbors could turn you in, turn on you. You could be shot at dawn.
I know. That’s scary stuff. It scares me silly. And yet. And yet.
Do you think the system will overthrow themselves if we ask politely enough?
(Do NOT quote the supposed “It only takes 3.5% of the population to peacefully overthrow the government” rule to me. I read the book. Did you? Or just the article? Anyway. First of all, the researchers wrote that book for the state, and did not care what the goal of a revolution was. Secondly, they marked movements “nonviolent” even if they had armed guerilla factions or other “violent” actionists as long as they were outnumbered by “nonviolent” protesters in the movement. And third: the research has been largely debunked by one of its original researchers.)
Anyhoo.
Yes, it is scary. And yet.
What actions are you taking right now that are illegal because it’s the right thing to do? Because morality demands breaking the law?
Do your politics, your efforts upset the state?
What are you doing to help your comrades and the oppressed that could get you jailed, or imprisoned, or shot at dawn?
Your answers to these questions right now say everything about whether you would have been an abolitionist back then.
Like, for real.
XOXO
P.S. Harriet Tubman always packed heat when guiding folks to liberation. Reckon we’ll talk about that at some point, too.
Recommended reading:
Unbuild Walls: Why Immigrant Justice Needs Abolition by Silky Shah. Foreword by Amna A. Akbar. Haymarket Books, 2024.
Becoming Abolitionists: Police, Protests, and the Pursuit of Freedom by Derecka Purnell. Penguin Random House, 2022.
The End of Policing by Alex S. Vitale. Verso Books, updated edition 2021.
The Fire Next Time by James Baldwin. First published in 1963. Contemporary reprint available from Penguin Random House, 2021.
Great article. I feel we do need to change the entire structure of our system through abolition and creation. Asking permission just strengthens the power differentials, we need to be agents of change ourselves.