Ask yourself this: what class of people at the time had the money or the leisure time to buy novels or go to the theater? How does that class compare to those advancing racist theories today to oppress their political rivals?
Many more probably didn't think about them much at all.
If true, those would have been the farming people raising families of many children (pre-birth control) and the small tradespeople who supported the local region. The U.S. population was majority agrarian until 1939.
However, I disagree with your premise. There were no radios, tv or internet, and even railroads were largely limited to distributing product locally; but there were newspapers; people all over the country may have had little opinion about slavery per se, but many opinions about who would move in to their community, and whether they would be compatible neighbors.
There was no such thing as "cool", "casual" or "indifferent" attitudes towards strangers in those days when the vast majority of all the American people, including children, worked up to 12 hours a day, six days a week, and there was no welfare. Even 3/4ths of a century after the CW, my own illiterate Irish-American grandfather went to work at age 7 on a waterfront and worked for the same company to age 65. Every individual and all they brought with them either enhanced the community or dragged it down; so the prospect of a dispersal of former slaves was indeed a large concern.
The "do-gooders" (like today's progressives) dreaming of an immediate and successful integration of the two different cultures (African-slave vs European-American) were concentrated in small areas of big cities and near the Ivy colleges (Yale, Harvard) or elite old churches in New England. Their uopian fantasies worked about as well as George W. Bush's assurance that the Middle Easterners would embrace democracy if we just went over there and got rid of a few overlords.
Excellent point. I've long argued it is the same liberal progressive class of wealth and privilege that has always been the problem in this nation.
And they still live in Martha's vineyard and the Hamptons.
The "do-gooders" (like today's progressives) dreaming of an immediate and successful integration of the two different cultures (African-slave vs European-American) were concentrated in small areas of big cities and near the Ivy colleges (Yale, Harvard) or elite old churches in New England. Their uopian fantasies worked about as well as George W. Bush's assurance that the Middle Easterners would embrace democracy if we just went over there and got rid of a few overlords.
This. Exactly right.
In the days before movies, radio, TV, and the internet people read more than they do today. If you were a farmer and it was winter and you'd done all your work, you might take down a book and read. If you were a shopkeeper and a travelling company came to town once or twice a year, you might got to a show. Factory girls in the early Lowell mills had their own literary magazine. Of course, for many people, life was too hard and work too exhausting to leave much time for reading, but that wasn't the whole picture..
People all over the country may have had little opinion about slavery per se, but many opinions about who would move in to their community, and whether they would be compatible neighbors.
You're making my point for me. People had opinions. Those opinions couldn't all be reduced to "hatred bordering on insanity." You're also contradicting ourself. People that weary from having to work from having to work all day, may not have had the energy to agitate about outsiders and newcomers.
Every individual and all they brought with them either enhanced the community or dragged it down; so the prospect of a dispersal of former slaves was indeed a large concern.
Few Northerners thought large numbers of African-Americans were coming North (those who did were likely to be Democrats and Copperhead Southern sympathizers), but many didn't object to a black family or two living in the neighborhood. People "kept to their own," but they weren't always going to drive out newcomers if the newcomers also "kept to their own."
A lot also depended on where you lived. All sorts of people lived in city neighborhoods, and Eastern states had long established African-American families. Yes, there were incidents. There were also anti-Catholic riots. But racial violence weren't as common as you guys think. There were also times when Northerners mobbed slave catchers trying to take escaped slaves back to bondage.
The "do-gooders" (like today's progressives) dreaming of an immediate and successful integration of the two different cultures (African-slave vs European-American) were concentrated in small areas of big cities and near the Ivy colleges (Yale, Harvard) or elite old churches in New England.
The places where the American Revolution got started? Well, first of all, people who opposed slavery didn't usually envision an integrated society. They just thought slavery was wrong and wanted an end to it. Secondly, what is this idea that that 160 years ago and now are the same? Look back over the whole of our history and you find much variety. It's not like the good guys and bad guys always came from the same part of the country. Some people are fighting an endless war against another part of the country and thinking that everything that comes out of some part of the country is devil and depraved, but when America was successful it worked by bringing people from different regions together, not by making them hate each other.