Although the monster cheese story is cute, I think the most fascinating thing I read was Gourley's article on Leland's evolving views on slavery. I was surprised to see his views evolve from being an abolitionist to supporting the rights of slaveholders. Apparently his views matured, not when or even shortly after he lived in slaveholding territory, but decades after he returned to Massachusetts. Of course, I'm not an expert on your namesake, but I still find that perplexing.
Do you have any insight on that?
Hi!
I went to the article you marked. I read the entire article carefully, and after reading the comments of the writer about the change in Leland’s position, I wonder why they couldn’t have included one or two more pointed quotoations of Leland from the end of his life, where he is said to be anti-abolitionist.
So I went back and just read the quotations with the words of Leland himself several more times.
My thoughts: Leland could not render a solution for any immediate or simulataneous freeing of the slaves without putting the slaves themselves in grave jeopardy. Where would they go? How would they operate? It seemed large numbers of them would have died of starvation or exposure. Would crippling the southern economy by sudden simulataneous emancipation be to their benefit or to their damage? Leland could not know.
Thus, the last quote in the article finds Leland still pleading with the slave owners to release the slaves (though not necessarily immediately or simulataneously), and until their emancipation, (an admonition to the owners) remember that the owners answer to God for their treatment of the slaves (and used the Scriptures in this regard).
Reading only the words of Leland that the writers used in the article, I do not see the severity of ANTI-abolition sentiment suggested by the writers-—but I would need to read more of the writings or speeches of Leland to which they refer before I make any further determination.