Early anti-slavery advocates often still believed in white supremacy and racial separation

Evidence

At many points in U.S. racial history, those advocating more progressive racial attitudes did not necessarily express an overarching commitment to full racial equality (Turner & Singleton, 1978). For instance, many early opponents of slavery opposed it as a moral evil. All the same, they shared with their slave-owning contemporaries a belief that blacks and whites could not exist as equals in the same society. These people tended to become active participants in colonization movements (i.e., efforts to find a new homeland for blacks; see Fredrickson, 1971a). … Only the radical populists proposed anything near coequal partnership with blacks as part of their efforts to coalese the poor masses. Indeed, as Woodward (1974) suggested, the threat posed to economically and politically powerful whites by this potential coalition was a critical factor in the rise of Jim Crow laws and practices. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3389

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to later Jim Crow scholarship and to the ‘complaints about immodesty’ theme of class/identity signaling — opposition to slavery could coexist with racial separation ideology. — connects to: Even anti-war activists adopted the white man’s burden framing once war began — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of…, 68; Abolitionists against slavery could still defend segregation and white supremacy — Robert P. Jones, White Too Long: The Legacy of White…, 260; Northern and Southern Methodists shared white supremacy despite splitting over slavery — Robert P. Jones, White Too Long: The Legacy of White…, 33
• SEED: An article angle: how allegedly ‘progressive’ positions in history can share core assumptions with the system they oppose — useful for contemporary parallels around reform vs. structural change.