excluding from to its and the to anti-slavery of the a Anti-slavery of to the very departure did
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT:
KNOWING how THE INDEPENDENT inflexible
assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
statements and controversial matters,
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
governed. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he undertakes
to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonistical
in its spirit and proscriptive in its
management.
doing Mr. Ward, in this, not only violates
the rule aforesaid, but all sense of pro[unclear]
in availing himself of a most inopportune
occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter and almost obsolete controversy;
whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
for a truce to all bygone estrangements,
and the presentation of olive branches on
every hand, as well as generous tokens of
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings,
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
sincere felicitations to make the festival
one of unalloyed pleasure?
In recording its occurrence in this particular
case, Mr. Ward was naturally led
to give a sketch of the unquestionably
eminent services by rendered Dr. Leavitt,
for more than half a century, to the cause
of temperance, anti-slavery, education,
cheap postage, free trade, etc.; but was not
this enough, without invidiously thrusting
at others whose historical record in
matters of philanthropy and reform may
compare not unfavorably with his own?
It is the misuse of such a festival that is
particularly ungenerous and reprehensible.
A personal impeachment, simply, I
should not care to notice; but when the
Abolitionists as a body are aspersed, and
special eulogy is bestowed upon those who
seceded from their ranks for no justifiable
cause, but rather to gratify clerical love of
power and sectarian narrowness, I trust to
be ever ready to meet the issue, in furtherance
of the truth of history.
Referring to the American Anti-slavery
Society before it was disrupted, Mr. Ward
says: "The executive committee and the
editor of The Emancipator [Dr. Leavitt]
refused to entangle themselves in questions
not immediately connected with slavery."
Well, they could not have done otherwise,
in respect to controversial extraneous and
topics, without a violation of good faith as
the official organs of the society. But
what The Emancipator could not properly
do The Liberator, being my private concern,
representing only my own views, and
entirely independent, could do - that is.
introduce, discuss reformatory and support other
movements. But this it did
incidentally, and to a very limited extent,
the anti-slavery cause occupying a very
large portion of its space - so large, in fact,
as to preclude variety in its columns
which is so generally desired by newspaper
readers. Whatever may have been
my peculiar views in regard to other
topics than slavery, no ever heard
me obtrude them upon the attention of
an anti-slavery meeting; nor did I ever
seek to make my anti-slavery associates
responsible for them. I held my opinions
on extraneous questions the exercise
of the same liberty by which Dr.
Leavitt was a Presbyterian.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT:
KNOWING how THE INDEPENDENT inflexible
assumes to be in regard to
excluding from it's columns all partisan
matters statements and controversial
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he undertakes
to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
in its spirit and proscriptive in its
management.
doing Mr. Ward, in this, not only violates
the rule aforesaid, but all sense of pro[unclear]
in availing himself of a most inopportune
occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter, and almost obsolete controversy;
whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
for a truce to all bygone estrangements,
and the presentation of olive branches on
every hand, as well as generous tokens of
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained, how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
sincere felicitations to make the festival
one of unalloyed pleasure?
editor To the of The Independent
dependent assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
statements and controversial matters,
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
governed. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he
undertakes to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonistical
management.
doing Mr Ward, in this, not only violates
[unclear] ?? in availing himself of a most
the rule aforesaid, but all sense of pro-
inopportune occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter, and almost obsolete controversy;
whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
and the presentation of olive branches on
every hand, as well as generous tokens of
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained, how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings,
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
sincere felicitations to make the festival
one of unalloyed pleasure!
In recording its occurrence in this particular
case, Mr. Ward was naturally led
to give a sketch of the unquestionably
eminent services rendered by Leavitt,
for more than half a century, to the cause
of temperance, anti-slavery, education,
cheap postage, free trade, etc; but was not
this enough, without invidiously thrusting
at others whose historical record in
matters of philanthropy and reform may
compare not unfavorably with his own?
It is the misuse of such a festival that is
particularly ungenerous and reprehensible.
A personal impeachment, simply, I
should not care to notice; but when the
Abolitionists as a body are aspersed, and
special eulogy is bestowed upon those who
seceded from their ranks for no justifiable
cause, but rather to gratify clerical love of
power and sectarian narrowness, I trust to
be ever ready to meet the issue, in furtherance
of the truth of history.
Referring to the American Anti-slavery
Society before it was disrupted, Mr. Ward
says: "The executive committee and the
editor of The Emancipator [Dr. Leavitt]
refused to entangle themselves in questions
not immediately connected with slavery."
Well, they could not have done otherwise,
in respect to controverted extraneous and
topics, without a violation of good faith as
the official organs of the society. But
what The Emancipator could not properly
[unclear] The Liberator, being my private concern,
representing only my own views, and
entirely independent, could do--that is
introduce, discuss, and support other
reformatory movements. But this it did
incidentally, and to a very limited extent
the anti-slavery cause occupying a very
large portion of its space--so large, in fact,
as to preclude variety in its columns
readers. Whatever may have been
my peculiar views in regard to other
topics than slavery, no ever heard
me obtrude them upon the attention of
an anti-slavery meeting; nor did I ever
seek to make my anti-slavery associates
responsible for them. I held my opinions
on extraneous questions the exercise
of the same liberty by which Dr.
Leavitt was a Presbyterian.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT:
KNOWING how THE INDEPENDENT inflexible
assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
statements and controversial matters,
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
governed. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he undertakes
to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonistical
in its spirit and proscriptive in its
management.
doing Mr. Ward, in this, not only violates
the rule aforesaid, but all sense of pro?
availing himself of a most inopportune
occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter, and almost obsolete controversy
; whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
and the presentation of olive branches on
every hand, as well as generous tokens of
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained, how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings,
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
sincere felicitations to make the festival
one of unalloyed pleasure?
In recording its occurrence in this particular
case, Mr. Ward was naturally led
to give a sketch of the unquestionably
eminent services rendered by Leavitt,
for more than half a century, to the cause
of temperance, anti-slavery, education,
cheap postage, free trade, etc.; but was not
this enough, without invidiously thrusting
at others whose historical record in
matters of philanthropy and reform may
compare not unfavorably with his own?
It is the misuse of such a festival that is
particularly ungenerous and reprehensible.
A personal impeachment, simply, I
should not care to notice; but when the
Abolitionists as a body are aspersed, and
special eulogy is bestowed upon those who
seceded from their ranks for no justifiable
cause, but rather to gratify clerical love of
power and sectarian narrowness, I trust to
be ever ready to meet the issue, in furtherance
of the truth of history.
Referring to the American Anti-slavery
Society before it was disrupted, Mr. Ward
says: "The executive committee and the
editor of The Emancipator [Dr. Leavitt]
refused to entangle themselves in questions
not immediately connected with slavery."
Well, they could not have done otherwise,
in respect to controverted extraneous and
topics, without a violation of good faith as
the official organs of the society. But
what The Emancipator could not properly
do The Liberator, being my private concern,
representing only my own views, and
entirely independent, could do-that is,
introduce, discuss, reformatory and support other
movements. But this it did
incidentally, and to a very limited extent,
the anti-slavery cause occupying a very
large portion of its space-so large, in fact,
as to preclude variety in its columns
paper readers. Whatever may have been
my peculiar views in regard to other
topics than slavery, no ever heard
me obtrude them upon the attention of
an anti-slavery meeting; nor did I ever
seek to make my anti-slavery associates
responsible for them. I held my opinions
on extraneous questions the exerercise
of the same liberty by which Dr.
Leavitt was a Presbyterian.
To the Editor of The Independent:
Knowing how inflexible The Independent
assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
statements and controversial matters,
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
goverened. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he undertakes
to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonistical
in its spirit and proscriptive in its
management.
doing Mr. Ward, in this, not only violates
the rule aforesaid, but all sense of pro[unclear]
availing himself of a most inopportune
occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter, and almost obsolete controversy;
whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
for a truce to all bygone estrangements,
and the presentation of olive branches on
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained, how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings,
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
sincere felicitations to make the festival
one of unalloyed pleasure?
In recording its occurrence in this particular
case, Mr. Ward was naturally led
to give a sketch of the unquestionably
eminent services rendered by Leavitt,
for more than half a century, to the cause
of temperance, anti-slavery, education,
cheap postage, free trade, etc.: but was not
this enough, without invidiously thrusting
at others whose historical record in
matters of philanthropy and reform may
compare not unfavorably with his own?
It is the misuse of such a festival that is
particularly ungenerous and reprehensible.
A personal impeachment, simply, I
should not care to notice; but when the
Abolitionists as a body are aspersed, and
special eulogy is bestowed upon those who
seceded from their ranks for no justifiable
cause, but rather to gratify clerical love of
power and sectarian narrowness, I trust to
be ever ready to meet the issue, in furtherance
of the truth of history.
Referring to the American Anti-slavery
Society before it was disrupted, Mr. Ward
says: "The executive committee and the
editor of The Emancipator [Dr. Leavitt]
refused to entagle themselves in questions
not immediately connected with slavery."
Well, they could not have done otherwise,
in respect to controverted extraneous and
topics, without a violation of good faith
the official organs of the society. But
what The Emancipator could not properly
do The Liberator, being my private concern,
representing only my own views, and
entirely independent, could do--that is,
introduce, discuss, reformatory and support other
movements. But this it did
incidentally, and to a very limited extent,
the anti-slavery cause occupying a very
large portion of its space--so large, in fact,
as to preclude variety in its columns
readers. Whatever may have been
my peculiar views in regard to other
topics than slavery, no ever heard
me obtrude them upon the attention of
an anti-slavery meeting; nor did I ever
seek to make my anti-slavery associates
repsonsible for them. I held my opinions
on extraneous questions the exerercise
of the same liberty by which Dr.
Leavitt was a Presbyterian.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT:
DEPENDENT assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
matters. statements and controversial
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
governed. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt
golden wedding, written by the Rev. Wil-
liam Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participation
in the anti-slavery struggle which he un-
dertakes to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonist-
management.
To the Editor of The Independent:
assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
statements and controversial matters,
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
governed. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me: but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he undertakes
to describe. Certainly he gives
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, in resulting a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonistical
management.
doing Mr. Ward, in this, not only violates
the rule aforesaid, but in all sense of pro-[unclear]
[unclear] availing himself of a most inopportune
occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter, and almost obsolete controversy;
whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
for a truce to all bygone estrangements,
and the presentation of olive branches on
every hand, as well as generous tokens of
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained, how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings,
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
one of unalloyed pleasure!
In recording its occurrence in this particular
case, Mr. Ward was naturally led
to give a sketch of the unquestionably
eminent services rendered by Leavitt,
for more than half a century, to the cause
of temperance, anti-slavery, education,
cheap postage, free trade, etc.; but was not
this enough, without invidiously thrusting
at others whose historical record in
matters of philanthropy and reform may
compare not unfavorably with his own?
It is the misuse of such a festival that is
particularly ungenerous and reprehensible.
A personal impeachment, simply, I
should not care to notice; but when the
Abolitionists as a body are aspersed, and
special eulogy is bestowed upon those who
seceded from their ranks for no justifiable
cause, but rather to gratify clerical love of
power and sectarian narrowness, I trust to
be ever ready to meet the issue, in furtherance
of the truth of history.
Referring to the American Anti-slavery
Society before it was disrupted, Mr. Ward
says: "The executive committee and the
editor of The Emancipator [Dr. Leavitt]
refused to entangle themselves in questions
not immediately connected with slavery."
Well, they could not have done otherwise,
in respect to controverted extraneous and
topics, without a violation of good faith as
the official organs of the society. But
what The Emancipator could not properly
do The Liberator, being my private concern,
representing only my own views, and
entirely independent, could do is, that
introduce, discuss, reformatory and support other
movements. But this it did
incidentally, and to a very limited extent,
the anti-slavery cause occupying a very
large portion of its space - so large, in fact,
as to preclude variety in its columns
which is so generally desired by newspaper
readers. Whatever may have been
my peculiar views in regard to other
topics than slavery, no ever heard
me obtrude them upon the attention of
an anti-slavery meeting; nor did I ever
seek to make my anti-slavery associates
responsible for them. I held my opinions
on extraneous questions in the exercise
of the same liberty by which Dr.
Leavitt was a Presbyterian.
To the Editor of The Independent
assumes to be in regard to
excluding from its columns all partisan
statements and controversial matters,
especially where disparaging personalities
are indulged, I was greatly surprised to
see, in its last number, flagrant departure
from the rule by which it claims to be
governed. I allude to the article referring
to the celebration of the Rev. Dr. Leavitt's
golden wedding, written by the Rev. William
Hayes Ward. The name of the
writer is new think to me; but I I
safely assume that he had no participancy
in the anti-slavery struggle which he undertakes
to describe. Certainly he give
a false and one-sided view of the division
which in 1840 took place in the Abolition
ranks, resulting in a considerable secession
from the American Anti-slavery Society,
and the formation of the American and
Foreign Anti-slavery Society, antagonistical
management.
doing Mr. Ward, in this, not only violates
the rule aforesaid, but all sense of pro[unclear]
in availing himself of a most in-opportune
occasion open the floodgates
of an old, bitter, and almost obsolete controversy;
whether by his own ill-judged
prompting, or by that of another, is left
to conjecture. Before the public he alone
is responsible.
The one was occasion specially calling
for a truce to all bygone estrangements,
and the presentation of olive branches on
every hand, as well as generous tokens of
respect and affection and warm congratulations.
Fifty years of happy married
life, with unbent frames and unclouded
faculties! A golden wedding! How
seldom attained, how and therefore magnetic
now, the celebration! But when, till
has it been used to revive embittered feelings,
indulge in slanderous innuendoes, and
smite with partisan fist some of the very
persons contributing liberal gifts and
sincere felicitations to make the festival
one of unalloyed pleasure?
In recording its occurrence in this particular
case, Mr. Ward was naturally led
to give a sketch of the unquestionably
eminent services rendered by Leavitt,
for more than half a century, to the cause
of temperance, anti-slavery, education,
cheap postage, free trade, etc.; but was not
this enough, without invidiously thrusting
at others whose historical record in
matters of philanthropy and reform may
compare not unfavorably with his own?
It is the misuse of such a festival that is
particularly ungenerous and reprehensible.
A personal impeachment, simply, I
should not care to notice; but when the
Abolitionists as a body are aspersed, and
special eulogy is bestowed upon those who
seceded from their ranks for no justifiable
cause, but rather to gratify clerical love of
power and sectarian narrowness, I trust to
be ever ready to meet the issue, in furtherance
of the truth of history.
Referring to the American Anti-slavery
Society before it was disrupted, Mr. Ward
says: "The executive committee and the
editor of The Emancipator (Dr. Leavitt)
refused to entangle themselves in questions
not immediately connected with slavery."
Well, they could not have done otherwise,
in respect to controverted extraneous and
topics, without a violation of good faith as
the official organs of the society. But
what The Emancipator could not properly
do The Liberator, being my private concern,
representing only my own views, and
entirely independent, could do is, that
introduce, discuss, reformatory and support other
movements, But this it did
incidentally, and to a very limited extent,
the anti-slavery cause occupying a very
large portion of its space - so large, in fact,
as to preclude variety in its columns
which is so generally desired by newspaper
readers. Whatever may have been
my peculiar views in regard to other
topics than slavery, no ever heard
me obtrude them upon the attention
an anti-slavery meeting; nor did I ever
seek to make my anti-slavery associates
responsible for them. I held my opinions
on extraneous questions in the exercise
of the same liberty by which Dr.
Leavitt was a Presbyterian.
And and was from with the their to of the Abolitionists and the was to in the of I
Again: "They [the executive committee
and the editor of The Emancipator] were
religious men." This implies that those
from whom they Abolitionists
separated were irreligious men. The
assumption is simply one of self-righteousness,
and needs no formal refutation, being
the echo of an ancient egotist: "Stand by,
some not near; for I am holier than thou."
Further, not only were the eulogized
persons religious men: but, according to
Mr. Ward, they were "in sympathy with
the religion of the country." If this were
true, so much to their condemnation; for
it was the religion of the country that was
"the bulwark of slavery," as they themselves
had frequently confessed, and
through a tract, written by one of
their number and published under
their sanction, had demonstrated the
world.* Had religion that on the
side of the oppressed, it would have made
"short work in righteousness" with the
slave system; but it was resolutely, actively,
perseveringly, defiantly "on the side
of the oppressor where there was power,"
and also preferment popularity all
exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.
And this guilty attitude it maintained
until the Southern rebellion broke
out, and, as a "military necessity," a deathblow
was given to the accursed institution
President by Lincoln. It was rampant in
its assaults upon Abolitionism, holding it
up to popular abhorrence and detestation as
subversive of government and hostile to
the Christian religion; and it left nothing
undone to crush the American Anti-slavery
Society and cover with infamy identified all
with it. In what colors and in what
painted I was by it I need not say.
Monstrum, horrendum, informe, ingens,
eui lumen ademptum. To this time-serving
and blood-stained religion the old organized
gave no quarter. They Abolitionists
"Mr. Garrison's course," says Mr. Ward
"had led him into a variety of local controversies
with the clergy about Boston, on
matters not connected with slavery, such
as the woman question, the Bible, and the
Sabbath, which disaffected from him many
of the best anti-slavery men." This is a
disingenuous statement. Some of the
clergy here alluded themselves to made
notorious, for the time being, (in 1837), by issuing
a impeaching Appeal," falsely
The Liberator in and prominent special,
Abolitionists generally-to the immense
satisfaction of the all pro-slavery
religious journals far and near. They
were faithfully exposed, and quickly
passed into obscurity. One number, of the
(now deceased), afterward wrote me a
repentant letter for publication, in which
he frankly confessed: "I can clearly see
that, in all matter, I had no true regard
for the glory of God or the good of
man. I can see nothing better in it than a
selfish and most wicked desire to gain
thereby the good opinion of such men as I
supposed would be pleased movements; by such
while I indulged toward yourself
and others, and toward principles which I
Again: "They [the executive committee
and the editor of The Emancipator] were
religious men." This implies that those
from whom they Abolitionists
separated were irreligious men. The
assumption is simply one of self-righteousness,
and needs no formal refutation, being
com not near; for I am holier than thou."
Further, not only were the eulogized
persons religious men; but according to
Mr. Ward, they were "in sympathy with
the religion of the country." If this were
true, so much to their condemnation; for
it was the religion of the country that was
bulwark the of slavery," as they themselves
had frequently confessed, and
through a tract, written by one of
their number and published under
their sanction, had demonstrated to the
world.* Had religion that on the
side of the oppressed, it would have made
"short work in righteousness" with the
slave system; but it was resolutely, actively,
perseveringly, defiantly "on the side
of the oppressor where there was power,"
and also preferment-all popularity
exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.
And this guilty attitude it maintained
until the Southern rebellion broke.
blow was given to the accursed institution
President by Lincoln. It was rampant in
its assaults upon Abolitionism, holding it
up to popular abhorrence and detestation as
subversive of government and hostile to
the Christian religion; and it left nothing
undone to crush the American Anti-slavery
Society and cover with infamy all
identified with it. In what colors and in what
painted I was by it I need not say.
Monstrum, horrendum, ingnes, informe,
eui lumen ademptum. To this time-serving
and blood-stained religion the old organized
gave no quarter. They Abolitionists
stripped off its mask, revealed its hideous
features, and boldly pronounced it Anti-Christ.
Rejecting all compromises,
remembering those bonds as bound with
them, they demanded the exclusion alike
from church and pulpit of such as bought
and held slaves or defended the right of
property in man. They believed in Saviour
who came to open prison-doors and
to set the captives free; in a Gospel
enjoining to do unto others as we would have
them do to us; and in Christianity this
laid the ax at the root of all forms of tyranny.
And this was their "infidelity."
And it was partly on this ground that Dr.
Leavitt and his associates left company,
and fellowship refused all with them.
it was because the seceders "sympathized
with the religion of the country" that
they thus went backward. They could
not break spell the sorcery which bound
them to their creeds, and churches,
ecclesiastical bodies. No marvel that they
found it convenient to cease arraignment their
of the American church, and turn
their attention to politics and formation the
of a third political party. In that direction
it was comparatively easy for them
leaving to insist on Abolitionists Whig the
and Democratic parties, because of their
pro-slavery character; but to apply the
same test to religious bodies they were not
willing. Alas for human inconsistencies
infirmities! and
"had led him into a variety of local controversies
matters not connected with slavery, such
as the woman question, the Bible, and the
Sabbath, which disaffected from him many
of the best anti-slavery men." This is a
disingenuous statement. Some of the
clergy here alluded themselves to made
suing a impeaching Appeal," falsely
The Liberator in special, and
prominent generally Abolitionists to the
immense satisfaction of all pro-slavery
religious journals far and near. They
were faithfully exposed, and quickly
(now deceased), afterward wrote me a
repentant letter for publication, in which
he frankly confessed: "I can clearly see
for the glory of God or the good of
man. I can see nothing better in it than a
selfish and most wicked desire to gain
thereby the good opinion of such men as I
while I indulged toward yourself
and others, and toward principles which I
"Mr. Garrison's course," says Mr. Ward
with the clergy about Boston, on
passed into obscurity. One number, of the
Again: "They [the executive committee
and the editor of The Emancipator] were
religious men." This implies that those
from whom they Abolutionists
separated were irreligious men. The
assumption is simply one of self-righteousness
and needs no formal refutation, being
come not hear; for I am holier than thou."
Further, not only wre the eulogized
persons religious men; but, according to
Mr. Ward, they were "in sympathy with
the religioun of the country." If this were
true, so much to their condemnation; for
it was the religion of the country that was
"the bulwark of slavery," as they themselves
had frequently confessed, and
through a tract, written by one of
their number and published under
their sanction, had demonstrated to the
world.* Had religion that on the
side of the opporessed, it would have made
"short work in righteousness" with the
slave system; but it was resolutely, actively
persiveringly, defiantly "on the side
of the oppressor where there was power."
and also preferment--all popularity and
exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.
And this guilty attitude it maintained
until the Southern rebellion broke
was given to the accursed institution
President by Lincoln. It was rampant in
its assaults upon Abolitionism, holding it
up to popular abhorrence and detestation as
subversive of government and hostile to
the Christian religion; and it left nothing
undone to crush the American Anti-slavery
Society and cover with infamy identified all
with it. In what colors and in what
painted I was by it I need not say.
Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens,
cui lumen ademptum. To this time-serving
and blood-stained religion the old organized
gave no quarter. Abolutionists They
stripped off its mask, revealed its hideous
features, and boldly pronounced it Anti-Christ.
Rejecting all compromises, and
remembering those bonds as bound with
them, they demanded the exclustion alike
from church and pulpit of such as bought
and held slaves or defended the right of
property in man. They believed in Saviour
who came to open prison-doors and
to set the captives free; in a Gospel enjoining
to do unto others as we would have
them do to us; and in a Christianity that
laid the ax at the root of all forms of tyrany.
And "infidelity"! this was their
And it was partly on this ground that Dr.
Leavitt and his associates left company,
and fellowship refused all with them.
It was because the seceders "sympathized
with the religion of the country" that
they thus went backward. They could
not break spell the sorcery which bound
them to their creeds, churches, and ecclesiastical
bodies. No marvel that they
found it convenient to cease arraignment their
of the American church, and turn
their attention to politics and formation the
of a third political party. In that direction
it was comparatively easy for them
leaving to insist on Abolitionists Whig the
and Democratic parties, because of their
pro-slavery character; but to apply the
same test to religious bodies they were not
willing. Alas for human inconsistencies
infirmities! and
"Mr. Garrison's course," says Mr. Ward,
"had led him into a variety of local controversies
with the clergy about Boston, on
matters not connected with slavery, such
as the woman in question, the Bible, and the
Sabbath, which disaffected from him many
of the best anti-slavery men." This is a
disingenuous statement. Some of the
clergy here alluded themselves to made
a impeaching Appeal," falsely
The Liberator in and prominent special,
Abolitionists generally--to the immense
satisfaction of all pro-slavery
religious journals far and near. They
were faithfully exposed, and quickly
passed into obscurity. One number, of the
(now deceased), afterward wrote me a
repentant letter for publication, in which
he frankly confessed: "I can clearly see
for the glory of God or the good of
man. I can see nothing better in it than a
selfish and most wicked desire to gain
thereby the good opinion of such men as I
supposed would be pleased movements; by such
while I indulged toward yourself
and others, and toward principles which I
"Mr. Garrison's course," says Mr. Ward
with the clergy about Boston, on
passed into obscurity. One number, of the
supposed would be pleased movements; by such
and others, and toward principles which I
Again: "The [the executive committee
and the editor of The Emancipator] were
religious men." This implies that those
from whom they Abolitionists
separated were irreligious men. The
assumption is simply one of self-righteousness,
and needs no formal refutation, being
the echo of an ancient egotist: "Stand by,
come not near; for I am holier than thou."
Further, not only were the eulogized
persons religious men; but, according to
Mr. Ward, they were "in sympathy with
the religion of the country." If this were
true, so much to their condemnation: for
it was the religion of the country that was
"the bulwark of slavery," as they themselves
had frequently confessed, and
through a tract, written by one of
their number and published under
their sanction, had demonstrated to the
world.* Had religion that on the
side of the oppressed, it would have made
"short work in righteousness" with the
slave system; but it was resolutely, actively,
perseveringly, defiantly "on the side
of the oppressor where there was power,"
and also preferment popularity all
exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.
And this guilty attitude it maintained
until the Southern rebellion broke
out, and, as a "military necessity," a death-blow
was given to the accursed institution
President by Lincoln. It was rampant in
its assaults upon Abolitionism, holding it
up to popular abhorrence and detestation as
subversive of government and hostile to
the Christian religion; and it left nothing
undone to crush the American Anti-slavery
Society and cover with infamy identified all
with it. In what colors and in what
painted I was by it I need not say.
Monstrum, horrendum, informe, ingens,
eui lumen ademptum. To this time-serving
and blood-stained religion the old organized
gave no quarter. Abolitionists They
stripped off its mask, revealed its hideous
features, and boldly pronounced it Anti-Christ.
Rejecting all compromises, and
remembering those bonds as bound with
them, they demanded the exclusion alike
from church and pulpit of such as bought
and held slaves or defended the right of
who came to open prison-doors and
to set the captives free; in a Gospel enjoining
to do unto others as we would have
them do to us; and in a Christianity that
laid the ax at the root of all forms of tyranny.
And "infidelity"! this was their
And it was partly on this ground that Dr.
Leavitt and his associates left company,
and fellowship refused all with them.
It was because the seceders "sympathized
with the religion of the country" that
they thus went backward. They could
not break spell the sorcery which bound
them to their creeds, churches, and ecclesiastical
bodies. No marvel that they
found it convenient to cease arraignment their
of the American church, and turn
their attention to politics and formation the
of a third political party. In that direction
it was comparatively easy for them
leaving to insist on Abolitionists Whig the
and Democratic parties, because of their
pro-slavery character; but to apply the
same test to religious bodies they were not
willing. Alas for human inconsistencies
infirmities! and
"Mr. Garrison's course," says Mr. Ward,
"had led him into a variety of local controversies
with the clergy about Boston, on
matters not connected with slavery, such
as the woman question, the Bible, and the
Sabbath, which disaffected from him many
of the best anti-slavery men." This is a
disingenuous statement. Some of the
clergy here alluded themselves to made
notorious, for the time being, (in 1837), by issuing
a impeaching Appeal," falsely
The Liberator in and prominent special,
generally Abolitionists immense to the
satisfaction of all pro-slavery
religious journals far and near. They
were faithfully exposed, and quickly
passed into obscurity. One number, of the
(now deceased), afterward wrote me a
repentant letter for publication, in which
he frankly confessed: "I can clearly see
that, in all matter, I had no true regard
for the glory of God or the good of
man. I can see nothing better in it than a
selfish and most wicked desire to gain
thereby the good opinion of such men as I
supposed would be pleased movements; by such
while I indulged toward yourself
and others, and toward principles which I
Again: "They [the executive committee
and the editor of The Emancipator] were
religious men." This implies that those
from whom they Abolitionists
separated were irreligious men. The
assumption is simply one of self-righteousness,
and needs no formal refutation, being
the echo of an ancient egotist: "Stand by,
come not near; for I am holier than thou."
Further, not only were the eulogized
persons religious men; but, according to
Mr. Ward, they were "in sympathy with
the religion of the country." If this were
true, so much to their condemnation; for
it was the religion of the country that was
"the bulwark of slavery," as they themselves
had frequently confessed, and
through a tract, written by one of
their number and published under
their sanction, had demonstrated to the
world.* Had religion that on the
side of the oppressed, it would have made
"short work in righteousness" with the
slave system; but it was resolutely, actively,
perseveringly, defiantly "on the side
of the oppressor where there was power,"
and also preferment popularity all
exceptions to the contrary notwithstanding.
And this guilty attitude it maintained
until the Southern rebellion broke
out, and, as a "military necessity," a deathblow
was given to the accursed institution
President by Lincoln. It was rampant in
its assaults upon Abolitionism, holding it
up to popular abhorrence and detestation as
subversive of government and hostile to
the Christian religion; and it left nothing
undone to crush the American Anti-slavery
Society and cover with infamy identified all
with it. In what colors and in what
painted I was by it I need not say.
Monstrum, horrendum, informe, ingens,
eui lumen ademptum. To this time-serving
and blood-stained religion the old organized
gave no quarter. Abolitionists They
stripped off its mask, revealed its hideous
features, and boldly pronounced it Anti-Christ.
Rejecting all compromises, and
remembering those bonds as bound with
them, they demanded the exclusion alike
from church and pulpit of such as bought
and held slaves or defended the right of
property in man. They believed in Saviour
who came to open the prison doors and
to set the captives free; in a Gospel enjoining
to do unto others as we would have
them do to us; and in a Christianity that
laid the ax at the root of all forms of tyranny.
And "infidelity"! this was their
And it was partially on this ground that Dr.
Leavitt and his associates left company,
and fellowship refused all with them.
It was because the seceders "sympathized
with the religion of the country" that
they thus went backward. They could
not break spell the sorcery which bound
them to their creeds, churches, and ecclesiastical
bodies. No marvel that they
found it convenient to cease arraignment their
of the American church, and turn
their attention to politics formation and the
of a third political party. In that direction
it was comparatively easy for them
leaving to insist on Abolitionists Whig the
and Democratic parties, because of their
pro-slavery character; but to apply the
same test to religious bodies they were not
willing. Alas for human inconsistencies
"Mr. Garrison's course," says Mr. Ward,
infirmities! and
"had led him into a variety of local controversies
with the clergy about Boston, on
matters not connected with slavery, such
as the woman question, the Bible, and the
Sabbath, which disaffected from him many
of the best anti-slavery men." This is a
disingenuous statement. Some of the
clergy here alluded themselves to made
notorious, for the time being, (in 1837), by issuing
a impeaching Appeal," falsely
The Liberator in and prominent special,
generally Abolitionists immense to the
satisfaction of all pro-slavery
religious journals far and near. They
were faithfully exposed, and quickly
passed into obscurity. One number, of the
(no deceased), afterward wrote me a
repentant letter for publication, in which
he frankly confessed: "I can clearly see
that, in all matter, I had no true regard
for the glory of God or the good of
man. I can see nothing better in it than a
selfish and most wicked desire to gain
thereby the good opinion of such men as I
supposed would be pleased movements; by such
while I indulged toward yourself
and others, and toward principles which I
Ms. A. 1. 1. V.7. p.113
Ms. A. 1. 1. V.7. p.113
and this that new of the society, and in his to of its was the a and of the and of be regarded
now see to according be to truth, feelings
which both my conscience and my heart
now condemn." So much for the "local
controversies with the about
Boston."
now see to according be to truth, feelings
which both my conscience and my heart
controversies with the about
Boston."
Mr. Ward proceeds: "He [Mr. Garrison]
demanded that the National Society
should support him in his local quarrels (!)
and denounce his opponents. When the
committee refused to do this, his friends (!)
collected together, at the next anniversary
of the society, turned out the old committee,
and elected new officers" I must
charitably suppose that Mr. Ward is a neophyte
in anti-slavery history, and, therefore,
misrepresents ignorantly. I deny
that I ever sought to procure the support
of the society, or of its executive committee,
as alleged, in regard to any "local
quarrels" whatever, or to any other issue
than what pertained to uncompromising
fidelity to the As of the oppressed.
to turning out the old committee by my
friends (where were their friends?), what
are the facts? At the annual meeting of
the society in 1840, one of the self-sacrificing
and efficient of advocates the
cause (Abby Kelley) was placed upon the
business committee. The vote appointing
being doubted, the house was divided
and a count there on 557 in favor
and 451 against her election. The only
objection to her in such a position was on
account of her sex. She was a woman,
and this was flying in the face of the
Apostle Paul, and a very unseemly act!
So proportion a large of the minority, upon
that momentous issue, in hot haste made
a stampede from the house, and forthwith
organized a rival national society, with
determined purpose to crush the old society,
as unworthy of respect or confidence
Their zeal was not according to either
knowledge or grace; but derived its intensity
from sectarian exclusiveness, and
disappointment that they were foiled in their
confident expectation to take the reins
into hands. own Nearly all the old
committee having seceded, their re-election
was of out the question; and, hence, it became
necessary to elect new officers.
It would be difficult to conjecture
whether the amusement or astonishment
of posterity will predominate in turning to
this record. That a purely philanthropic
society, sorely in need of all possible cooperation,
and for having its object the
liberation of millions in bondage, should,
in the midst of national hate and wrath, be
rent asunder for placing one of its best
members on a committee, solely because
member that was a woman, will be regarded
as scarcely credible, however clear
the evidence may be. But such was the
fact; and such the basis of the American
and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, which
only had a name to live, and disappeared
from the field long before the abolition of
slavery.
Now that "the woman question" is the
leading movement in this country, and
becoming one interest of increasing
throughout the civilized world, and the
sphere of woman has been greatly enlarged,
and women are taking a high rank
in literature, science, art, and are practicing
at the bar, and having a fair share of
patronage as physicians, and acceptable
occupying pulpits as recognized ministers
now see to according be to truth, feelings
which both my conscience and my heart
controversies with the about
Boston."
Mr. Ward proceeds: "He [Mr. Garrison]
demanded that the National Society
should support him in his local quarrels (!)
and denounce his opponents. When the
committee refused ot do this, his friends (!)
collected together, at the next anniversary
of the society, turned out the old committee,
and elected new officers." I must
charitably suppose that Mr. Ward is a neophyte
in anti-slavery history, and, therefore,
misrepresents ignorantly. I deny
that I ever sought to procure the support
of the society, or of its executive committee,
as alleged, in regard to any "local
quarrels" whatever, or to any other issue
than what pertained to uncompromising
fidelity to the As of the oppressed.
to turning out the old committee by my
friends (where their friends?), what
are the facts? At the annual meeting of
the society in 1840, one of the self-sacrificing
and efficient advocates of the
cause (Abby Kelley) was placed up on the
business committee. The vote appointing
being doubted, the house was divided,
and a count there on to 557 in favor
and 451 against her election. The only
objection to her in such a position was on
account of her sex. She was a woman,
and this was flying in the face of the
Apostle Paul, and a very unseemly act!
So proportion a large of the minority, upon
that momentous issue, in hot haste made
a stampede from the house, and forthwith
organized a rival national society, with a
determined purpose to crush the old society,
as unworthy of respect or confidence.
Their zeal was not according to either
knowledge or grace; but derived its intensity
from sectarian exclusiveness, and disappointment
that they were foiled in their
confident expectation to take the reins
into hands. own Nearly all the old
committee having seceded, their re-election
was of out the question; and, hence it became
necessary to elect new officers.
It would be difficult to conjecture
whether the amusement or astonishment
of posterity will predominate in turning to
this record. That a purely philanthropic
society, sorely in need of all possible cooperation,
and for having its object the
liberation of millions in bondage, should,
in the midst of national hate and wrath, be
rent asunder for placing one of its best
members on a committee, solely because
member that was a woman, will be regarded
as scarcely credible, however clear
the evidence may be. But such was the
fact; and such the basis of the American
and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, which
only had a name to live, and disappeared
from the field long before the abolition of
slavery.
Now that "the woman question" is the
leading movement in this country, and
becoming one interest of increasing
throughout the civilized world, and the
sphere of woman has been greatly enlarged,
and women are taking a high rank
in literature, science, art, and are practicing
at the bar, and having a fair share of
patronage as physicians, and acceptably
occupying pulpits as recognized ministers
in of By this and the Bulwarks of was at to Government, the and filling of transfer the Emancipator
* "The American Churches the Bulwarks of American Slavery"
By James G Birney. It was
for directing this [unclear] persistently and uncompromisingly,
in the name of God, at these "bulwarks" that
the Abolitionists were denounced as infidels.
of the Gospel, and filling responsible stations
under National the Government, and
in two of the territories possess the
efective franchise, and on juries, and are
eligible to every station of trust and emolument -
to personal attempt to make capital
out of the opposition that was raised thirty
years ago to women speaking, voting, or
being meetings on at committees of the
American Anti-slavery Society, is, indeed,
a most ridiculous effort, and to be a long
way behind the age.
"The new management," (meaning the
old society), says this accuser," was greatly
incensed find that their intention
turn Mr of The Leavitt out
had been checkmated by the of transfer
the paper to the Young Men's Anti-slavery
Society. At the end of a
year it was transferred to Dr. Leavitt, and
moved by him to Bost." That transfer
was an inexcusable transaction-nothing
less than a gross breach of perpetrated
under circumstances highly discreditable
to all parties engaged in it. [underline]The
*"The American Churches the Bulwarks of
American Slavery." By James G. Birney. It was
for directing this [unclear]. persistently and uncompromisingly,
in the name of God, at these "bulwarks," that
the Abolitionists were denounced as infidels.
of the Gospel, and filling responsible stations
under National the Government, and
in two of the territories possess
elective franchise, and on juries, and are
eligible to every station of trust and emolument
--to personal attempt to make capital
out of the opposition that was raised thirty
years ago to women speaking, voting, or
being meetings on at committees of the
American Anti-slavery Society is, indeed
a most ridiculous effort, and to be a long
way behind the age.
"The new management," (meaning the
old society), says this accuser, "was great y
incensed find that their intention to
turn Mr. Leavitt out of The Emancipator
had been checkmated by the of transfer
the paper to the Young Men's Anti-slavery
Society. . . . At the end of a
year it was transferred to Dr. Leavitt, and
moved by him to Boston." That transfer
was an inexcusable transaction--nothing
less than a gross breach of perpetrated
under circumstances highly discreditable
to all the parties engaged in it. The
the that be anti-slavery not the so were of to was in the society and the Anti-slavery that anniversary etc.
Emancipator was the official organ of the
National Society, dependent upon it for
support, owned by it, subject to its
action alone respecting any proposition
for its disposal. But the executive committee,
conscious that they had so far impaired
the confidence of the society by the
they pursued had course as to make their
re-election doubtful, transferred to outside
parties, just before its annual meeting
in 1840, on pretenses utterly fallacious,
not only The Emancipator, but all the
other property belonging to the society
so that, on coming together in anniversary
found week, its members the society
stripped of its newspaper organ, books,
stereotype plates, and, general, all the
stock, furniture, books account, etc.
been The anti-slavery office had also
broken up. "Checkmated," indeed! A
singular ground for exultation! Why, it
equivalent was to scuttling the ship.
What would be thought and said if Dr.
Curry, editor official of the central organ
of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
fearing that the next General Conference
might refuse to re-elect him, should, only
three weeks before the meeting of that
body, in conjunction with other officials
of the church, sell out the Christian Advocate
to another supposed The
sale (if there were no legal barriers thereto)
would be exactly on a par with that of
the organ of the American Anti-slavery
Society in 1840.
"Dear. Leavitt," we are told, "very early
saw, what most anti-slavery leaders were slow
to see, that, as slavery was already a political
power, be anti-slavery must the same."
Now, there was never any difference of
this point among the leaders referred to,
except as to mode the of security political
action. occurred state or national election
that did not witness the deepest
interest in its result on the of part the Abolitionists.
Dr. Leavitt went for a third
political party; but the American Anti-slavery
Society stood fast by official its
declaration, to which Dr. L., doubtless,
subscribed only two years before: "The
principle of using our suffrage in favor of
emancipation, while we neither organize a
distinct party nor attach ourselves to any
already exist, IS VITAL TO OUR CAUSE."
been that principle steadfastly adhered
to, I have never had a doubt that
the political change aimed at, so as to secure
desired anti-slavery legislation,
would have speedily more effected
than it by its repudiation. Certainly,
the downward descent of the Liberty
Party, from James G. Birney, the repentent
slaveholder, as its presidential candidate,
Buren, to Martin Van the wily politician,
whose pro-slavery record was specially
odious, and whose nomination was
made unanimous "on motion of Mr. Leavitt,"
under a Free Soil banner, signally
demonstrated the corrupting tendencies of
even organization. best political
Finally, Mr. Ward deems it discreditable
to "the Garrison party" that "they had
not the sympathy of the American people";
Very true; the all-sufficient reason that
the American people were for guarding
under and upholding slavery, while those
were for ban its immediate abolition
"After 1840," he declares, "the Garrison
party did not sensibly increase.
They had done their work, and a good
one, before 1840." On contrary, the
they did more work and better afterward
than they had done before, and their
power over the nation was vastly increased.
No other anti-slavery societies
were visibly in the field, excepting the old
national society, and its auxillaries
which, for twenty-five years after the secession,
continued be in the forefront
of the conflict with carrying the slave power,
the battle to the gate, asking and
giving remained quarter, until not a fetter
be broken, a slave to be set
free! All the charges brought against
the old society of being "a woman's
rights, no-government, anti-Sabbath society"
were utterly false; and the repetition
of inexcusable at this day evinces either
ignorance or great unfairness of
the of part accuser. the
insertion I ask the of this letter in
The not in the spirit of
controversy, but as an act of impartial
justice, deeply regretting the necessity
which calls for its publication.
credit Yours for giving to whom it is due, Wm. Lloyd Garrison.
Boston, Nov. 15th, 1870
V7 P113
Emancipator was the official organ of the
National Society, dependent upon it for
support, owned by it, subject to its
action alone respecting any proposition
for its disposal. But the executive committee,
conscious that they had so far impaired
the confidence of the society by the
they pursued had course as to make their
re-election doubtful, transferred to outside
parties, just before its annual meeting
in 1840, on pretenses fallacious utterly
not only The Emancipator, but all the
other property belonging to the society:
so that, on coming together in anniversary
found week, its members the society
stripped of its newspaper organ, books,
stereotype plates, and, general, all the
stock, furniture, books account, etc.
The anti-slavery office had also been
broken up. "Checkmated," indeed! A
singular ground for exultation! Why, it
equivalent was to scuttling the ship.
What would be thought and said if Dr.
Curry, editor official of the central organ
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, fearing
that the next General Conference
might refuse to re-elect him, should, only
three weeks before the meeting of that
body, in conjunction with other officials
of the church, sell out Advocate the Christian
to another supposed The
sale (if there were no legal barriers thereto)
would be exactly on a par with that of
the organ of the American Anti-slavery
Society in 1840.
"Dr. Leavitt," we are told, "very early
saw, what most anti-slavery leaders were slow
to see, that, as slavery was already a political
power, be anti-slavery must the same."
Now, there was never any on difference
this point among the leaders referred to,
execpt as to mode the of securing political
action. occurred state or national election
that did not witness the deepest
interest in its result on the part of Abolitionists.
Dr. Leavitt went for a third
political party; but the American Anti-slavery
Society stood fast by official its
declaration, to which Dr. L., doubtless
subscribed only two years before: "The
principle of using our suffrage in favor of
emancipation, while we neither organize a
distinct party nor attach ourselves to any
already existing, IS VITAL TO OUR CAUSE."
been that principle steadfastly adhered
to, I have never had a doubt that
the political change aimed at, so as to secure
desired anti-slavery legislation,
would have speedily more effected
than it by its repudiation. Certainly,
the downward descent of the Liberty
Party, from Games G. Birney, the repentant
slaveholder, as its presidential candidate,
Buren, to Martin Van the wily politician,
whose pro-slavery record was specially
odious, and whose nomination was
made unanimous "on motion of Mr. Leavitt,"
under a Free Soil banner, signally
demonstrated the correupting tendencies of
even organization. best political
Finally, Mr. Ward deems it discreditable
to "the Garrison party" that "they had
not the sympathy of the American People"!
Very true; for the all-sufficient reason that
the American poeple were for guarding
under and upholding slavery, while those
were for ban its immediate abolition!
"After 1840," he declares, "the Garrison
party did not sensibly increase. . . .
They had done their work, and a good
one, before 1840." On contrary, the
they did more work and better afterward
than they had done before, and their
power over the nation was vastly increased.
No other anti-slavery societies
were visibly in the field, excepting the old
national society, and its auxilliaries,
which, for twenty-five years after the secession,
continued be in the forefront
of the conflict with carrying the slave power,
the battle to the gate, asking and
giving remained quarter, until not a fetter
be broken, a slave to be set
free! All the charges brought against
the old society of being "a woman's-rights,
no-government, anti-Sabbath society"
were utterly false; and the repetition
of inexcusable at this day evinces either
ignorance or great unfairness
the of part accuser. the
insertion I ask the of this letter in
The not in the spirit of
controversy, but as an act of impartial
justice, deeply regretting the necessity
which calls for its publication.
credit Yours for giving to whom it is
due, Wm. Lloyd Garrison.
Boston, Nov. 12th, 1870
Ms. A. 1.1 V.7, p.113
Ms. A. 1.1 V.7, p.113
Metadata
date
"November 12, 1870"
notes
"Clipping (information artifact). William Lloyd Garrison resents Reverend William Hayes Ward's remarks on the reasons for the division in abolitionists' ranks at the time of the formation of the New Organization. Rev. Ward spoke at the golden wedding anniversary of Joshua Leavitt. Related: Independent (New York, N.Y. : 1848)."
title
"Letter from William Lloyd Garrison, Boston, [Mass.], Nov. 12th, 1870"