Transcribe Text (Collaborative) Letters from William Lloyd Garrison page

Subject 13836296

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

Page transcription

LETTER FROM WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.
  • LETTER FROM WILLIAM LLOYD
  • GARRISON.
  • LETTER FROM WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON
  • LETTER FROM WILLIAM LLOYD
  • LETTER FROM WILLIAM LLOYD
  • GARRISON.
  • GARRISON.
Knowing how inflexible The Independent
  • Knowing how inflexible The In-
  • Knowing how inflexible The Independent
  • Knowing how inflexible The Independent
  • Knowing how inflexible The Independent
in its spirit and proscriptive in its
  • in its spirit and proscriptive in its
  • in its spirit and proscriptive in its
  • in its spirit and proscriptive in its
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"
image1
"08_07_019560.jpg"
image2
"08_07_019561.jpg"
image3
"08_07_019562.jpg"
image4
"08_07_019563.jpg"
image5
""
image6
""
image7
""
image8
""
image9
""
image10
""
image11
""
image12
""
image13
""
image14
""
image15
""
image16
""
image17
""
image18
""
image19
""
image20
""
image21
""
image22
""
image23
""
image24
""
image25
""
image26
""
image27
""
image28
""
image29
""
image30
""
image31
""
image32
""
image33
""
image34
""
image35
""
image36
""
image37
""
image38
""
image39
""
image40
""
image41
""
image42
""
image43
""
image44
""
image45
""
image46
""
image47
""
image48
""
image49
""
image50
""
image51
""
image52
""
image53
""
image54
""
image55
""
image56
""
image57
""
image58
""
image59
""
image60
""
image61
""
image62
""
image63
""
image64
""
creators
"Garrison, William Lloyd, 1805-1879 (Author)"
group_ID
"15525"
language
"English"
publisher
""
internal_ID
"commonwealth:cv43r496c"
original_url
"http://ark.digitalcommonwealth.org/ark:/50959/cv43r496c"
#id_local_call
"Ms.A.1.1 v.7, p.113"
#repository_id
"commonwealth:cv43r496c"
#id_local_other
""
#id_local_barcode
"39999066755800; mq9008885"
#id_local_accession
""
physical_description
"2 leaves (2 p.) ; 15 x 2 1/4 in."