+-------------------------------------------------+
|Transcriber’s note: |
| |
|Obvious typographic errors have been corrected. |
| |
+-------------------------------------------------+
RIGHT AND WRONG
IN
MASSACHUSETTS.
BY MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN.
There is a history in all men’s lives,
Figuring the nature of the time deceased;
The which observed, a man may prophesy,
With a clear aim at the main chance of things
As not yet come to life. _Shakespeare._
BOSTON:
DOW & JACKSON’S ANTI-SLAVERY PRESS.
14 Devonshire Street.
1839.
RIGHT AND WRONG.
CHAPTER I.
RETROSPECTION.
Before bringing forward upon the stage the characters who figure
in the drama, I have endeavored to make the reader acquainted with
the ground on which the different scenes were to be acted.
THIERRY.
The position of New England in 1829, was a most cheerless one
for Freedom. All the great interests of the country were nearly
or remotely involved in slaveholding, through all their various
arrangements, civil, ecclesiastical, mercantile and matrimonial; yet
all disclaimed its alliance. Every body was, in some way or other,
actively or passively, sustaining slavery; yet every body disclaimed
all responsibility for its existence, opposed all efforts for its
extinction, and was ‘as much anti-slavery as any body else.’ Even the
natural and kindly tide of human sympathy for suffering, was turned
away from the service of Freedom by the Colonization Society. The
moving principles of Northern and Southern life, had become inseparably
mingled below the surface of events, like the roots of giant trees
beneath the soil.
In the midst of this utter ignorance, iron indifference and base
hypocrisy respecting that groundwork of the human soul,--its
Freedom--rose up one to vindicate the grandeur and paramount importance
of its universal claim. He was young--unknown--poor:--“lord of
his presence, and no wealth beside.” But he had that best of all
educations, self-education, and that best of all qualifications for
his work, an entire devotedness to the principles of liberty which he
had espoused. Every step he took, was characteristic. He was enabled
by his ability as a writer, his skill as a practical mechanic, and
his laborious self-denial, to issue the first number of a periodical,
without having obtained a single subscriber. To him and to the
principles he advocated, the important thing was to find readers; which
the power evinced in his little sheet enabled him to do. Its name was
characteristic. It was neither a “journal,” nor an “observer,” nor a
“register,” nor a “recorder,” nor an “examiner.” He called it THE
LIBERATOR. Any other name would have but feebly expressed the depth
and affirmative nature of its principles. Those sacred and fundamental
principles found a response in the land, though the hearts from which
it came, were few and far between. The New England Anti-Slavery
Society was formed; and as man after man planted himself by the side
of Garrison and Knapp, a sense of duty seemed to pervade the soul
of each--the duty of _promulgating_ the truth of whose beauty and
necessity his soul was then made sensible. The Liberator was not their
organ, in an official sense,--but how could they conscientiously do
otherwise than sustain the instrumentality which their own experience
had proved so effectual?
They lectured on the subject of slavery as they found opportunity; and
by circulation of the Liberator and such publications as their means
could furnish, and by diligence in conversation and argument, they
succeeded in arousing a portion of the community to its consideration.
Though the idea of united, concentrated moral effort, was familiar
to their minds,--though the land was in fact permeated by education
and missionary Societies,--though this was emphatically the age of
benevolence and of voluntary association, yet a mighty preparation
of heart was needed in every individual who listened to this call of
Liberty, before he could resolve to avail himself of similar means
for the promulgation of her great principles: principles, which,
lying deeper than the shallow foundations of the popular benevolent
enterprises of the day, were identical with those of Christianity
herself.
Christianity, in every age, has ever presented herself as the
antagonist of its crying abomination. The same in spirit, her visible
appearance is modified by the giant obstacle she meets in each
successive generation. Sometimes, in conflict with idolatry, she stands
with her face of triumphant brightness opposed to the refined, the
intellectual, and the powerful; and every step is over a crumbling
altar and a prostrate priest. Sometimes, as in the days immediately
preceding those of which we write, her advanced guard are casting out
the unclean spirit of intemperance. In the close-succeeding years, she
comes, like LIBERTY, to inhabit the dwelling from which intemperance
has been banished to make room for her beatific presence.
By this call of the age for a manifestation of Christianity against
slavery, were hundreds drawn together during the first two years of
the existence of the N. E. Anti-Slavery Association. They came from
every sect, and class, and party--of every age and sex and color: and
often might the feeling with which the differing sectaries beheld,
each, the anxious labors of the other for the same object, and to their
astonishment found how much they possessed in common, have been well
expressed by the colloquy of the high caste German protestant and the
despised Jew.
“This conduct, Jew, doth verily seem Christian.”
“God bless you! what makes me to you a Christian
Makes you to me a Jew.”
To establish their association on this broad and enduring foundation of
sympathy and earnest union in the exercise of every means sanctioned by
each member’s idea of law, humanity and religion, was the early labor
of New England abolitionists. At their second annual gathering, Charles
Follen offered the following resolution:--
“Resolved, that this society has for its _sole object_ the
abolition of slavery in the United States, without any reference
to local interests, political parties, or religious sects.”
This resolution, says the report of that year, “was sustained in a
truly admirable manner, and unanimously adopted.”
The enthusiasm for liberty was sufficiently strong to overcome
not only bigotry but selfishness. Indeed those who had sacrificed
lucrative or honorable situations, or labored gratuitously, receiving
nothing in guerdon but the misrepresentation of the oppressor, were
hardly likely to yield to the temptation incident to other associated
operations,--that of making them subserve the love of power or praise.
Sectarianism and selfishness having been overcome, it was without any
emotion but that of joyful anticipation, that the New England Society
labored to carry out the following resolution, introduced by Mr.
Garrison in 1833:--
“Resolved, that the formation of a national society is essential
to the complete regeneration of public sentiment on the subject
of slavery; and that the Board of Managers of the New England
Society be authorized to call a national meeting of the friends of
abolition, for the purpose of organizing such a society.”
Their success was thus announced in the annual report of 1835:--
“In consequence of the formation of the American Society, and
of the design contemplated to form State Societies in the New
England States, which has been already accomplished in Maine,
New Hampshire and Vermont, the operations of the New England
Society during the past year have been very much confined to
Massachusetts, and hereafter it will be _only_ a State Society.”
These enlarged souls thought it no humiliation to take a lower seat.
Their object was Liberty throughout the land unto all the inhabitants
thereof, and not the establishment of a powerful institution, of which
_they_ should have the control. They go on to say,--
“Though the comparative importance of this association has, owing
to the causes just mentioned, been in some measure diminished,
yet its zeal, activity and numbers are unimpaired, while its
principles are spreading with unexampled rapidity.”
We find them abjuring every thought of control, jurisdiction,
centralization and monopoly of means and power. Voluntarily taking
what in the apprehension of many would be a lower seat, they
assumed the name of the Massachusetts, instead of the New England
Anti-Slavery Society. The plan of a national organization, with its
various component parts, from state and county to town and parish
societies, was skilfully planned, and its execution commenced with
great spirit. There was no difficulty in obtaining funds for the use
of the Executive Committee of this national association, as _all_ the
abolitionists were its members, and their confidence in the men they
had selected to form this Committee, was very great. Unlike the parent
and pioneer Committee, it numbered among its members men of wealth; and
their liberality enabled them to send into the field numbers of able
financial and lecturing agents.
At the State gatherings and New England Conventions, these agents were
wont to take donations and pledges, which Massachusetts abolitionists,
with their characteristic disinterestedness, were anxious to make, that
the central committee might be supplied, even though it drained the
State Society of its resources.
A practical difficulty soon became obvious. Some, meaning to pledge
money to the State Society, found their pledge received as to the
National Society--others, meaning to sustain the National, found their
pledge recorded as to the State; and great confusion, both in the
accounts of the agents, and in the minds of abolitionists, was the
consequence. Notwithstanding this, the work went most encouragingly
forward;--all being delighted with the efficiency of the National
Society, however inconvenient and depressing, in a business sense,
its mode of operation might be, and however the action of the State
Society was paralyzed by the labors of its financial agents. Still it
was thought that some arrangement might be devised by which to obviate
the uncertainty and inconvenience which the double draft of funds
occasioned; and at the last quarterly meeting of the Massachusetts
Society in 1835, a committee was appointed to consider the subject.
They reported that the then existing arrangements were very
embarrassing to the Massachusetts Society; but no plan was adopted for
more convenient ones.
This was the situation and bearing of the fiscal arrangements at the
beginning of 1836.
Meanwhile the grand battle had been going powerfully on, and the
energies of all were severely tasked. The enthusiasm for the cause had
overleaped not only sectarian divisions, but the “graceful feebleness,”
which the age cherished as an ornament in the female character. The
women of the cause, in the difficult times of 1835, were peculiarly
active. They devoted themselves to the work of obtaining signatures
to petitions with commendable energy. A history of their progress
from door to door, with the obstacles they encountered, would be at
once touching, ludicrous, and edifying. Young women, whose labors
depended on public opinion, laid the claims of the enslaved to freedom
before those whose simple word might grant or deny their own means of
subsistence. Benevolent-looking elderly gentlemen, individuals of the
highest respectability and influence in the community, were wont to
witness the appeal kindly, favoring the applicant with good advice as
to her future course.
“My dear young lady, it gives me pain to see your efforts so entirely
wasted. You only injure the cause you espouse by thus leaving your
sphere. You actually prevent those who are capable of understanding
this question, and whom their sex points out as the only proper persons
to consider it, from entering upon its consideration. You make the
whole matter seem little, and below the attention of men.” But the
women judged for themselves, and very rationally too, that the women
whose efforts for the cause could not be hindered by men, were more
valuable auxiliaries than the men whose dignity forbade them to be
fellow-laborers with women.
The individual and collective energy of the community, both moral and
physical, was that year employed to keep women from leaving what was
termed “their appropriate sphere,” by petitioning and holding the
meetings of their respective Societies; but in vain.
Their sole reply to the restrictive efforts of the public, was conveyed
in such resolutions as the following:--“Resolved, that, in a conflict
of principles, we believe Scripture to teach that there is neither
bond or free, male or female, foreigner or native; but all are one
in Christ Jesus; and therefore feel ourselves called in common with
man, to toil and suffer, as all must, who effectually defend the
truth.” Manifold were the pretences under which men disguised their
hatred to freedom. From the beginning, those who professed to be
thoroughly opposed to Slavery in the abstract, (such was the cant
phrase of that time,) had concealed their hatred to liberty under the
guise of dislike to the measures of abolitionists. As those measures
were entirely unexceptionable in reality, the pretence settled down
into a stereotyped aversion to _harsh language_. Under this term,
were comprehended that faithfulness to principle, accuracy of moral
classification, appropriateness of style to subject, and strict
impartiality which the effects of Mr. Garrison’s example had been to
make general in the cause. It was this example of fidelity which made
an expression of confidence in him, or an expression of approbation of
his course, equivalent to a test-act. There are so many persons who
will assent to an abstractly righteous proposition, though they start
back in alarm from righteousness personified, that it was fortunate for
the cause, if such were prevented by his faithfulness from clogging it
with their useless numbers.
The most delightful and at the same time the most surprising
feature of the Anti-Slavery cause was the harmonious co-operation
of all engaged in its advancement. Delightful, because rare in any
circumstances,--surprising, because the materials of which the Society
was formed, were, to human eye, so discordant. But each member, in
virtue of a clear perception of the truth that the whole is greater
than a part, when sect came in collision with the universal cause of
freedom, made the less give way to the greater, and each was zealously
and kindly watchful, not to enforce his distinctive opinions, in
religion or politics, on his brother. Seeing that his brother had
religious and political principles of his own, he contented himself
with urging their constant application to the case of the enslaved.
This watchfulness was perhaps more careful in Massachusetts, than
in any other state. Abolition _there_ had been a growth and not a
manufacture; and it was observable that the more devoted was the zeal
of the abolitionists, the more enlarged was their toleration. It was
neither natural nor desirable that differences of opinion should not
occasionally appear in Abolition meetings, but their appearance was
never the signal of wrath and clamor.
The great hope of the association was that the church might be roused
by its instrumentality to put forth her moral power against slavery;
and at the New England convention of 1836, a resolution was proposed
declaring that a church using its influence to delay and prevent the
fulfilment of the will of Christ, has no claim to be considered his;
and that only those churches who employed their associated influence
_for_ reform, should be considered the true and real church of God.
Elizur Wright objected to any resolution which would divide the
church;--our object was to purify. Rev. Mr. Peckham followed him,
declaring that this Convention, not being an ecclesiastical body, was
not qualified to sit in judgment on the churches. Many of the members
of the Convention were not, he said, even church members, and therefore
it was improper for them to sit in judgment on the conduct of church
members. Should we say to this man, who is an abolitionist, Stand thou
here, and to another, who is opposed to abolition, Stand thou there?
Were there no spots upon our own garments, which those we undertake to
sever from the church might point out? On the question of abolition he
was ready to go as far as any Anti-Slavery man he ever saw; but when a
measure was proposed that must divide the churches, he must oppose it.
The Rev. Geo. Allen, of Shrewsbury, thought the passage of a resolution
dangerous which might be followed by denunciation, vituperation and
division of the churches. The resolution was recommitted. Subsequently
one was offered by Rev. J. T. Woodbury, enforcing discipline and
excommunication of slaveholders. The strong words of truth he uttered
on that occasion sank deep into the hearts of hundreds who heard them,
and influence their conduct to this day.
“What is the Church doing?” he said. “Selling indulgences for
sin--the worst of sins--the sin of _man-stealing_--yea, the sin
of stealing and selling _a brother in the Church_! What do they
do? The hammer is lifted over the head of the Christian--yes, the
Christian, the child of God--and the cry is, who bids? Brother
sells his brother, and the Church says, _it is all right_, while
the watchmen, on the walls of Zion, pass the word, _all’s well!_
Though the auctioneer is a church member, the seller, and buyer,
and the poor slave, all members of the same Church, yet the Church
does not censure the deed. _It is all right._ * * * The Church
that does not pronounce slavery a sin, and deal with its members,
who refuse to confess and forsake it, in effect, licenses slavery.
It stands as the virtual endorser of the crime. If men are robbed
of the Bible, and of all knowledge of letters; if parents are
punished, as felons, for teaching their own children the alphabet,
and the Church does nothing, then the Church, by its silence,
endorses it, and declares it is all right. If parents are robbed
of their children, forced to see them dragged to the market, and
knocked off to the negro speculator--the Church stands by, and
says, “_It’s all right._” The Church allows this, not only in its
members, but in its elders, and deacons, and pastors, and bishops;
and hence it stands justly responsible for selling indulgences
to license the sin of slavery. * * * What! shall the American
churches form Bible societies, and pledge themselves before
God, that they will give the Bible to the whole world, and then
withhold it from twenty-five hundred thousand souls in their very
midst? What have we seen here? A Virginia Christian slaveholder
comes here, and appeals to us about the Virginia State Bible
Society, to send the Bible to the extreme ends of the earth. * * *
Why don’t he give the Bible to his own slaves then, and teach them
to read it, before he asks for our money to help him send Bibles
to the slaves in sin in distant lands? How does he look; the agent
of the Virginia Bible Society, begging for money, to give the
Bible to Chinese men and Hindoo pariahs, and refusing to give it,
or let us give it, to _six hundred thousand immortal beings in his
own State_? Why, what a hypocrite! Is there a being on earth, the
most degraded even of the miserable slaves, whose souls are left
to perish, who cannot see the inconsistency, the absurdity, the
hypocrisy of this? Is God a fool, to be thus mocked? Sir, I will
raise my voice against such hypocrisy as long as I live. It shall
ring in the ears of every slaveholder who asks us to help him give
Bibles to the heathen, thousands of miles off, while he withholds
them from the slaves at his own door. Why, his very Bibles, which
he sends to the Hindoo, are bought with the blood and souls of his
slaves. It is dividing the gains of hell with God. * * * If this
is Christianity, well might the heathen say, God defend us from
Christianity.”
A graphic picture, distinct as just, and yet there sat a few in this
very convention “ready to go as far as any Anti-Slavery man they ever
saw,” who deprecated division on _Anti-Slavery_ ground, though their
_general_ principle was, to hold no fellowship with immorality. The
resolution of Mr. Woodbury passed, with but one dissenting voice. Mr.
Sewall, who voted in the negative, and Mr. May, who declined voting on
the question, explained their conduct by stating that they “entertained
doubts whether any body of Christians had a right to exclude a man from
the communion table at all.” At the same time they heartily agreed
with the Abolition spirit of the resolution, and thought it the duty
of Christians who believe in the propriety of this discipline in the
church to vote for it. In the course of the Convention, a resolution
was presented, involving a personal pledge from each member, of life
and fortune and honor to the cause; and well-remembered words of
fervent solemnity yet sound in the ears of those who were then adjured
to stand firm, “come what might.” Women were earnestly entreated to
assist the passage of this resolution, and almost all present united in
it.
The ecclesiastical opposition to the cause could not fail to be
brought out in bold relief by the proceedings of this Convention.
During the whole year, its workings were manifest, and at the annual
meeting of the Massachusetts Society in 1837, its efforts were
successfully exerted in reducing the Abolitionists to the necessity
of meeting in a stable. Though the church cast its whole weight in
their way, the State was less obstinate in its opposition, and the use
of the State House was permitted for one session of the Society. Mr.
Stanton wished that this yielding on the part of the State might be
considered as a keen rebuke to those churches which had refused their
houses of worship, that we might plead in them the cause of 2,000,000
of American heathen. Mr. Fitch deprecated this “turning aside” to
remark upon the obstacles cast in our way. He feared there was danger
of losing sight of the end of our organization as an Anti-Slavery
Society. “We should not let these efforts for free discussion so absorb
our minds. Let us think of the infinitely more oppressive wrongs of
the poor slave.” There was an indefinable something in these remarks,
which revealed an entire want of comprehension of the hearts of
abolitionists in general. Was it for themselves, then, that they made
these efforts, and administered these rebukes? Were not their thoughts
riveted on the Slave? and was not this fixedness of determination the
very cause of their rebukes, and of their efforts for free discussion?
Free discussion of what? Why, of the Slaves’ wrongs and the means of
righting them! and yet this incomprehensible jargon about turning aside!
During the succeeding meetings, the Anti-Slavery spirit swelled high
and strong. The Liberator was warmly sustained by all the friends
present, among whom were Messrs. Chaplin, Walker, May, and Stanton.
“The inquiry is often made of me,” said Mr. Stanton, “why does not the
American Society sustain it? The answer is, Let Massachusetts sustain
it, as she ought.” Mr. St. Clair, in particular, expressed the warmest
eulogy on the Liberator. Mr. Garrison spoke as one knowing the folly
of being elevated by human applause, or depressed by human censure;
he remarked that it was neither his aim nor expectation, to please
every subscriber. “It must suffice that free discussion is my motto,
and those who are opposed to me in sentiment are always invited to
occupy a place.” Political action, as one of the modes contemplated by
the Society, was adverted to. Mr. Stanton introduced a resolution,
affirming that the people of Massachusetts ought _not_ to vote for an
upholder of slavery. Mr. Garrison warmly seconded the resolution.
At the New-England Convention of 1837, Mr. Phelps followed up the
efforts upon the church, by a series of resolutions, accompanied by
most convincing reasons, urging the necessity of the excommunication
of slaveholders, and a solemn consideration of the question whether,
the churches remaining obdurate, it be not the duty of the advocates of
truth and righteousness to “come out from among them, and be separate.”
These resolutions were heartily approved by the Convention, with the
exception of the Rev. Samuel Lee. The argument by Mr. Peckham, in
1836, that this Convention was not an ecclesiastical body, and that
many of its members were unconnected with any church, weighed much in
the mind of Mr. Lee. He represented that the brethren present, ought
to consider, before adopting the resolutions, the manner in which
they would be met by the associations of the Ministry. They will say
that this Convention was composed of men who hold that Christ is God,
and must be worshipped as such, and others who deny this, and believe
it idolatry so to worship him; again there are others who make no
pretensions to religion, but trample under foot the blood of Christ:
now they will say, these persons come together in an Anti-Slavery
Convention, conniving at each other’s sins, and then pass resolutions
touching a particular sin about which the church differs. There were
a great many ministers engaged in this good work, but though we were
abolitionists, must not the ministers of the church stand up for the
church, and protect her walls from being thrown down? These resolutions
proposed to divide the church--that would be the effect. They would
be an entering wedge. They would be driven home by the newspapers and
other influences, till the church was severed. Subsequently Mr. Lee
gave his brethren a word of caution not to say too much against the
church. Bad as it was, it was the light of the world; and if we wanted
to save the world, we must preserve the church of Christ on earth.
The Convention sat uneasily under this speech. Its spirit was
faithfully and eloquently opposed, and the resolutions were adopted
with but three dissenting voices; one, Mrs. Fifield of Weymouth, on
the ground that it was too great an assumption of power in man to
exclude his brother from the table of the Lord. The Rev. George Trask
introduced a resolution on the subject of peace, as connected with
abolition, which was sustained by William Goodell and others. Mr.
Goodell said that he was a peace man, and had he not supposed the
American Anti-Slavery Society to be also a Peace Society, he never
should have joined it. A discussion ensued respecting the declaration
of sentiment and constitution of the Society. Some thought the Peace
principles were involved in them, some not, according to their
different ideas of the extent of these principles.
The discussion had continued two hours, when Mr. Garrison arose.
“Brethren,” he said, “you all know my views on this subject. They cover
the extreme ground of non-resistance, and so, in my understanding of
it, does this resolution. Let me say to Brother Goodell, that I think
he, on further thought, would not wish to adopt it, neither do I think
the Assembly ready to pass it. This is neither the place nor the
occasion. Let us stop discussing it now.” The resolution was moulded
into the shape of a re-affirmation of pacific principles, as set forth
in the Declaration of sentiment of the National Convention in 1833,
and in that modified form unanimously adopted.
Many of the members of this meeting had their minds firmly anchored
on the ultra non-resistance principle. They saw it _through_ their
abolition principles, as the eye fastens upon the farthest surface of
a diamond through the transparent medium of the nearest; yet they felt
that it was not the business of Anti-Slavery organizations _as such_,
to come to a decision upon it, and they were desirous to wave its
consideration. Who could have foretold that these very persons, and Mr.
Garrison in particular, were hereafter to be arraigned as loading the
cause with foreign topics?
Up to this point of time, May, 1837, the hearts of the abolitionists
were united as the heart of one. Exceptions did exist to the general
love and harmony, but they were very rare. As a general rule, the mobs,
misrepresentations, and threats of prosecution at common law, seemed to
unite them the closer. Each strove to shelter the rest from whatever
storm of opposition they were called to share. They defended each other
from the charge of harsh and unchristian feelings and language--they
called for, and recorded the votes of women--they unanimously declared
in solemn assembly, that they, as abolitionists, believed that the
anti-slavery cause was one, with regard to which _all human_ beings,
whether men or women, citizens or foreigners, white or colored, had the
_same duties and the same rights_--they passed resolutions of thanks
for the co-operation of women, under the unusual and difficult duties
that devolved upon them. In vain were the noise of the waves, and the
tumult of the people; they broke harmlessly against this rock-founded
fortress.