In the winter of 1835 and 1836 the slaveholding oligarchy made a
bolder assault than ever before upon the liberty of our nation, and
the most alarming intimations were given of a willingness to yield to
their imperious demands. The legislatures of Alabama, Georgia, South
Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia passed resolutions of the same
import, only those of Virginia and South Carolina were clothed, as
might have been expected, in somewhat more imperative and threatening
terms. These resolutions insisted that each State, in which slavery
was established, had the exclusive right to manage the matter in the
way that the inhabitants thereof saw fit; and that the citizens of
other States who were interfering with slavery in any way, directly or
indirectly, were guilty of violating their social and constitutional
obligations, and ought to be punished. They therefore “claimed and
earnestly requested that the non-slaveholding States of the Union
should promptly and _effectually suppress_ all abolition societies,
and that they should make it _highly penal_ to print, publish, and
distribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts, and pictorial representations
calculated or having a tendency to excite the slaves of the Southern
States to insurrection and revolt.”
These resolutions further declared that “they should consider every
interference with slavery by any other State, or by the General
Government, as a direct and unlawful interference, to be resisted at
once, and under every possible circumstance.” Moreover, they insisted
that they “should consider the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia as a violation of the rights of the citizens of that District,
and as a usurpation _to be at once resisted_, as nothing less than the
commencement of a scheme of much more extensive and flagrant injustice.”
Resolutions in these words, or to the same effect, passed by the
legislatures of the above-mentioned States, were transmitted by the
governors of those States severally to the governors of each of
the non-slaveholding States, among them to the chief magistrate of
Massachusetts, then the Hon. Edward Everett.
On the 15th of January, 1836, that gentleman delivered his address
to both branches of the Legislature at the organization of the State
Government. In the course of that address, as in duty bound to do under
the circumstances, he alluded particularly to the subject of slavery,
and to the excitement kindled throughout the country by the discussion
of it in the free States.
But instead of showing that the subject of human rights was ever up,
and must needs be ever up, for the consideration of the American
people, in private circles and public assemblies; that it ought not
and could not be prohibited,--instead of conceding the impossibility
(in our country especially) of preventing the freest expression of
the opinion, that such a glaring inconsistency, such a tremendous
iniquity as the enslavement of millions ought not to be tolerated;
that the genius of our Republic, the spirit of the age, the principles
of Christianity, the impartial love of the Father of all mankind,
each and all demanded the abolition of slavery,--instead of availing
himself of the occasion so fully given him, from his high position, to
reiterate the glorious doctrines of the Declaration of Independence,
and to press upon the complaining States the obvious necessity of their
yielding to the self-evident claims of humanity,--instead of this, His
Excellency saw fit to commend the disastrous policy of the framers of
our Republic; to pass a severe censure upon us Abolitionists, and to
intimate his opinion that we were guilty of offences punishable at
common law.
This part of his speech was referred to a joint committee of two
from the Senate and three from the House of Representatives, Hon.
George Lunt, Chairman. By order of the managers of the Massachusetts
Antislavery Society, I addressed a letter to the above-named committee,
asking permission to appear before them by representatives, and show
reasons why there should be no legislative action condemnatory of the
Abolitionists. The request was granted, and on the 4th of March the
proposed interview took place in the chamber of the Representatives, in
the presence of many citizens.
At first a member of the committee, Mr. Lucas, objected to our
proceeding; said we were premature; that we should have waited until
the committee had reported; that we had no reason to apprehend the
Legislature would do anything prejudicial to us, or to the liberties of
the people. I replied, “that formerly it would have been a gratuitous,
an impertinent apprehension, but recent occurrences have admonished
us, that we may not any longer safely rest in the assurance that our
liberties are secure. Alarming encroachments have been made upon them,
even in the metropolis of New England. We do not fear,” I continued,
“that your committee will recommend, or that our Legislature will
enact, a penal law against Abolitionists. But we do apprehend that
condemnatory resolutions may be reported and passed; and these we
deprecate more than a penal law for reasons that we wish to press upon
your consideration.”
After some discussion between the members of the committee Mr.
Lucas withdrew his objection, and we were allowed to proceed. I
commenced, being the General Agent of the Society, and gave a sketch
of the origin, the organization, and progress of the abolition
enterprise,--stating distinctly our purpose and the instrumentalities
by which we intended to accomplish it. I laid before the committee
copies of our newspapers, reports, and tracts,--especially the
constitutions of several State and County Antislavery Societies, and
more especially the report of the convention that met in Philadelphia,
in December 1833, and organized the American Antislavery Society, and
issued a declaration of sentiments and purposes. All these documents,
I insisted, would make it plain to the committee that we were
endeavoring to effect the abolition of slavery by moral means,--not
by rousing the enslaved to insurrection, but by working such changes
in the public sentiment of the nation respecting the cruelty and
wickedness of our slave system, that strong, earnest remonstrances
would be sent from the Legislature, and still more from the
ecclesiastical bodies in all the free States to corresponding bodies
in the slave States, imploring them to consider the awful iniquity of
making merchandise of fellow-men, and treating them like domesticated
brutes; at the same time offering to co-operate with them and share
generously in the expense of abolishing slavery, and raising their
bondmen to the condition and privileges of the free.
Some discussion here ensued as to the character of some of our
publications, and the propriety of certain expressions used by some
of our speakers and writers. And then Ellis Gray Loring was heard in
our behalf. This gentleman had been prominent among the New England
Abolitionists from the very beginning of Mr. Garrison’s undertaking.
There were combined in him the strength and resolution of a man
with the intuitive wisdom and delicacy of a woman. He addressed the
committee more than half an hour in a most pertinent manner, replying
aptly to their questions and objections. “The general duty,” said Mr.
Loring, “of sympathizing with and succoring the oppressed will probably
be conceded. It is enjoined by Christianity. We are impelled to it by
the very nature which our Creator has conferred upon us. What, then, is
to limit our exercise, as Abolitionists, of this duty and this right?
The relations we bear to the oppressor control, it is said, our duty
to the oppressed. If we are bound to abstain from the discussion of
slavery, it must be either because we are restrained by the principles
of international law, or by some provisions of the Constitution of the
United States. But, gentlemen, if the slaveholding States were foreign
nations, it could not be shown that we have done anything which the law
of nations forbids. We have done nothing for the overthrow of slavery
in our Southern States which that law forbids, more than our foreign
missionary societies have for many years been doing for the subversion
of idolatry in pagan lands,--nothing more than was done in this city
and all over our country to aid the Poles and the Greeks in their
struggle for freedom, of which our ancient allies, the Russians and the
Turks, were determined to deprive them. If, then, the Law of nations
does not restrain us, is it in the Constitution of the United States
that such restraint is imposed? Far from it. I find in that, our Magna
Charta, an abundant guaranty for the liberty of speech; but I look in
vain in the letter of the Constitution for any prohibition of the use
of moral means for the extirpation of slavery or any other evil.”
Mr. Loring here took up the three clauses of the Constitution in which
alone any allusion is made to the subject of slavery, and showed
clearly that there was nothing in them which forbade the fullest and
freest discussion of the political expediency or moral character of
that system of oppression. And he confirmed his position by referring
to the fact, that the framers of that great document did not understand
it as the proslavery statesmen and politicians of our day would
have it understood. Washington declared himself warmly in favor of
emancipation. Jefferson’s writings contain more appalling descriptions
and more bitter denunciations of slavery than are to be found in the
publications of modern Abolitionists; and Franklin, Rush, and John Jay
were members of an antislavery society formed a few years after they
had signed the Constitution, and they joined in a petition to Congress
praying for the abolition of that system of domestic servitude, so
inconsistent with our political principles and disastrous to our
national honor and prosperity.”
I have not given, nor have I room to give, anything like a full
report of Mr. Loring’s speech. He closed with these words: “A
great _principle_, gentlemen, is involved in the decision of this
Legislature. I esteem as nothing in comparison our feelings or wishes
as individuals. Personal interests sink into insignificance here.
Sacrifice us if you will, but do not wound liberty through us. Care
nothing for men, but let the oppressor and his apologist, whether at
the North or the South, beware of the certain defeat which awaits him
who is found fighting against God.”
The next one who addressed the committee was the Rev. William
Goodell, one of the sturdiest, most sagacious and logical of our
fellow-laborers. We are indebted to him for “a full statement of the
reasons which were in part offered to the committee,” &c., &c., given
to the public in a pamphlet which was issued from the press a few days
after our interviews with said committee.
I shall here quote only the most important passage in his speech:
“We would deprecate the passage of any condemnatory resolutions by
the Legislature, even more than the enactment of a penal law, for
in the latter case we should have some redress. We could plead the
unconstitutionality of such a law, at any rate, it could not take
effect until we had had a fair trial. Not so, gentlemen of this
committee, in the case of resolutions. We should have no redress for
the injurious operation of such an extra-judicial sentence. The passage
of such resolutions by this and other legislatures would help to
fix in the public mind the belief that Abolitionists are a specially
dangerous body of men, and so prepare the public to receive such a law
as the slaveholding States might dictate. We solemnly protest against a
legislative censure, because it would be a usurpation of an authority
never intrusted to the Legislature. They are not a judicial body, and
have no right to pronounce the condemnation of any one.”
“Hold,” said Mr. Lunt, the Chairman of the committee, “you must not
indulge in such remarks, sir. We cannot sit here and permit you to
instruct us as to the duties of the Legislature.”
Mr. Goodell resumed, justified the remark for which he had been called
to order, and completed his very able argument against any concurrence
on the part of the General Court of Massachusetts with the demands of
the Southern States.
Mr. Garrison next addressed the committee in a very comprehensive and
forcible speech. But he neglected to give any report of it in his
_Liberator_. I can therefore lay before your readers only this brief
passage: “It is said, Mr. Chairman, that the Abolitionists wish to
destroy the Union. It is not true. We would save the Union, if it be
not too late. To us it would seem that the Union is already destroyed.
To us there is no Union. We, sir, cannot go through these so-called
United States enjoying the privileges which the Constitution of the
Union professed to secure to all the citizens of this Republic. And
why? Because, and only because, we are laboring to accomplish the very
purposes for which it is declared in the preamble to the Constitution
that the Union was formed! Because we are laboring ‘to establish
justice, insure domestic tranquillity, and promote the general
welfare.’”
Dr. Follen then arose. He was extensively known and very much
respected and beloved by all who had known him, as a Professor in
Harvard College, or as a preacher of true Christianity in several
parishes in the vicinity of Boston. He had done and suffered
much for the sake of civil and religious liberty in his own
country,--Germany,--and had come to our country in the high hope
of enjoying the blessings and privileges of true freedom. He early
espoused the antislavery cause, and rendered us essential services by
his wise counsels and his labors with several prominent persons whom
we had failed to reach. He was selected as one of the nine to maintain
our rights before the legislative committee, and avert the wrong that
seemed impending over us from the unhappy suggestions in the speech of
Governor Everett.
The Doctor evidently felt very deeply the grave importance of the
occasion. He commenced his speech with some profound remarks upon
the rights of man and the spirit and purpose of our republican
institutions, and then proceeded to point out the fearful
encroachments, that had been made on the fundamental principles of
our Republic by slaveholders and their Northern partisans. “And now,”
said he, “they are calling upon the Northern legislatures to abolish
the Abolitionists by law. We do not apprehend, gentlemen, that you
will recommend, or that our General Court will enact, such a law. But
we do apprehend that you may advise, and the Legislature may pass,
resolutions severely censuring the Abolitionists. Against this measure
we most earnestly protest. We think its effects would be worse than
those of the penal law. The outrages committed in this city upon the
liberty of speech, the mobs in Boston last October, were doubtless
countenanced and incited by the great meeting of August, in Faneuil
Hall. Now, gentlemen, would not similar consequences follow the
expression by the Legislature of a similar condemnation? Would not
the mobocrats again undertake to execute the informal sentence of the
General Court? Would they not let loose again their bloodhounds upon
us?”
“Stop, sir!” cried Mr. Lunt. “You may not pursue this course of remark.
It is insulting to the committee and to the Legislature which they
represent.”
Dr. Follen sat down, and an emotion of deep displeasure evidently
passed through the crowd of witnesses.
I sprang to my feet and remonstrated with Mr. Lunt. Mr. Loring and
Mr. Goodell also expressed their surprise and indignation at his
course. But it was of no avail. He would not consent that Dr. Follen
should proceed to point out what we considered the chief danger to
be guarded against. We therefore declined to continue our interview
with the committee; and gave them notice that we should appeal to the
Legislature for permission to present and argue our case in our own way
before them, or before another committee.