We left the committee very much dissatisfied with the treatment we
had received from Mr. Lunt and the majority of his associates. Hon.
Ebenezer Moseley was an honorable exception. From the first he had
treated us in the most fair and gentlemanly manner. And at the last he
protested against the procedure of the Chairman.
We forthwith drew up, and the next morning presented, a memorial to
the Legislature, intimating that we had not been properly treated
by the committee, and asking that our _right_ to be heard might be
recognized, and that we might be permitted to appear and show our
reasons in full, why the Legislature of Massachusetts should not enact
any penal law, nor pass any resolutions condemning Abolitionists and
antislavery societies. The remonstrance was read in both branches of
the Legislature and referred to the same committee, with instructions
to hear us according to our request.
On the afternoon of the 8th, therefore, we met the committee again in
the Hall of the Representatives. The reports which had gone forth of
our first interview had so interested the public, that the house was
now quite filled with gentlemen and ladies, many of whom had never
before shown any sympathy with the antislavery reform.
It was intended that Dr. Follen should address the committee first,
beginning just where he had been, on the 4th, so rudely commanded by
Mr. Lunt to leave off, and that he should press home that part of
his argument which we all deemed so important. But he was detained
from the meeting until a later hour. It devolved upon me, therefore,
to commence. I confined my remarks to two points. First, I contended
that our publications were not incendiary, not intended nor adapted to
excite the oppressed to insurrection. Secondly, I assured the committee
that, whatever they might think of the character of our publications,
we had never sent them to the slaves nor to the colored people of the
South, and gave them our reasons for having refrained so to do.
Samuel E. Sewall, Esq., then made a somewhat extended, but very close
legal and logical argument against the demands of the slaveholding
States,--“arrogant, insolent demands,” as he called them. “To yield to
them would be to subvert the foundations of our civil liberties, and
make it criminal to obey the laws of God, and follow the example of
Jesus Christ.” His excellent speech evidently made an impression upon
the committee as well as his larger audience. But I have not room here
for such an abstract of it as I should like to give.
While Mr. Sewall was speaking Dr. Follen came in, and when he had
ended the Doctor arose and commenced by showing very clearly that we
Abolitionists were accused of _crime_ by the legislatures of several
of our Southern States, and that the Governor of Massachusetts had
indorsed the accusation, because we had exercised in the cause of
humanity that liberty of speech and of the press which was guaranteed
to us in the Constitution of our Republic, not less explicitly than in
the fundamental law of this State. “We have endeavored by persuasion,
by argument, by moral and religious appeals to urge upon the nation,
and especially upon our Southern brethren, the necessity of freeing
themselves from the sin, the evils, and the shame of slavery. You
cannot punish or censure freedom of speech in Abolitionists, without
preparing the way to censure it in any other class of citizens who may
for the moment be obnoxious to the majority. A penal enactment against
us is less to be dreaded than condemnatory resolutions; for these are
left to be enforced by Judge Lynch and his minions, and I must say, as
I said the other day--”
“I call you to order, sir,” said Mr. Lunt, with great emphasis. “This
is not respectful to the committee.”
Dr. Follen replied, “I am not conscious of having said anything
disrespectful to the committee. I beg to be informed in what I am out
of order.”
Mr. Lunt replied, “Your allusion to mobs, for which you were called to
order at our first interview, is not proper.”
“Am I then to understand,” said Dr. Follen, “that deprecating mobs is
disrespectful to this committee?”
Mr. Moseley, one of the committee, here spoke with much feeling;
said he dissented wholly from the action of the Chairman. “I see
nothing in the allusion to mobs disrespectful to the committee or the
Legislature; and I consider Dr. Follen entirely in order.”
Some discussion ensued. Two others of the committee, making a majority,
silently assented to the opinion of Mr. Lunt. So it was decided that
the Doctor was out of order, and must not allude to mobs.
Here I called the attention of Mr. Lunt to the memorial, in answer
to which we were permitted by the Legislature to appear before the
committee, and they were instructed to hear us. “It seemed, on the
fourth instant, that the Chairman considered that we came here by his
grace to exculpate ourselves from the charges alleged against us by the
Legislatures of several of the Southern States; and that we were not
to be permitted to express our anxious apprehensions of the effects of
any acts by our Legislature intended to gratify the wishes of those
States. In order, therefore, that we might appear before you in the
_exercise of our right as free citizens_, we have appealed to the
Senate and House of Representatives, and have received their permission
so to do. Dr. Follen was setting before you what we deem the most
probable and most serious evil to be apprehended from any condemnatory
resolutions which the Legislature might be induced to pass; and if he
is not permitted to press this upon your consideration our interview
with the committee must end here.” Mr. Lunt then consulted with his
associates and intimated that Dr. Follen might proceed. He did so, and
having referred to the disastrous influence of the great meeting in
Faneuil Hall, August, 1835, and of the condemnatory resolutions there
passed, he showed clearly that far greater outrages upon the property
and persons of Abolitionists would be likely to follow the passage of
similar resolutions by the Legislature of the Commonwealth.
Rev. William Goodell then arose and made a most able and eloquent
speech. He ignored for the time being all the personal dangers and
private wrongs of the Abolitionists; he set aside for the moment the
consideration of everything else but the imminent peril that seemed to
be impending over the very life of liberty in our country. “For what,
Mr. Chairman,” said he, “are Abolitionists accused by the Southern
States, and our own Legislature called upon to condemn them? For
nothing else but exercising and defending the inalienable rights of
the people. What have we said that is not said in your Declaration of
Independence? and why are we censured for carrying into practice what
others have been immortalized as patriots for writing and adopting?
In censuring us you censure the Father of our Country. I turn to the
portrait of Washington as it looks upon us in this hall, and remind
you how he declared that he earnestly desired to see the time when
slavery should be abolished. For saying this, and urging it upon our
countrymen, the mandate has come from the South to stop our mouths, and
we are here to avert the sentence our own Legislature is called upon
to pronounce upon us.” Mr. Goodell then went on to quote the strongest
antislavery sentiments uttered by President Jefferson, Chief Justice
John Jay, and Hon. William Pinckney, a distinguished member of the
Legislature of Maryland, the last in stronger language of condemnation
than ever issued from an antislavery press. “Shall the men of the
South speak thus, and we be compelled to hold our peace? Mr. Chairman,
in this hour of my country’s danger, I should disdain to stand here
pleading for my personal security. In behalf of my fellow-citizens
throughout the land, I implore the Legislature of this Commonwealth to
pause before they act on those documents of the South. What are they?
A demand for the unconditional surrender to the South of the first
principles of your Constitution, the surrender of your liberties. It
is a blow particularly aimed at the independence of your laboring
classes.” Mr. Goodell here quoted the declaration of Governor McDuffie
and other distinguished Southern gentlemen, distinctly asserting the
doctrine that “the laboring population of no nation on earth are
entitled to liberty or capable of enjoying it.” “Mr. Chairman, we are
charged with aiming at disunion, because we seek what only can save the
Union. I charge upon those who promulgate the doctrines on your table,
a deep and foul conspiracy against the liberties of the laboring people
of the North.” Mr. Lunt here interrupted him.
“Mr. Goodell, I must interfere,” he said. “You must not charge other
States with a foul conspiracy, nor treat their public documents with
disrespect.” Mr. Goodell replied: “Something may be pardoned to a man
when he speaks for the liberties of a nation.” Mr. Lunt continued:
“The documents emanating from other States are required by our
Federal Constitution to be received with full faith and credit here.”
“Certainly, sir,” responded Mr. Goodell. “I wish them to be regarded as
official, accredited documents, and I have referred to an accredited
document from the Governor of South Carolina, in which he says, _that
the laborers of the North are incapable of understanding or enjoying
freedom, that liberty in a free State best subsists with slavery, and
that the laborers must be reduced to slavery, or the laws cannot be
maintained_. This, sir, is also a document entitled to full faith and
credit,--holding up a report of the doings of the Legislature of South
Carolina, in which they declared an entire accordance with Governor
McDuffie in the sentiments expressed in his message.” Mr. Lunt here
interposed with great warmth. “Stop, sir!” Mr. Goodell stopped, but
remained standing. “Sit down, sir,” said Mr. Lunt; “the committee will
hear no more of this.” Mr. Goodell said: “My duty is discharged, Mr.
Chairman, if I cannot proceed in the way that seems to me necessary
to bring our case properly before the committee and the Legislature.
We came here as free men, and we will go away as freemen should.”
Some one in the vast audience that had been watching our proceedings
with intensest interest cried out, “Let us go quickly lest we be made
slaves.” I here made one more appeal to Mr. Lunt. “Are we, sir, to be
again denied our right of being heard in pursuance of our memorial to
the Legislature?” The Chairman intimated that they had heard enough.
The audience here began to leave the hall, but were arrested by a voice
in their midst. It was that of Dr. Gamaliel Bradford, not a member
of the Antislavery Society, who had come there only as a spectator,
but had been so moved by what he had witnessed that he pronounced an
eloquent, thrilling, impassioned, but respectful appeal in favor of
free discussion. I wish that I could spread the whole of it before
my readers. So soon as he sat down Mr. George Bond, one of the most
prominent merchants and estimable gentlemen of Boston, expressed a
desire to say a few words to the committee. “I am not a petitioner nor
an Abolitionist,” said he; “but, though opposed to some of the measures
of these antislavery gentlemen, I hold to some opinions in common with
them. If under these circumstances the committee will permit, I beg
leave to offer a few remarks.” The Chairman preserved silence; but
another member of the committee intimated to Mr. Bond that he might
proceed. “It strikes me,” said Mr. Bond, “that this is a subject of
deep and vital importance; and I fear as a citizen that the manner in
which it has been treated by the committee will produce an excitement
throughout the Commonwealth. With due respect to the committee, I beg
leave to say that, from the little experience I have had in legislative
proceedings, it is not the practice to require of persons, appearing
before a committee, a strict conformity to rules. They are usually
indulged in telling their own story in their own way, provided it be
not disrespectful. I have certainly heard nothing from the gentlemen
of the Antislavery Society that called for the course that has been
adopted. It does seem to me that some of the committee have been too
fastidious, too hypercritical.”
Mr. Lunt here broke out again. “Be careful, sir, what you say. The
committee will not submit to it.” Mr. Bond replied: “I certainly have
no wish to say anything unpleasant to the committee, but I cannot
help regretting the course that has been taken to withhold a full
hearing from the parties interested. They came here through their
memorial, which had been received by the Legislature and referred to
this committee, and I expected that the committee would have allowed
them to say what they pleased, using proper language. If they state
their case improperly, it will injure them and not the committee. I
may be wrong, but I regret to see the grounds given for the gentlemen
and their friends to say they have been denied a hearing. The action
on this question here is of immense importance in the influence it may
have, not only upon those who have appeared before the committee, but
upon the Legislature, the community, the Commonwealth, and the whole
country.” When Mr. Bond had closed, instead of proffering to us a
further hearing, the committee broke up without a formal adjournment,
the Chairman immediately retiring, conscious, as it seems to me he
must have been, of the very general indignation which his conduct had
excited. Just as he was leaving, Mr. Moseley, one of the committee,
said to him, “I am not satisfied with your course. You have been wrong
from the beginning. I will not sit again on such a committee.”
The large audience retired from the hall murmuring their astonishment,
shame, indignation at the conduct of the Chairman. Many gentlemen and
ladies, who had never shown us favor before, came to assure us that
they had been led, by what they had heard and seen that afternoon, to
take a new view of the importance of the great reform we were laboring
to effect.
Nothing, however, gratified us so much as seeing Dr. Channing approach
Mr. Garrison, whom until then he had appeared to avoid, shake him
cordially by the hand, and utter some words of sympathy. From that time
until his death the larger portion of his publications were upon the
subject of slavery, increasing in earnestness and power to the last.
The conduct of the committee, especially the Chairman, was severely
censured next day in the Senate by Hon. Mr. Whitmarsh, and other
members of that body. Reports of our interviews were published
and republished throughout the Commonwealth, and called out from
almost every part of it condemnatory comments. Many were brought
over to the antislavery faith, and our party became not a little
significant in the estimation of the politicians. Governor Everett’s
too evident inclination to yield to the insolent demands of the
slaveholding oligarchy damaged him seriously in the confidence of
his fellow-citizens, and, if I remember correctly, at the very next
election he was beaten by the opposing candidate, whose sentiments on
slavery were thought to be more correct than his.