In commencing the discreditable account I must give of the proslavery
conduct of the Unitarian denomination, I may as well record the fact,
of which the mention of Rev. Theodore Clapp reminds me. Notwithstanding
the utterance of such sentiments as I have just now quoted, none of
which had been retracted or apologized for, a few years afterwards Mr.
Clapp was specially invited by a committee of Boston Unitarians to
attend their religious anniversaries; and his letter in reply was read
in their principal meeting, where, perhaps, a thousand persons were
present, including a large number of ministers and prominent laymen,
without any remonstrance or rebuke to those who had invited him.
But before I proceed further with the disagreeable narrative, let
me state, to the honor of the sect, that though a very small one
in comparison with those called Orthodox (having at this day not
more than three hundred and sixty ministers, and in 1853 only two
hundred and seven), we Unitarians have given to the antislavery cause
more preachers, writers, lecturers, agents, poets, than any other
denomination in proportion to our numbers, if not more without that
comparison. Of those Unitarian ministers no longer on earth, we hold in
most grateful remembrance Dr. N. Worcester, Dr. Follen, Dr. Channing,
Dr. S. Willard, Theodore Parker, John Pierpont, Dr. H. Ware, Jr., and
A. H. Conant. Others, though less outspoken, were always explicitly
on the side of the oppressed,--Dr. Lowell, Dr. C. Francis, Dr. E. B.
Hall, G. F. Simmons, E. Q. Sewall, B. Whitman, N. A. Staples, S. Judd,
B. Frost. Of those who are still in the body, we gratefully claim as
fellow-laborers in the antislavery cause Drs. J. G. Palfrey, W. H.
Furness, J. F. Clarke, T. T. Stone, J. Allen, G. W. Briggs, R. P.
Stebbins, O. Stearns, and Rev. Messrs. S. May, Jr., C. Stetson, W. H.
Channing, M. D. Conway, O. B. Frothingham, J. Parkman, Jr., J. T.
Sargent, N. Hall, A. A. Livermore, J. L. Russell, J. H. Heywood, T. W.
Higginson, R. W. Emerson, S. Longfellow, S. Johnson, F. Frothingham,
W. H. Knapp, R. F. Wallcut, R. Collyer, E. B. Willson, W. P. Tilden,
W. H. Fish, C. G. Ames, John Weiss, R. C. Waterston, T. J. Mumford,
C. C. Shackford, F. W. Holland, E. Buckingham, C. C. Sewall, F.
Tiffany, R. R. Shippen. All these are or were Unitarian preachers,
and did service in the conflict. Many of them suffered obloquy,
persecution, loss, because of their fidelity to the principles of
impartial liberty. I may have forgotten some whose names should stand
in this honored list. I have mentioned all whose services I remember to
have witnessed or to have heard of. How small a portion of the whole
number of our ministers during the last forty years!
The Unitarians as a body dealt with the question of slavery in any
but an impartial, courageous, and Christian way. Continually in
their public meetings the question was staved off and driven out,
because of technical, formal, verbal difficulties which were of no
real importance, and ought not to have caused a moment’s hesitation.
Avowing among their distinctive doctrines, “The _fatherly character_
of God as reflected in his Son Jesus Christ,” and “_The brotherhood of
man with man everywhere_,” we had a right to expect from Unitarians
a steadfast and unqualified protest against so unjust, tyrannical,
and cruel a system as that of American slavery. And considering their
position as a body, not entangled with any proslavery alliances, not
hampered by any ecclesiastical organization, it does seem to me that
they were _pre-eminently guilty_ in reference to the enslavement of
the millions in our land with its attendant wrongs, cruelties, horrors.
They, of all other sects, ought to have spoken boldly, as one man,
for _God our Father_, for _Jesus the all-loving Saviour and Elder
Brother_, and for _Humanity_, especially where it was outraged _in the
least of the brethren_. But they did not. They refused to speak as a
body, and censured, condemned, execrated their members who did speak
faithfully for the down-trodden, and who co-operated with him whom a
merciful Providence sent as the prophet of the reform, which alone
could have saved our country from our late awful civil war. Let no
honor be withheld from the individuals who were so prominent and noble
exceptions to the general policy of the denomination,--the ministers
whom I have named above, together with those faithful laymen, Samuel
E. Sewall, Francis Jackson, David L. Child, Ellis Gray Loring, Edmund
Quincy, A. Bronson Alcott, Dr. H. I. Bowditch, William I. Bowditch,
with others; and those excellent women, Mrs. L. M. Child, Mrs. Maria W.
Chapman, Mrs. Follen, Miss Cabot, Mrs. Mary May, Misses Weston, Misses
Chapman, Miss Sargent, and more who should be named; let no honor be
withheld from these and such as they were. But let the sad truth be
plainly told, as a solemn warning to all coming generations, that even
the Unitarians, as a body, were corrupted and morally paralyzed by our
national consenting with slaveholders, even the Unitarians to whose
avowed faith in the paternity of God, the brotherhood of all mankind,
and the divinity of human nature, the enslavement of men should have
been especially abhorrent. On a subsequent page I shall have occasion
to tell of their most glaring dereliction of duty to the enslaved, and
those who were ready to help them out of bondage. Meanwhile I must
state some facts in support of my allegations against the sect to
which I belong and with which I shall labor for the dissemination of
our _most precious faith_ so long as life and strength remain.
In 1843 the subject of the slavery of millions in our land was brought
before the American Unitarian Association by Rev. John Parkman, Jr. But
it was not discussed. It was put aside as a matter about which there
were serious differences of opinion among the members, and with which
that body, therefore, had better not meddle.
Early in 1844 an address on the subject was sent from British
Unitarians to their brethren in America. It was an able, affectionate,
respectful appeal to us, signed by one hundred and eighty-five
ministers. A meeting of the Unitarian clergy was held in Boston to
consider and reply to it. But it seemed to be regarded by many, and
was spoken of by some, as an _impertinence_. “Our British brethren,”
it was said, “are interfering in a matter which is beset with peculiar
difficulties in this country, about which they know little or nothing.”
And my cousin, Rev. Samuel May, Jr., of Leicester, who had visited
England the year before, was severely censured for having encouraged
our brethren there thus to meddle. Here let me say, few have labored so
diligently, faithfully, disinterestedly, as Mr. May has in the cause of
the slaves. And no one of our denomination has taken so much pains to
prevent the Unitarians from committing themselves to the wrong side, or
failing to do their duty on the right side, of every question relating
to slavery. For this fidelity he has received anything but the thanks
of most of the brethren. Here and elsewhere I am bound to tell what I
know of him, for owing to the similarity of our names, and the sameness
of our connections with the Antislavery Societies, many of _his_ good
words and deeds have been attributed to _me_ by those who do not know
both of us.
At the Autumnal Unitarian Conference held at Worcester, Mass., October,
1842, he offered a series of resolutions, setting forth the great
extent, the appalling evils, and fearful wickedness of slavery, and
endeavored to bring the Conference to resolve: “That, as ministers and
disciples of Jesus Christ, we feel bound to declare our solemn opinion,
that the institution of slavery is radically and inherently opposite
to his religion; that it ought to be immediately abandoned by all
who profess to be Christians; and that we do affectionately admonish
and entreat all who hold ‘the like precious faith’ with us, to free
themselves at once from the guilt of sustaining this evil thing.” There
was manifested a great unwillingness to express any opinion upon the
subject, and the Conference adjourned without taking action upon it.
When in England, in the summer of 1843, Mr. May attended a large
meeting of Unitarians. Having been invited to address them, and to
speak particularly upon the subject of slavery in America, and of
the attitude of our denomination towards the great iniquity, he did
speak at considerable length. But he gave a very truthful and candid
statement of the case as it then was. He set before his British hearers
the influences which tended to mislead even the most kindly disposed
in this country, and the obstacles and difficulties that beset the
way of those who were most resolute in the cause of the enslaved. He
acknowledged gratefully, generously, the important services which
Dr. Follen, Dr. Channing, and other Unitarian ministers and laymen
had rendered. But he was obliged, as a man of truth, to confess that
our denomination as a whole had been recreant to their duty. And he
encouraged our English brethren to address a letter of fraternal
counsel and entreaty to us, not doubting that such a communication
would be gratefully received by the American Unitarians as coming from
those who had had to contend against a similar system of iniquity, and
had helped their national government to abolish it. But I have already
stated how utterly disappointed he was in the result.
Soon after his return from England, at the annual meeting of the
American Unitarian Association in May, 1844, he again brought up the
subject, and earnestly endeavored, with others, to induce that body to
vote that slaveholding was anti-republican, inhuman, and unchristian.
It led to a protracted discussion of two days or more, which resulted
in nothing else than a vote of censure passed upon the Unitarian Church
in Savannah, Georgia, because they refused to receive the services of
the Rev. Mr. Motte, sent to them by the Executive Committee of the
Association, having heard that he had protested in a sermon against the
wrongs inflicted upon the colored people both at the North and South.
Henry H. Fuller, of Boston, strenuously opposed the introduction of
the subject of slavery to the consideration of the Association in
any way. “We of the North have nothing to do with it. It is a system
of labor established in some of our sister States by their highest
legislative authority. It was consented to by the framers of our
National Constitution, and guaranties given for its protection,” &c.,
&c. After much more of the same sort, he gave way for Mr. May to offer
the following resolutions, instead of those by which he had called up
the debate:--
1. “_Resolved_, That the American Unitarian Association, desirous
that the pecuniary or other aid rendered by them from time to time
to individuals and societies in the slaveholding sections of our
country should not be misunderstood or misconstrued, do hereby
declare their conviction that the institution of slavery, as
existing in this country, is contrary to the will of God, to the
Gospel of Christ (especially to the views which _we_ entertain
of it), to the rights of man, and to every principle of justice
and humanity; and in a spirit not of dictation, but of friendly
remonstrance and entreaty, would call upon those whom they may
address, as believers in one God and Father of all, to bear a
faithful testimony against slavery.
2. “_Resolved_, That the Executive Committee be, and they hereby
are, requested to transmit a copy of the preceding resolution to
each of our auxiliary Associations, and to such societies in the
slaveholding sections of the country as may from time to time
receive pecuniary aid from this Association.”
Dr. J. H. Morison objected to any action by the meeting. “1st. Because
we shall thereby lose our influence at the South. 2d. Because we shall
convert the Association into an Abolition Society. 3d. Because it would
be a dastardly proceeding, at our distance from the scene of danger, to
utter sentiments hostile to slavery, with which the Southern Unitarian
societies might be identified.”
Dr. E. S. Gannett said that the Association never contemplated any
action on slavery. It was contrary to the objects of its formation.
It would also be an invasion of the rights of conscience,--being
the setting up of a creed with reference to this subject. Moreover,
he said, it would be injurious to the slaves. Ten years ago their
bondage was much lighter than at present. And then it would be to
identify ourselves with the Abolitionists of the free States, whom he
most unsparingly and vehemently condemned, and said there was little
comparative need for us to go South to rebuke an evil, when we had such
a “hellish spirit alive and active here in our very midst, even in New
England.”
Hon. S. C. Phillips, of Salem, was not in favor of such action as the
resolutions proposed, but still thought we should take some action, and
very properly in connection with this case of the Savannah church we
should present, as we fairly might, our views on the whole subject of
slavery. He said there had been great error in our so long silence on
the subject. Our leading policy had been to avoid it, and much injury,
and the prevention of much good, had been the consequence. “The time
has come,” said he, “when no man can be silent everywhere, and at all
times, on this subject without guilt.”
Mr. Phillips offered a series of resolutions instead of Mr. May’s.
Rev. Mr. Lunt, of Quincy, opposed any action, and spoke with great
severity of the Abolitionists, whom he charged with being bent on the
dissolution of our Union and also the subversion of Christianity.
My cousin vindicated the Abolitionists from Mr. Lunt’s charges,
reminding him and the audience of the ground which Dr. Channing and
other true friends of our country had taken respecting disunion, in
case of the annexation of Texas. Mr. May showed that the Abolitionists
had opposed only a false and corrupt church, not the Church of Christ,
and still less Christianity itself, in which they gloried as the basis
and impelling principle of their movement.
The resolutions were ably supported by the mover, Mr. Phillips, and
four other laymen, and by eleven ministers, and finally passed by a
majority of forty to fifteen, and were in part as follows:--
After a preamble, setting forth the offensive conduct of the Savannah
church,--
“_Resolved_, That, viewing the institution of slavery in the light
of Christianity, we cannot fail to perceive that it conflicts with
the natural rights of human beings as the equal children of a
common Father, and that it subverts the fundamental principle of
human brotherhood.
“_Resolved_, In the necessary effects of slavery upon the personal
and social condition, and upon the moral and religious character
of all affected by it, we perceive an accumulation of evils over
which Christianity must weep, against which Christianity should
remonstrate, and for the removal of which Christianity appeals to
the hearts and consciences of all disciples of Jesus to do what
they can by their prayers, by the indulgence and expression of
their sympathy, and by the unremitting and undisguised exertion of
whatever moral and religious influence they may possess.”
Then follows a resolution that it should not be considered, in any
part of our country, a disqualification of any minister or missionary
for the performance of the appropriate duties of his office, that he
is known to have expressed antislavery sentiments, and approving the
course of the Executive Committee in withdrawing their assistance from
the church in Savannah because of their rejection of Rev. Mr. Motte.
The discussions at that meeting were seasoned with many vehement
denunciations of the Abolitionists, uttered by several prominent
Unitarian ministers. William L. Garrison was denounced as one
“instigated by a diabolical spirit.” “The Abolitionists,” it was said,
“were aiming to subvert Christianity, to extirpate it from the earth.”
Dr. Francis Parkman, of Boston, loudly declared that “no letter or
resolution condemning slavery should ever go forth from the American
Unitarian Association while he was a member of it.” And he highly
commended a New England captain, of whom we had then recently heard,
because “he put his ship about and carried back to the master a slave
whom he had found secreted on board the vessel.” Dr. Parkman openly
and personally denounced those who introduced the subject, as “born
to plague the Association.” And he, together with Dr. G. Putnam, and
other prominent ministers, spoke of Dr. Channing’s earnestness in the
antislavery cause as a great weakness.
Later in the same year, 1845, at a meeting of Unitarian ministers in
Boston, “A Protest against American Slavery,” prepared I suppose by
Rev. Caleb Stetson, John T. Sargent, and Samuel May, Jr., was adopted
and sent out to be circulated for signatures. It received the names
of one hundred and seventy-three ministers, of whom one hundred and
fifty-three were of New England. It was publicly stated at the time
that about eighty, comprising many of the most influential ministers
of the denomination, refused to sign the Protest. Among the recusants
were the Rev. Drs. Gannett, Dewey, Young, Parkman, Lothrop, G. Putnam,
Lamson, N. Frothingham, S. Barrett, E. Peabody, G. E. Ellis, Bartol,
Morison, and Lunt.
Of those who did sign the Protest, I am sorry to add not a large
proportion can with truth be said to have been faithful to the solemn
pledge they therein gave, as follows: “We on our part do hereby pledge
ourselves, before God and our brethren, never to be weary in laboring
in the cause of human rights and freedom, until slavery shall be
abolished and every slave set free.”
Once or twice afterwards Mr. May pressed the subject upon the Unitarian
Association, but with little better results. Subsequent events,
however, have shown, too plainly to be denied or doubted, that it
would have been more creditable to themselves, and far better for
our country, if “the older and wiser” men of our denomination had
listened to his counsels and followed his noble example. Alas, our land
is filled with testimonies written in blood, that if the ministers
of religion had only been fearless and faithful in declaring the
impartial love of the Heavenly Father for the children of men of all
complexions, and their equal, inalienable rights, which would assuredly
be vindicated by Divine justice, our late civil war would have been
averted!
In 1847 Mr. May was appointed _General Agent of the Massachusetts
Antislavery Society_, and continued in that responsible and laborious
office until after the abolition of slavery in 1865. He was instant
in season and out of season, and in co-operation with his devoted
assistant, Rev. R. F. Wallcut, rendered services the amount and value
of which cannot easily be estimated.