Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 2

1 ‘When we emerged into the open daylight there went up a roar of rage and contempt, which increased when they saw that we did not intend to separate, but walked in regular procession. They slowly gave way as we came out. As far as we could look either way the crowd extended—evidently of the so-called “wealthy and respectable ” ; “the moral worth,” the “influence and standing.” We saw the faces of those we had, till now, thought friends; men whom we never before met without giving the hand in friendly salutation; men whom till now we should have called upon for condemnation of ruffianism, with confidence that the appeal would be answered; men who have repeatedly said they were “ as much anti-slavery as we were,” that “our principles were righteous,” and that they only objected to the rashness of upholding them. Yet they did not, “like the Priest and the Levite, pass by on the other side,” but waited with looks of satisfaction and approval to see the result’ ( “Right and Wrong,” 1836, [1] p. 34). With ready forethought, Mrs. Chapman whispered to her associates filing out, while she stood between them and the Mayor: ‘Two and two, to Francis Jackson's, Hollis Street, each with a colored friend,’ thus giving what protection a white skin could ensure a dark one (Ms. Nov. 12, 1882).

2 Much controversy has arisen over this allegation and the ensuing censure. Mayor Lyman says ( “ Garrison Mob,” p. 19), he was afraid the rioters would get to pelting the sign with stones as soon as it became dark, ‘and from the sign proceed to the windows of the building, and then, perhaps, to the constables and others engaged in maintaining order. I therefore sent a person up the stairs to see if this sign could be taken into the room from the window. Instead of that being done, the man was interfered with by some of the lads and men already mentioned as being in the building, the sign-board torn off the hooks and thrown down into the street.’ In a foot-note (p. 20) he assents to the statement that he sanctioned ‘the removal of the Society's sign.’ Testimony which, though anonymous, must be respected because in part corroborating the Mayor's, was given in the Liberator for Oct. 31, 1835 (5.175). John L. Dimmock is reported as having said in conversation: ‘We [meaning Henry Williams and himself] told the Mayor it was entirely useless to say anything against it,—the sign must and shall comedown. “Well,” the Mayor replied, “don't commit yourselves, don't commit yourselves, and I will send a peace officer to take it down.” ’ The temporary editor of the Liberator adds: ‘It is, moreover, a fact, as we are informed from another source, that one of the men who took down the sign, and indeed the first, if we mistake not, who laid hands upon it for that purpose, was a peace officer.’ The responsibility of the city authorities for its destruction was sought, in vain, to be enforced (by simple moral appeal) by the Anti-Slavery Society, which at last replaced the sign just a year after its removal (Lib. 6.171).