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

[93]

There is one individual whom Dr. C. deigns to quote approvingly—but he is not an abolitionist—viz., Pres. Wayland.

I cannot think that Dr. C. is ignorant of the writings of abolitionists. He has long been a subscriber to the Liberator, and has been presented with many other anti-slavery publications. The Emancipator, as the official organ of the national society, I presume he has carefully perused; and there is the strongest possible evidence that your essays upon ‘Human Rights’ were before him when he wrote his chapter upon the same subject. I shall have occasion to allude to your essays in my review. I have read them all, carefully, with delight and profit.

Is it said by some of our number, ‘It is true, Dr. C. uses us rather ungenerously—but then, his opposing us will only cause his book to obtain a greater circulation, and to be read more candidly’? I answer—the cause and the advocates of the cause are closely identified. Separate them, and the cause at once encounters defeat. We deceive ourselves if we imagine that hostility to the abolitionists is no evidence of hostility to emancipation. George Thompson would never have been driven from this country,—foreigner as he was,—if he had not branded slavery as sin, and held up the duty of immediate repentance. Why is J. G. Birney in such peril, even in Ohio? Or why were you tracked to Brooklyn by the bloodhounds in New York city? The mobocrats scarcely know a man of us personally; and, aside from the cause that we espouse, they find no fault with us. Now, Dr. C. brings two grievous (because slanderous) accusations against the whole body of abolitionists—to wit, that they are fanatics, and that something has probably been lost to the cause of human liberty by their efforts!! We may complacently smile at such accusations; but the reputation of Dr. C. gives them an influence disastrous to our cause—yea, they are a two-edged sword, wounding us and our cause by the same blow. It was the preaching of the gospel alone that made Peter and Paul, and Silas and Stephen, ‘pestilent fellows,’ ‘stirrers up of sedition,’ etc. It appears to me that Dr. C.'s book has no just claim upon us as to a particularly tender treatment: nay, it ought to be reviewed sharply, not acrimoniously, and with all fidelity. I wish I could persuade you to undertake this review, because I think it would be more skilfully done; and if you will promise to write it, I will desist.