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

‘ [192] established opinions and practices of the civilized world,’ while yet ‘a dangerous precedent had been given in the cause of humanity,’ one seemed to hear the echo of Mr. Garrison's own language, as cited above. But the ¹ moment Dr. Channing declared that the fact of Lovejoy's having fallen armed had kept him silent on the whole subject in his own pulpit, the singular weakness of this moral teacher became painfully apparent. He blamed the abolitionists because they had not with one voice disapproved the resort to arms. In this they had disappointed his expectations, remembering those nonresistance doctrines which had mitigated his objection to their organization. Not that he shared these doctrines, or that a man might not sometimes defend himself forcibly; ‘but it may be laid down as a rule hardly admitting an exception, that an enterprise of Christian philanthropy is not to be carried on by force; that it is time for philanthropy to stop when it can only advance by wading through blood.’ He concluded that the abolitionists had exchanged their peaceful weapons for the sword, falsely assuming that they had recommended non-resistance to any others than the slaves. He exhorted them (as if it were a novelty) to try the peace principle and not to abandon it.

Such a discourse seemed strange from the mouth of a man who had expressly called the citizens of Boston together to make known their sentiment in regard to the “murder . . . of a native of New England and citizen² of the free State of Illinois, who fell in defence of the freedom of the press” ; asking, ‘Is there no part of our country where a voice of power shall be lifted up in defence of rights incomparably more precious than the temporary interests which have often crowded Faneuil Hall to suffocation?’ and answering, ‘There are, indeed, in various places, meetings of anti-slavery societies to express their sorrow for a fallen brother; but in these I take no part.’ Was it, then, peculiarly incumbent on abolitionists to condemn Lovejoy for an act which only