‘  of Independence! They ought not to be allowed seats in1 Congress. No political, no religious co-partnership should be had with them, for they are the meanest of thieves and the worst of robbers. We should as soon think of entering into a “ compact” with the convicts at Botany Bay and New Zealand. So far as we are concerned, we “dissolved the Union” with them, as slaveholders, the first blow we aimed at their nefarious slave system. We do not acknowledge them to be within the pale of Christianity, of republicanism, of humanity. This we say dispassionately, and not for the sake of using strong language. With us, their threats, clamors, broils, contortions, avail nothing; and with the entire North they are fast growing less and less formidable.’Like sentiments began to be heard from others at2 antislavery meetings in Massachusetts,3 but as yet disunion formed no part of the official creed or programme of the State Society, which did, however, include, as an object4 to be striven for, an amendment to the Constitution either abolishing slavery, or exonerating the people of each free State from assisting in sustaining it.5 So far, indeed, the Liberty Party might have gone, though not free, as being a party, to advocate disunion pure and simple. Towards this organization Mr. Garrison maintained a dignified attitude, not denying to his personal friends like Mr. Sewall, or to bitter enemies like Torrey, the moderate use6 of his columns for Liberty Party notices and reports. He still held, with Channing, that, by such a conversion of7 their anti-slavery energies, abolitionists would ‘lose the reputation of honest enthusiasts, and come to be considered ’
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 Cf. Lib. 12.31.
3 Thus, at Hingham, Nov. 4, 1841, Edmund Quincy showed that slavery had already destroyed the Union; and Frederick Douglass, that the Union pledged the North to return fugitives—wherefore, ‘He is no true abolitionist who does not go against this Union’ (Lib. 11: 189).
5 Noteworthy is the appearance of a book (midsummer madness, one might think it, considering the time of year, the deranged author, and the vain doctrine) by G. W. F. Mellen (ante, 2: 428), entitled, “ An Argument on the Unconstitutionality of Slavery.” Mr. Garrison, on a hasty reading, judged it to deserve attention (Lib. 11.123); but when, at the Millbury quarterly meeting of the Mass. A. S. Society, in August, Mellen, in conjunction with S. S. Foster, attempted to embody this argument in a resolution, they were defeated (Lib. 11.139). It will be seen hereafter how the doctrine was forced upon the Third Party.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.