This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
2 Ohio was an exception. The State Anti-Slavery Society deprecated the new policy as narrowing the anti-slavery platform with a new ‘test,’ yet itself straightway erected a similar test by declaring it the duty of all abolitionists to abstain from slave produce (Lib. 14.105). Commenting upon this, in the vein of the New York and Boston protestants, Edmund Quincy showed in the Standard the inconsistency of going before a court whose records were kept on cotton paper, or judge ate slave-grown sugar; or of using cotton bank-notes, etc. (Lib. 14: 121).
5 ‘The adherents of Liberty Party,’ wrote Mr. Garrison to H. C. Wright (Ms. Oct. 1, 1844), ‘in order to justify voting, are impudently claiming the U. S. Constitution is, and was intended to be, by those who originally framed and adopted it, [anti-slavery]! Even Gerrit Smith has stultified himself so far as to have written a long letter to John G. Whittier, maintaining the same absurd doctrine. Nay, he has gone so far as to eulogize those diabolical provisions respecting the prosecution of the slave-trade for twenty years—the putting down of slave insurrections by the Government—the three-fifths representation of the slaves through their masters— as decidedly anti-slavery in their character and tendency! He is now completely absorbed in electioneering in behalf of James G. Birney and the Liberty Party, and has consequently gone backward since you left for England. . . . I wish, if you get time, you would address a letter to him on his new political career, and his strange interpretation of the Constitution, reminding him of the awful responsibility he is thus taking upon himself, and of the concessions he has made to you, on various occasions, respecting the divinity of non-resistance. In his letter to Whittier, he perseveres in calling the American A. S. Society a Non-Resistance Society, because it will not support a pro-slavery Constitution!’ See Gerrit Smith's letter in Lib. 14.137.
7 So J. M. McKim, in the Pennsylvania Freeman, argued justly that the pretence that the Constitution was anti-slavery was a tacit admission that, if it were pro-slavery, dissolution would be a duty (Lib. 14: 105).
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.