scuttling the Herald, &c., when his only purpose was to preserve it from being scuttled. Indeed, such reproaches do not very well become either R. or F., who seem determined that the1 Herald shall stop if it be not in their hands. . . . Foster had an excellent plan which might have been carried into effect, had it not been for the explosion. It was, that Pillsbury should be Editor, and Rogers Corresponding Editor, to furnish just as much editorial as he pleased, while Pillsbury provided the rest of the matter. All that R. and F. say about this2 movement being made by the N. H. Board, or encouraged by us, for the purpose of turning them out, is most preposterously unfounded. No such idea was in anybody's mind any more than of ousting Garrison. So was the idea that we wanted to be rid of him on account of his No-Organization notions. So far was this from being the case that we had scarcely alluded to the subject in our papers, for fear of hurting Rogers's sensitiveness. In fact, we have always handled him like a cracked tea-cup. I have not mentioned his name in the Standard in connection with his follies on that head, although I made one impersonal kind of a reply to some of them. And Garrison has only spoken of them twice. Those articles, few as they were, were enough nearly to silence Rogers. He can stand no fight at all,—with friends, that is. We knew that if we were obliged to come out and reply to his position, a broadside apiece would be enough to silence his batteries; only we put it off till the latest moment, because we knew how badly it would make him feel. His No-Organizationism was the original cause of all this trouble, but originating from himself and not from us. It was a remark in one of Garrison's articles on the inconsistence of Rogers's position as a3 deadly foe to organization, with his position as editor of the organ of an A. S. Society, which gave rise to it all. In the very next paper the flag of the Society was struck, and that of French run up in its stead. . . . There is a great similarity in R.'s case and character with Mrs.——'s, if I had time to run the parallel. Rogers is essentially feminine in his character and temperament, and these in exaggeration, as in Mrs.——'s case, become womanishness. They both required to be petted and caressed and kissed and sugar-plummed into being good. And as soon as there was anything that they falsely construed into neglect, or deservedly found to be blame, they fell into a huff, and wreaked their vexation on the cause. How different a character is Garrison!
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
Chapter 1 : re-formation and Reanimation.— 1841 .
Chapter 2 : the Irish address.— 1842 .
Chapter 3 : the covenant with death. — 1843 .
Chapter 4 : no union with slaveholders! — 1844 .
Chapter 5 : Texas .— 1845 .
Chapter 6 : third mission to England .— 1846 .
Chapter 7 : first Western tour.— 1847 .
Chapter 8 : the Anti-Sabbath Convention .— 1848 .
Chapter 9 : Father Mathew .— 1849 .
Chapter 10 : the Rynders Mob .— 1850 .
Chapter 11 : George Thompson , M. P.— 1851 .
Chapter 12 : Kossuth .— 1852 .
Chapter 13 : the Bible Convention.— 1853 .
Chapter 14 : the Nebraska Bill .— 1854 .
Chapter 15 : the Personal Liberty Law .— 1855 .
Chapter 16 : Fremont .— 1856 .
Chapter 17 : the disunion Convention.— 1857 .
Chapter 18 : the irrepressible Conflict.— 1858 .
Chapter 19 : John Brown .— 1859 .
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.