I have read the “Liberator” more or less, since 1835. It was the first paper I ever subscribed for.1 I did it in the sincerity of my early opposition to Slavery. I have never been satisfied with its tone. I have been openly opposed to the doctrines on the Union and the Constitution which it has advocated for several years. It has seemed to me often vindictive, bitter, and unchristian. But let me say, frankly, that I have never seen any thing in that paper at any time so vindictive, bitter, and unchristian as your note. You beat Garrison.Sumner, at this time, watched with genuine interest Dr. Howe's work for the blind; the movement for popular education which Horace Mann was directing; and the agitation for an improved prison discipline,—without, however, enlisting in any public debate on either topic.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
1 His subscribing for the ‘Liberator’ at that early day was an exceptional case in his profession. Few lawyers read it, much less subscribed for it. Ellis Gray Loring and Samuel E. Sewall,—the latter still living,—were conspicuous instances of the few Antislavery lawyers of Boston who were in the period 1834-1840 actively engaged in practice.
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.