[462]
think, or speak, or write, half as much against a bloody, polluted and soul-destroying system as against my “hard language” ? whether they feel indignant when they see false accusations brought against me, and take up the pen in my defence?
As for myself.
I deem it, with the apostle, a small thing to be judged of man's judgment.
I solicit no man's praise—I fear no man's censure.
The allusion to a censorship over the
Liberator leads us to a new phase of opposition to its editor.
We find
the Rev. Henry Ware, Jr.'s, name subscribed with
Professor Follen's to the call for the
New England 1 Convention of Anti-Slavery Societies, and presently among the committee on the address to the people of
New England.
Later still, he addressed the newly formed
Cambridge2 Anti-Slavery Society, and joined in the general prudent assertion of that body's independence of the
New England Society, and in general reprobation of intemperate language.
A few months afterwards (
Cambridge, October 15, 1834), in a letter to his fellow
Unitarian,
S. J. May, a man with a large gift of humor,
Mr. Ware made the following highly amusing proposition:
One point on which I wished to talk with you when here3 was, the character of the Liberator. If you sympathize with it, and approve wholly of its spirit, it would be in vain to say to you what I wish.
But if not, if you feel how objectionable is its tone, how frequently unchristian its spirit, and how seriously it prejudices a great cause in the minds of many good men; then you will be ready to hear my question—a question which has been agitated amongst a few of us here, viz.: Would it be possible to induce six or seven gentlemen, of calm and trustworthy judgment, to form themselves into a committee, each of whom should, a week at a time, examine all articles intended for the Liberator, and induce Mr. Garrison to promise to publish nothing there which should not have been approved by them?
Is this possible?
Would it not secure an unexceptionable paper, without injuring Mr. Garrison's interest?
Would you be willing to aid in promoting such a scheme—or can you suggest a better?
Pray answer these questions at your first convenience.
The real object of the
Cambridge Anti-Slavery Society and the natural fate of this robust organization are set
