‘We have had,’ writes Mr. Garrison to George W. Benson,3 ‘and are yet having, lively times in our Legislature on the subject of slavery. You will see, by the last Liberator, how the question has been carried—in one branch by a vote of 378 to 16,4 in the other by a vote of 33 to none!5 in our favor, too! It is the most extraordinary change in political action, on a moral subject, in the annals of legislation. However, a strong effort is now making, by our enemies, to suppress all the resolutions upon the final vote for concurrence. It is not probable that they will succeed, but our majority will be reduced. No6 matter: the old Commonwealth of Massachusetts will do her duty in grand style, and pioneer the way for her sister States in the cause of emancipation. We shall secure this session, undoubtedly, the right of trial by jury to runaway slaves.’7After the middle of June, Mr. Garrison, for the better health of his family, removed again to Brooklyn, leaving his friend Oliver Johnson as sub-editor in charge of the8 Liberator, but aiming to write regularly for the paper. Since the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society he had attended four others, to each of which a word must be given. One was the quarterly
This text is part of:
3 Ms. April 3, 1837.
4 Including, among the nays, James L. Homer, of the Commercial Gazette.
5 This vote was on a substitute for the final House resolution, and pressed Congress to the ‘early exercise’ of its power over the District (Lib. 7.55).
7 This significant measure passed both houses almost without dissent (Lib. 7.65-67). A similar law was enacted in New Jersey shortly afterward (Lib. 7.94), but was rejected in Pennsylvania (Lib. 7.11, 47).
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.