Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879; the story of his life told by his children: volume 2

[269] Thompson [Conn.], with regard to the Liberator, is timely. The proceedings shall appear in the paper on Friday. It was¹ pleasant to me to see the names of my esteemed friends Coe² and Scarborough among the movers. I am sorry to say, that there is no doubt of our having a severe and painful conflict at the annual meeting. Facts are constantly coming to my knowledge, respecting the movements of Torrey & Co., all going to show that the plot is extensive, and that many are involved in it who have hitherto stood well in our ranks. On Saturday evening, John E. Fuller called to see me for the first³ time on the subject, and we neither of us kept back anything. He is an altered man, and “ all high” for a new paper. (I suppose he is to be the agent for it, to drive subscriptions, etc.) I hardly expected such a defection, but he has lifted his heel against us—though, of course, he does not avow openly hostility, only he goes about saying that the Liberator is an injurious publication—that I have lost all interest in the anti-slavery cause, etc., etc. He is trying to influence our colored friends to think well of the new project; but he finds they are true as steel, and therefore angrily tells them that he believes that if Garrison should go to hell, they would go with him.

I have not seen Phelps since my article, “Watchman, what of the night?” appeared. As soon as he read it in the Anti-Slavery Office, Knapp says anger reddened his face, his lips quivered, and he pronounced me to be a wicked man, utterly unfit to be engaged in any moral enterprise, etc. The fact is, I have sounded an alarm, and suddenly sprung a mine, and the plotters are greatly confounded, and of course very indignant. My belief is, that they will manage the affair with so much plausibility, and will have so many able and influential speakers on their side, as to be able to carry their point. If they should fail in doing so, they are determined to start a paper on their own hook—perhaps some of them will secede. If they should triumph, there would be no union in our Society, and of course no strength. You can hardly imagine how artfully it is all managed by the advocates of the new paper. But one thing let me say—we are to have a hard conflict—the crisis is truly momentous—you must be here without fail. No matter about your engagements in Connecticut--not one of them can be so important as to authorize your absence from Boston, I think. . . . If friend Coe, or Scarborough, one or both, or any others, could also come, we shall be glad to see them in the city.