previous next

Chapter 9: Journalist at large.—1868-1876.

Through Oliver Johnson, Garrison becomes a regular contributor to the New York independent, and writes much for that and for many other papers, chiefly upon the following topics: the Freedmen (p. 237), Temperance (p. 239), the rights of women (p. 242), National politics (p. 258), free Trade and civil-service Reform (p. 262). he also makes many contributions to the history of the anti-slavery cause, and is entreated to undertake his autobiography, but in vain. He celebrates rather his deceased coadjutors in funeral addresses or in obituary notices; nor does he omit to praise the survivors.

With renewed health, Mr. Garrison again tried to face the task of writing a History of the Anti-Slavery Movement; but an invitation to become a regular paid contributor to the New York Independent, with liberty to write as often as he chose, and to select his own topics, proved irresistibly attractive. His name was attached to all his articles, and he practically enjoyed all the freedom and opportunity of utterance which the Liberator had afforded him, with none of the responsibility and drudgery of editorial life. Moreover, he now addressed sixty thousand readers instead of twenty-five hundred. ‘You will speak,’ wrote Oliver Johnson, who had become1 the associate editor of the Independent, ‘to a great audience, to many of whom your real sentiments are hardly known, and some of whom, doubtless, are filled with prejudice against you.’ And a few weeks later he wrote:2 ‘One of the very best and ablest of our orthodox ministers expressed himself as highly delighted with your articles, and said they were not only specimens of fine English, but pervaded by an eminently noble and Christian spirit.’

In the hundred articles which he contributed to that paper during the next seven or eight years, Mr. Garrison discussed all the reforms and topics of the day which attracted him, whether pertaining to the freedmen and the reconstruction problem, temperance, the rights of women, peace, popular religion, or the issues of the two Presidential campaigns. Nor was his active interest in these by any means confined to writing about them in [237] the Independent, but by voice and pen, on the platform, and in many avenues of the press, he was constantly bearing his testimony, and giving the prestige of his name and vigorous support. For the years included in this chapter we shall, abandoning the chronological presentation hitherto observed, deal with successive topics, and shall quote briefly Mr. Garrison's utterances on questions which still await their just settlement.

the Freedmen.—As an officer and member of the Executive Committee of the New England branch of the Freedman's Union Commission, Mr. Garrison attended3 many committee meetings during the closing years of the organization, and occasionally presided or spoke at the public meetings of the Society and its tributary organizations in other places. As one of the Trustees for the expenditure of the money left to the Anti-Slavery cause by Francis Jackson (which did not become available until two years after slavery was abolished), he urged that the entire fund should be devoted to the education of the freedmen, as the nearest possible method of carrying out Mr. Jackson's wishes; and in this he was sustained by two of his co-Trustees, Edmund Quincy and Samuel May. Mr. Phillips, on the other hand, advocated its appropriation for the support of the Anti-Slavery Standard, on the ground that the political enfranchisement of the freedmen, which the Standard (not alone, however, but in common with some of the ablest and most influential journals in the country) was especially urging, was more important than their education. Others of the Trustees sided with Mr. Phillips,4 and, for the sake of adjusting the matter, Mr. Garrison proposed that five thousand dollars be given to the freedmen, and the balance ($4200) to the Standard; but when Congress, a month or two later, passed the Reconstruction Act enfranchising the freedmen, the special [238] plea for the continuance of the Standard seemed to him no longer weighty or plausible, and he again expressed his opinion that the entire fund should go to the freedmen. The Master in Chancery to whom the matter was5 referred by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, coincided in this view, and, acting upon his recommendation, the Court directed the Trustees to so appropriate the money; but, the majority refusing to obey the mandate, they were removed by the Court, who directed Messrs. Garrison, May, and Quincy to nominate four persons in their place, and the money finally reached the treasury of the New England branch of the Freedman's Union Commission. This fresh controversy with old co-laborers was inexpressibly painful to Mr. Garrison, who felt obliged, by the sharp reflections on his course which appeared in the Standard, to write an exhaustive review of the whole matter, and a vindication of himself, which was printed by6 that paper and was both unanswered and unanswerable.

At the numerous jubilations held by the colored people over the adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gave them the elective franchise, Mr. Garrison was in much request. He spoke at the Faneuil7 Hall celebration in Boston, and at Providence, but had to decline invitations from New York, Baltimore, Richmond, and Vicksburg—the last-named being extended by the Mayor and citizens. Four years later, after Charles Sumner's death, he urged the passage of the Civil Rights Bill by Congress, and protested against its emasculation by the omission of the clause forbidding all complexional distinctions in the public schools.

‘The common school,’ he wrote, must be open to all and for all, whether white or black, whether native or foreign. Those who, for any reason, do not choose to avail themselves of its benefits, may consult their own choice or prejudice, as the case may be; but they must not make it subservient to their exclusiveness. To gratify them in this respect would be to lay the axe at the root of our free institutions and to engender animosities that no community can afford to tolerate. Independent, Apr. 16, 1874.

[239] And again:

For one, I would prefer to have the bill defeated as it stands,8 rather than adopted with the sanction of separate schools on account of complexional distinctions by Congress. I deny the constitutional right of that body or of any State Legislature to approve or recognize any such distinctions; and I am surprised that so plain a point has not been earnestly maintained by the advocates of the bill at Washington as originally reported.

‘The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land; and, as amended, Congress may as lawfully set up a king to rule over us as to stamp with the badge of inferiority, by a senseless proscription on account of the color of the skin, any enfranchised American citizen. How the land would rock with excitement if the Irish, German, Scandinavian, or any other foreign population now naturalized, and with the ballot in their hands, should be invidiously excluded from our common schools and compelled to herd together. Even demagogues would then grow eloquently patriotic amid the thunderings and lightnings of popular indignation, and somebody would be very likely to see his political prospects blasted.’

As a shining example of the success of co-education, irrespective of color or sex, he pointed to Berea College9 in Kentucky, saying: ‘It is the most interesting educational institution to contemplate in the United States, and deserves the highest encomiums and the most liberal patronage for the good it has wrought and the grand example it has furnished how to pacificate and bless the entire South.’10

With perfect consistency, he deprecated the attempt, on the part of the colored people in a town near Boston, to start a church of their own, when they were free to connect themselves with any of the white churches in the place, as establishing “a precedent which logically ends in endorsing the old pro-slavery doctrine that there should be no fraternization between the two races on account of color.” Ms. Dec. 8, 1874, to N. T. Allen.

Temperance.—In the political revulsion which marked the autumn of 1867, the opponents of the prohibitory law in [240] Massachusetts succeeded in electing a Legislature pledged to its repeal, and the announcement of this unpleasant and unexpected event greeted Mr. Garrison on his arrival from England, the same week; but neither this, nor the reverses of the Republican party in other States, though of grave moment on the eve of the first Presidential election after the war, disturbed his buoyant and hopeful mind. In the lecture on his summer's experiences in Europe which he gave a few weeks later at Music Hall,11 and repeated in other places, he predicted a speedy reaction in favor of the law in Massachusetts, and of the Republican party in the country at large; and at a great temperance rally held in Boston the following May, he12 was one of the principal speakers. The Legislature elected in the fall of 1868 reenacted the law, and, in the annuallyrenewed conflict of the next three or four years, he frequently wrote and spoke in behalf of prohibition—in the Independent and at various temperance meetings.

“Whether as a question of public safety or general prosperity, of enlightened patriotism or disinterested philanthropy, of personal freedom or popular government,” Independent Mar. 3, 1870. he wrote in 1870,

I am an inflexible, uncompromising prohibitionist. If there is anything left to us worth contending for, in matters of legislation, or as a principle of society, or with reference to the common weal, surely it must be the right not merely to restrain but to suppress that traffic which produces more pauperism, more crime, more lunacy, more misery in every conceivable shape than all other predisposing causes put together. Where such suppression is not generally practicable, there must be a comparatively low standard of public virtue, a great lack of moral stamina, deplorable ignorance of physiological law, and criminal disregard of the duties and responsibilities of American citizenship. . . .

The licensed sale of intoxicating liquors, no matter how guardedly, for drinking purposes, not only injures and imperils the individual consumer, but brings woe into the family circle, riot and murder into the community, and makes the State accessory to three-fourths of all the pauperism and crime within its borders. No such sale can be granted without moral culpability. It cannot be too often reiterated that there are some [241] acts which no legislative assembly, no representative body, not the people themselves, though in entire agreement, have a right to do or sanction; and they are those acts from which necessarily and inevitably flow more of evil than good, more of damage than recompense, more of wretchedness than solace, more of peril than security, and which lead to a violation of those physical and moral laws which are binding upon the whole human race. The Legislature of Massachusetts may not find, therefore, in any amount of opposition to the prohibitory law, any warrant or justification for passing a license law as a substitute. Even if it shall feel constrained to repeal the former, on the ground of the impracticability of its enforcement, it has no moral, and therefore should exercise no legal, right to enact the latter, thus throwing around the most demoralizing of all licenses the sanction of the Commonwealth.

When, by the passage of a local-option law in 1871, the question of License or No License was submitted to popular vote, Mr. Garrison cast his first (and only) ballot since that he had given for Amasa Walker in 1834. He did not13 favor the formation of a Prohibitory political party, however, and, after Mr. Phillips's defeat as the candidate of the Prohibition and Labor parties for Governor in the fall of 1870, he expressed his disbelief in third-party14 movements, in an article on ‘Moral and Political Action.’ Time had only confirmed the objections to them first15 evoked by the Liberty Party.

I trust not to be misapprehended. I am not for divorcing16 moral from political action, nor do I deprecate an earnest interest in the results of our State and national elections. Perhaps there are few who watch those results with more vigilance than I do; or who despise more heartily the hollow outcry that men are not to be made good—i. e., better citizens—by legislative enactments. But I fail to see the wisdom or expediency of adding a third wheel to a mill when there is not sufficient water-power to turn the two great wheels which are already in position, which are ample to do all the work required, and which only need a greater supply of water to move with celerity and efficiency in accordance with the law of gravitation. This was the conviction I cherished throughout the anti-slavery struggle, and it remains unchanged, unless in growing more profound.


Likewise, when Judge Pitman was the Prohibition17 candidate in 1871, Mr. Garrison deprecated a movement which could only draw votes from the Republican nominee, who was a firm Prohibitionist, to the advantage of his Democratic and License opponent. In 1876 he declined18 an overture to stand as the candidate of the Prohibition party for President.

He always avoided public dinners where wine and cigars were permitted, and, in declining a pressing invitation to the annual dinner of the New England Society of New York, in 1877, he wrote, in a private note to the president: ‘I will frankly state, that one reason why I decline participating in such commemorations is the habitual wine-drinking and smoking so generally indulged in—a custom, I am sure, that would be far “more honored in the breach than in the observance.” ’19

the rights of women.—The question of woman suffrage was first submitted to popular vote in Kansas in the fall of 1867, when amendments to the State Constitution enfranchising women and negroes were both defeated after a long and exciting canvass, in which Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton bore an active part. A curious outcome of this contest was a temporary partnership between Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony and George Francis Train, a notorious charlatan, who was exciting the mirth of the country by posing as a self-constituted candidate for President. Imagining that an espousal of the women's cause would further his own success, he had delivered, just before the election, several of his disjointed harangues in favor of their amendment, while opposing contemptuously that establishing negro suffrage; and he now offered to furnish capital with which to start a woman-suffrage paper in New York, in which, also, he was to ventilate his own vagaries on trade finance, and other topics. His offer was eagerly [243] accepted, and in the series of meetings which they held in the principal cities on their return journey from Kansas to New York, the ladies named shared the speaking with him, and listened without protest to his constant ridicule and vulgar abuse of the negro.

The annoyance and mortification felt by many suffragists at this entangling alliance and its consequent degradation of the movement, led to the formation at Cleveland, in November, 1869, of the American Woman Suffrage Association, of which Henry Ward Beecher was made President, and to the subsequent establishment at Boston20 of the Woman's Journal. To both of these movements Mr. Garrison gave his active cooperation, and was especially helpful in launching the Journal, of which, for a time, he was an associate editor with Mrs. Mary A. Livermore, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Lucy Stone, and T. W. Higginson. He was one of the Vice-Presidents also of the American and of the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Associations, and President of the former for two years. In the wintry months of February and March, 1870, he made two journeys to Vermont, and addressed suffrage conventions at Rutland and Burlington in company with Mrs. Howe and Mrs. Livermore, the question of a constitutional amendment being then before the State Board of Censors. From the exposure thus incurred he narrowly escaped a severe illness, and the gradual impairment of his health may be said to date from that time. When well enough, he never failed to attend the semi-annual suffrage conventions in Boston, in January and May; and at the annual hearings at the State House before the Committees on suffrage and other bills affecting the rights of person and property of women, he was ever a faithful champion. He spoke also at many suffrage meetings in other cities and States, and wrote repeatedly on the subject for the Independent, and to conventions in distant places which he could not attend.21 [244]

W. L. Garrison to Henry Ward Beecher.

Boston, May 10, 1870.
22 my dear friend: I regret to be obliged to substitute a brief letter for my presence at the mass convention of the American Woman Suffrage Association at Steinway Hall to-morrow; for I had anticipated great pleasure in seeing (many of them for the first time) so strong an array of eminent advocates of equal rights, drawn together by a common inspiration from various parts of the country. But, while the spirit is willing, the flesh is weak; hence the cause of my absence.

The claim of woman to the ballot is so reasonable, in such exact conformity to the theory of popular government, and so important in its bearings upon whatever concerns the interests of the people, that I marvel that any man with ordinary intelligence and sense of justice, on giving any consideration to the subject, can resist or decry it. I have carefully read and weighed all the objections that have been brought against it; but, among them all, I have neither seen nor heard a single one possessing any force whatever. Many of them are so utterly at variance with each other as to be mere jargon; and the remainder of them are marked with such shallowness of reasoning and emptiness of declamation as signally to demonstrate the impossibility of a sound argument being framed against a truly just issue.

No man has written, no man can write, more absurdly on the subject than the distinguished author of the work entitled “A23 Reform against Nature.” Yet, while advancing all sorts of preposterous reasons against giving woman the ballot, he sums up all that need be urged in favor of the measure in the following cogent paragraph:

Little as he means it, man is nevertheless gravitating steadily toward some practice of wrong against the sex; laying up usages that are oppressive, maxims unjust, laws of really despotic mastership—all, it would [245] seem, because the wrong is in him, and, having the power, must needs be somehow issued in the deed; even though he disavows it, and protests he would not have it.

Yes! ‘having the power’! Therefore he contemns, subordinates, oppresses! And he is ‘gravitating steadily’ in that direction. It is not a rightful but a usurped power that is thus degrading him and injuring woman, and a ‘despotic mastership’ is the inevitable sequence. The simple remedy for all this injustice is to restore to woman that share of power, especially in matters of legislation, which has been wrested from her; in other words, to concede equal political rights. No class legislation was ever yet just or beneficent. Where all are entitled to a voice and vote in public affairs, there the laws will be the most equitable, and the government the most effective in its administration.

Dr. Bushnell says: ‘Suffrage is a right given, never a right to be demanded because it inheres beforehand in the person; and neither men nor women have any title to it, save what is grounded in consideration of benefit.’

Suffrage is a right primarily given—by whom? Where did Hancock and Adams, Washington and Jefferson, Revolutionary Federalists and Republicans, Dr. Bushnell and the opposers of woman suffrage generally, get their right to vote? Who gave them authority to choose their own rulers? Women claim no other title to it than men assert for themselves; and that claim is as valid in the one case as it is in the other. It is sure to be accorded in the end, and the sooner the better. No matter how many stubborn or stupid men may resist, no matter how many weak-minded or timorous women may say nay, it will nevertheless be triumphant, adding new lustre to the nineteenth century.

Yours, very cordially,

With an optimism natural and common to many, after the marvellous events of the previous decade, Mr. Garrison was confident in 1870 that women would be enfranchised by a Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution before 1876. He scouted, however, an attempt to prove that political equality had been already obtained by the 14th and 15th Amendments ‘as on a par with Bishop Berkeley's sublimated theory that there [246] is no such thing as matter, it being only a projection of the mind or spirit.’

It is precisely like the attempt made, by certain individuals,24 to prove that there were no pro-slavery clauses or provisions to be found in the United States Constitution, sticking to the letter thereof, and disregarding all the historical facts pertaining to its adoption, the clear understanding of it by the people, and the uniform concurrence of all legislative and judicial proceedings under it pertaining to slavery and the slave trade. Such criticism is neither fair nor sensible, and totally at variance with the truth. In the name of common sense, with nineteen-twentieths of the male voters of the land hostile to woman suffrage, how has it been possible for them to consent to any amendment of the Constitution granting what they stoutly resist?25

Miscellaneous topics.—Never before had Mr. Garrison been able to address so large a clerical audience as the Independent afforded him—a fact of which he did not lose sight, for he dwelt much upon the duty and the unrivalled opportunity of the pulpits to deal with living26 issues and condemn present wrong and injustice. He criticised the pulpit method of preaching; inquired, in a27 clever catechism, what really constitutes a ‘Christian,’ and maintained the rights of conscience against all assumptions of infallibility, whether Papal or Protestant. When the decision of the Cincinnati Board of Education to discontinue Bible-reading in the schools was agitating that city, and exciting much discussion throughout the country, he warmly commended the action of the Board, deeming it as reasonable to insist ‘that only the28 Protestant religion shall be tolerated in the land as that our Protestant Bible shall be read in the public schools.’

‘If,’ he continued,

this root of bitterness extracted, the29 Catholics, or any other sect, shall refuse to accept of the common schools for the instruction of their children, and proceed to [247] establish separate schools to represent their sectarian spirit and purpose, they can do so; but they may not therefore be gratified by the overthrow of that impartial, beneficent system which must be inflexibly adhered to as essential to the general welfare, the support of free institutions, the life of the Republic. So men who do not choose to vote may stay away from the polls; but they may not arbitrarily insist that the people shall not be allowed to carry on the government, and cast their ballots to that end.

No suitable occasion for bearing peace and non-resistance testimonies was neglected by Mr. Garrison, and he strenuously and successfully opposed, with others, the enactment of a bill for compulsory military drill in the public schools of Massachusetts, which had already passed30 its second reading in the Legislature. One day in the fall of 1875, he received a call from a young Japanese student in Boston University, who had been sent to the United States by his Government with the ultimate view of obtaining a military and naval education. A perusal of Charles Sumner's oration on the “True grandeur of nations” 1845. had first caused the youth to reflect on the nature of war and the military profession, and he now came to hear what Mr. Garrison had to say on the subject. To the two enthusiastic young girls—fellow-students—who accompanied and introduced him, the rapt expression of his face, as he listened to a kind and impressive statement of the underlying principles of peace and non-resistance, remains a vivid and memorable picture. ‘Mr. Garrison's words did more harm to my military pride and inclinations than even the “ True Grandeur of Nations,” ’ he said to them as they left the house. Returning to Japan, he informed his Government that his conscience forbade him to enter upon a military career, and was promptly cast into prison for his contumacy; but he unflinchingly adhered to his resolution. He was released after a time, and degraded to a position which gave him a scanty subsistence; but, when last heard from, he was still true to his principles. [248]

When Mrs. Josephine E. Butler of England instituted the agitation against the laws of Parliament which, under the specious name of the Contagious Diseases Acts, provided for the licensing of prostitution in the garrison towns of Great Britain, Mr. Garrison was prompt to welcome the movement, and make it known to the American31 public, in an article full of burning indignation over the iniquity of the Acts. Of Mrs. Butler and her noble women associates he said:

To her, and to them all, I desire thus publicly to pay my homage; regretting that I can find no words adequately to express my admiration of the moral courage they have displayed, the intellectual and moral force they have brought into the field, the masterly ability with which they have conducted the argument, the noble dignity of character which they have exemplified under the vilest provocation, and the exalted purity of sentiment to which they have given utterance. They have helped to make the present age illustrious, and deserve the plaudits of mankind. Had they been represented in the British Parliament, no such infamous acts could have been passed or proposed. Such legislation is possible only where women are excluded; and it furnishes another potential argument for their political enfranchisement to the full extent enjoyed by men. Ibid.

A few years later, it was his privilege to cooperate32 personally with them in their own country, and to give them timely encouragement and aid. He also heartily seconded Dr. William G. Eliot of St. Louis in his long33 and arduous struggle for the repeal of the ordinances licensing prostitution in that city, which ended triumphantly in April, 1879.

On the so-called ‘Labor question,’ Mr. Garrison thus expressed himself to a correspondent who had appealed for his aid in a movement for ‘industrial reform’:

W. L. Garrison to W. G. H. Smart.

Roxbury, August 18, 1875.
34 You ask me to ‘consider the evils that now oppress society, especially the toiling masses, whose only dependence is the labor [249] of their hands,’ and you seem to regard these evils [as] almost as intolerable and iniquitous as were those which characterized the atrocious system of chattel slavery. That society is afflicted with many evils that are to be deplored, and that ought to be removed, is undeniable; but that there is any analogy or35 comparison between the condition and chances of ‘the toiling masses’ and those to which the millions recently brought out of the house of bondage were subjected, I cannot admit and do not believe. Besides the very aged and the very young, there are comparatively few who are not more or less toiling with their brains or hands, in order to procure the means of subsistence. ‘The toiling masses,’ therefore, can only be another appellation for the American people. What have they to complain of in regard to constitution and laws for which they are not directly responsible? What outside power is subjecting them to wrongs and deprivations which call in thunder-tones for another emancipation crusade? What inside power is comparable to their own collective will and unquestionable strength? What new safeguards for their freedom, safety, and happiness do they need, that they have not the means to establish? Is not the government of them, by them, and for them (ostracized womanhood excepted), to be moulded as they shall judge best? Or, if in any case it is not for them, upon whom rests the responsibility but themselves. . . .

You express the conviction that the present relation of capital to labor is ‘hastening the nation to its ruin,’ and that, if some remedy is not applied, it is difficult to see ‘how a bloody struggle is to be prevented.’ I entertain no such fears. Our danger lies in sensual indulgence, in a licentious perversion of36 liberty, in the prevalence of intemperance, and in whatever tends to the demoralization of the people.

Abhorring all injustice, class legislation, and usurpation of power,

I remain, very respectfully yours,

retrospect.—While constantly using the salient lessons of the anti-slavery conflict by way of illustration and analogy in his treatment of current topics, Mr. Garrison had no disposition to reproach pro-slavery or personal antagonists with their past delinquencies, unless compelled to do so in order to vindicate the truth of history. There were several occasions on which he performed such necessary [250] tasks very effectively.37 His best contribution of this nature was a letter addressed to the Boston Journal on the38 gross conduct of the Massachusetts Legislature, when, on the death of Millard Fillmore, they passed resolutions commending the signer of the Fugitive Slave Law as entitled to the ‘affectionate remembrance of the American people, and an honorable place in the long line of their illustrious public servants.’ The shame of this perfunctory and insincere act was rendered all the more glaring by the eulogies which the same body was forced to pay immediately afterwards to Charles Sumner, whose death at Washington occurred the day after the Legislature of39 his State had thus disgraced itself.

Both Samuel J. May and Henry Wilson appealed to Mr.40 Garrison for facts and criticism while they were preparing their respective contributions to anti-slavery history, and he was very frank in his strictures on certain passages in the latter's chapters touching the abolitionists. These41 were modified in some degree before they appeared in the printed work, but were still left inaccurate and unsatisfactory,42 and the third and last volume, finished by another [251] hand after Mr. Wilson's death, was even more open to criticism in its treatment of the churches and their relation to the struggle. To Mr. May, who had just given his antislavery library to Cornell University, Mr. Garrison wrote as follows:

W. L. Garrison to S. J. May.

Roxbury, Feb. 9, 1871.
43 my Dearly beloved friend: I heartily thank you for your letter, enclosing a very interesting and justly appreciative one from Prof. Fiske of Cornell University, which I herewith44 return, in accordance with your request. His retrospective view of the anti-slavery struggle, and of the peculiar characteristics of the abolitionists, is very happily expressed; yet none but those who were called to endure the heat and burden of those times of fiery trial can fully realize what qualities of head and heart were needed to ensure uncompromising fidelity to the end. Some who early enlisted ran well for a time, and then fell by the way; in most instances, I think, because of their religious exclusiveness and intolerance. I am struck with the keen observation evinced by Prof. Fiske where he says—
It is strange to see how all the players in the drama appear just when they are wanted; how one scene of action follows another; how the dramatis persono; become constantly more numerous, until they embrace half a nation; how the fool and the knave of the play (the slaveholder) always comes forward, when the action lags, with some hideous piece of folly or equally hideous crime, which is suddenly seized and turned to advantage by his assailants.

Drawn to the life! I always marvelled, at the time, at the manner in which our co-laborers appeared or disappeared, according to the shaping of events. It would be unreasonable to say that our noble cause was not retarded by any defection that took place from our ranks; nevertheless, almost every event seemed to conspire, in some way or other, to give an impetus to it, so that, for more than thirty years, there was no lull in the excitement, no truce between the opposing parties. What the slaveholders were driven to do, in support of their ‘peculiar institution,’ was necessarily so base and cruel, often so diabolical, as powerfully to react in favor of those whom they so desperately but impotently endeavored to crush.

In giving your valuable collection of anti-slavery books and pamphlets to Cornell University, you have chosen an important [252] depository, through which the truth of history may be more intelligently ascertained and correctly illustrated. Your own excellent work, “Anti-slavery Recollections,” will be among the number that will be read with the deepest interest, inspiring many a student to enter the broad and illimitable field of philanthropy and reform.

Our old co-workers are fast disappearing from this earthly stage, and, in accordance with the laws of mortality, we must follow them at no distant day. How unspeakably pleasant it will be to greet them, and to be greeted by them, on the other side of the line! The longer I live, the longer I desire to live, and the more I see the desirableness of living; yet certainly not in this frail body, but just as it shall please the dear Father of us all. ‘It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power.’ What a blessed exchange, and how magnificent!

You have doubtless heard of the translation of our dear and venerated friend and coadjutor, Thomas Garrett of Wilmington, Delaware. He was one of the grandest men of the ages.

The ‘translation’ of Thomas Garrett was soon followed by that of the beloved and saintly pastor of Syracuse45 himself, and Mr. Garrison journeyed to Central New York to attend the obsequies of this “brother beloved incomparably beyond all blood relationship,” July 6. to whom he felicitously applied Wordsworth's description of the ‘Happy Warrior.’ For many years the duties of ministers at large to the ‘come-outers’ of the anti-slavery host had devolved upon Mr. Garrison and Mr. Phillips, and one or both of them were called to officiate or speak at many a funeral (and doubtless would have been asked to perform many a marriage ceremony, had they possessed the legal right to do so). Their services in this direction naturally became more and more in request as the veterans in the cause passed in quick succession from the stage. Notable among these occasions was the funeral of Henry C. Wright, at Pawtucket, R. I., in the summer of 1870, at which Mr. Garrison delivered an admirable46 address, and Mr. Phillips and Senator Wilson spoke im-47 [253] pressively.48 In the following letter two more instances are recorded:

W. L. Garrison to Oliver Johnson.

Roxbury, Dec. 28, 1873.
49 Last Friday, I attended the funeral of our old anti-slavery50 co-laborer, Charles Lenox Remond, at Greenwood. He had51 been wasting in consumption for the last eighteen months. John T. Sargent, Wendell Phillips, and myself conducted the [254] services. A number of white and colored friends from Salem and Boston were present.

Yesterday forenoon, I was present, with many others, at the52 funeral obsequies of our departed friend and aged saint, Sarah M. Grimke, at Hyde Park. We all felt the tenderness of heart53 and warm appreciation growing out of the attachments, labors, and perils of the past, in a common struggle to break the yoke of bondage and let the oppressed go free. She was the impersonation and incarnation of Divine Love; and, though bowed and wasted by bodily decrepitude, as fresh in her spirit as though but twenty instead of eighty-one years of age. There was no phase of reform or progress in which she did not take a heartfelt interest. She was singularly beloved and venerated by all who knew her. In addition to the services usual on such an occasion, tributes to the character and labors of the deceased were paid by our dear Theodore D. Weld, Lucy Stone, and myself. Theodore spoke with thrilling pathos and power, yet weeping like a child, and almost choking at times with the thoughts and words to which he tried to give utterance. Dear Angelina was very deeply affected.54


Ever generous in panegyric to those who had passed from their earthly labors, Mr. Garrison was no less given to rehearsing the praises of his old coadjutors who still remained. He constantly took occasion, if writing them on other themes, to express his exalted regard for them. He was even repeatedly at pains to write a kindly word to some of his former antagonists in the anti-slavery ranks, recognizing the services they had rendered in the day of small things, and rejoicing with them in the triumph of freedom. One of these was Lewis Tappan, from whom a letter touching his brother Arthur elicited the following reply:

Lewis Tappan to W. L. Garrison.

Brooklyn, N. Y., Jan. 29, 1870.
56 my dear Sir: It would be sheer affectation in me not to acknowledge the gratification your letter has given me. I greet [255] and congratulate you on your bodily and mental vigor, and the fruition of [our] hopes in the emancipation of our colored fellowmen. And as John Quincy Adams wrote to me on the deliverance of the Amistad Africans, so I can unite with you in saying,57 ‘Not unto us, not unto us,’ etc.

Yes, it is forty years since I first saw you, conducted you to my brother's desk, and introduced you to him. I seem to see now58 your open countenance and elastic step.

Francis Todd was a customer of mine in Boston, and I59 remember his sharp look and fox-like demeanor. How unlike John Peabody and Arthur Gilman of that day.

After much importunity, I have prepared a sketch of the life of my brother Arthur, and in the chapter on Anti-Slavery agitation have endeavored to do justice to you and your labors. I have also introduced your letter to my brother, and to his daughters. I have tried, while I justified the withdrawal of my brother and those affiliating with him from associated labors with other abolitionists, not to say anything impeaching their love of the cause, or their adherence to what they believed was right principle. I remembered that I was not writing a history of the anti-slavery agitation, but of A. T.'s personal efforts in the cause, and on behalf of moral reform generally. While sketching my brother's activities I have wished for an opportunity to read the chapter referred to, in your hearing; and, should opportunity occur, it would give me satisfaction to do so.

My unpretending volume will contain some three hundred or more pages, and may be printed in the course of two or three months.60

Henry Wilson and Joshua Leavitt have each in hand a history of the cause. I have heard that you have also. I could wish that a history might be written to embody the views of all parties, or at least not to be unjust to any party. Our differences should, as far as principle allows, be swallowed up in principles and measures that, under God, led to victory.

Should you have kept any of my brother's letters, I shall be glad to peruse them, or, if you can state any facts illustrating [256] his character, that are probably unknown to me, I shall be pleased to receive them.

Very truly yours,

Edmund Quincy received his laurel wreath with characteristic lightness and jest.

Edmund Quincy to W. L. Garrison.

Dedham, Aug. 26, 1875.
62 I am much obliged to you for your appreciation of my services and sacrifices in the Anti-Slavery cause. I hope the services may have been somewhere near your valuation of them; but I claim no credit for the sacrifices. For, really, I made none that were not a hundred-fold compensated for by the satisfaction attending my course and the friendships I obtained by it—chief among which was that with yourself.

At the time I came into the cause, and all the time I was engaged in it, it never seemed to me that there was anything else for a man who wished to take some part in public affairs to do. I had no turn for the law, and politics seemed to me beneath the notice of a gentleman. Anti-Slavery was the only national and historical movement on foot—besides its humanitarian aspects. As for the cold shoulders and petty social ostracisms, I really cared nothing about them—and there was not much of it that was forced upon my notice. I knew I was abused behind my back, but people were always civil enough to my face. And I never made the slightest show of having done anything I was ashamed of. Quite the contrary.

The only gems which I claim for my celestial crown were the Meetings and Picnics at which I had to preside. These became almost intolerable bores to me, and even yet I feel a sensation of satisfaction, at the times and seasons when they used to occur, to think that I have not to go to them. I told John Sargent63 the other day that I wished they64 could have kept on abolishing Slavery for the rest of their natural lives, it was such a pleasure to me to know they were at it, and I having nothing to [257] do with it. There is certainly no reason why they should not have continued as well as before. . . .

I am always, my dear Garrison, affectionately yours,

In March, 1873, Mr. Garrison was earnestly besought to write his autobiography, and an appeal to that end, inspired by Oliver Johnson, was addressed to him by many of his old associates.

Edmund Quincy and others to W. L. Garrison.

March 10, 1873.
dear Sir: We take the liberty, as your personal friends of many years' standing, and your fellow-laborers in the Anti-Slavery movement, to address you on a matter which we have very much at heart. We mean the preparation of the history of your life by yourself. We venture to make this suggestion both on public and private considerations. The part which you had in the most important passage of our history makes it essential, as it appears to us, to the full understanding of its facts and its philosophy, that they should be set down by your own authentic pen. Such a narrative would furnish the most valuable material possible, as to the matters of which it would treat, for the future historian of this country. But, besides its public value, we are sure that your autobiography would be a very entertaining work, from the varieties of your career and the many interesting persons on both sides of the Atlantic with whom it has brought you in contact, besides affording a most instructive example, never more needed than now, of the genuine happiness and true success of a life devoted to a great and unselfish purpose.

Assured that you will take our application in good part, and hoping most earnestly that you will see fit to comply with the request it contains, we are, dear Mr. Garrison, most respectfully and affectionately, your friends.

The signatures to this letter included the familiar names of Quincy, Sewall, Chapman, Weston, Whittier, Mott, McKim, May, Smith, Weld, Grimke, Grew, and Burleigh, with those of Henry Wilson, Henry Ward Beecher, Mrs. Stowe, James Freeman Clarke, and others. But the labor [258] asked of him seemed scarcely less formidable to Mr. Garrison than the still unwritten history of the anti-slavery movement, and he preferred discussing the topics of the day to recording his life-experiences for posterity. Referring to the ill-health which had in part deterred him from attempting the larger work, he said, in replying to65 these friends:

It is extremely problematical, therefore, whether I shall yet be strengthened to depict, even on a limited scale, the most noteworthy moral and political struggle in the annals of civilization. Covering as it did a period of nearly forty years, and rending the nation by the antagonistic elements which it aroused, to portray it in all its multitudinous phases, without exaggeration or abatement, exceeds my ability, notwithstanding your encouraging voices. Moreover, my connection with it, from its commencement to its close, was so close and peculiar that a sense of delicacy almost precludes me from trying to record my views and recollections of it. So far as I am personally concerned, I feel no interest in any history of it that may be written. It is enough for me that every yoke is broken and every bondman set free. Yet there are lessons to be drawn from it that cannot fail to be serviceable to posterity. The millennial state, if it ever come on earth, is yet in the far distant future. There are innumerable battles yet to be fought for the right, many wrongs to be redressed, many evil customs abolished, many usurpations overthrown, many deliverances wrought; and those who shall hereafter go forth to defend the righteous cause, no matter at what cost or with what disparity of numbers, cannot fail to derive strength and inspiration from an intelligent acquaintance with the means and methods used in the Anti-Slavery movement.

National politics.—In the three Presidential campaigns which followed the civil war, Mr. Garrison naturally took a deep interest, being ever apprehensive that a Democratic triumph would lead to a negation of the civil and political rights of the freedmen. During the perplexing and anxious decade of ‘reconstruction,’ at first under the hostile Administration of Andrew Johnson, it is enough to say here that Mr. Garrison was in general accord with the measures adopted by Congress to thwart [259] the reactionary designs of the Executive, and to maintain Republican control of the States lately in rebellion— not a party control, in his eyes. The failure to impeach President Johnson was a great disappointment to him. In the Presidential campaign of 1868 (when General Grant and Horatio Seymour were the rival candidates), the terrorism rampant at the South, and the Southern hopes of Democratic restoration, furnished themes for several of his articles in the Independent; but he refused66 to preside at a Republican ratification meeting in Faneuil Hall, or, at the request of Horace Greeley, to write an67 address to the freedmen, urging them to vote for Grant68 believing himself too little known to the beneficiaries of his life-long endeavors in behalf of freedom.

He was not found, either, among the partisans of69 President Grant when the latter, in 1870-71, was bent on annexing San Domingo to the United States. He both sustained Mr. Sumner's opposition to the measure, and protested against the Senator's consequent removal from70 the head of the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Charles Sumner to W. L. Garrison.

Washington, 29th Dec., 1870.
71 dear Mr. Garrison: Your letter is cheering, and reminded me of other days. I find now that same old heartlessness and violence which prevailed against Kansas—showing how, when people embark in such a policy, they act and speak accordingly.

When you read my speech, you will see that it was strictly to the point, discussing the subject-matter and avoiding all allusion to the President, except where the case positively required.

The Haytian minister had been to me full of emotion at the message of the President as ‘trampling his country under foot.’ I could not refer to despatches or documents. Therefore, I was driven to take up the message and draw from that as much as I could.

I was in earnest, and determined if possible to arrest this sacrifice. The only answer was a flood of personalities. Nothing [260] has been baser than the Advertiser. Its allegation was72 absolutely false. At the West I am generally sustained. In Boston—you know.

There is a menace to displace me from the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which I have been chairman ten years. This is a sop to Cerberus. It is founded on my difference with the Administration on this question, and the character of my speech. You will receive the speech soon, and I commend it to your perusal. Consider, if you please, that documentary evidence known to me could not be used.

Gerrit Smith writes as you do. What will W. P. say?73

Ever sincerely yours,

Mr. Garrison had to take issue with his friend in the following year, when the Democracy made a final rally under Horace Greeley, and Sumner (for personal reasons and general considerations of public policy) joined a portion of the reform element in the Republican Party in opposing Grant's reelection at all hazards. A long letter by Mr. Garrison, in confutation of Sumner's letter74 to the colored voters of Washington on behalf of Greeley, was very widely copied by the press, and presumably had its effect. In another letter, addressed to the Boston75 Journal (to which he contributed frequently during the76 campaign, both editorially and in his own name), Mr. Garrison replied at length to Mr. Sumner's last appeal for Greeley on the eve of departing for Europe.

Of Mr. Greeley's course in consenting to stand as the candidate of the Democratic Party, he wrote with great77 plainness and severity, though the opinion of him which he now expressed was one he had long entertained, namely, that the editor of the Tribune was “the worst of all counsellors, the most unsteady of all leaders, the most pliant of all compromisers in times of great public emergency” Ind. Oct. 24, 1872.— a judgment since strikingly confirmed by the publication78 of Greeley's extraordinary letter to President Lincoln after the battle of Bull Run.

When, after Mr. Sumner's death in 1874, there was a deadlock in the Massachusetts Legislature over the election [261] of his successor, Mr. Garrison was approached by one of the Republican leaders to know if he would accept the position, and replied:

Your friendly and complimentary letter of inquiry causes79 me very great surprise, because, although we have lived to see many strange occurrences in our day, I deem it scarcely more supposable that, under any fortuitous combination of circumstances or rallying of forces, I should be chosen successor of Charles Sumner in the U. S. Senate by the Legislature of Massachusetts, than that “Birnam wood will come to Dunsinane.” What, therefore, is utterly out of the question cannot be with me a matter of grave consideration. Besides, if, by any possible “change of base,” such a choice should happen to be made as a dernier ressort, I have some conscientious difficulties, particularly as respects the war provisions of the Constitution of the United States, that would prevent my qualifying under that instrument.

In the latter years of the reconstruction period, when one after another of the Southern States was wrested from the control of the so-called ‘carpet-bag governments,’ Mr. Garrison saw in the violent uprising of the whites not so much a revolt against thieving and corrupt adventurers who were sustaining themselves in office by the aid of the colored vote on the one hand, and the military support of the Federal Government on the other, as a determined effort to rob the freedmen of the ballot and make them again a subject race. If he had no adequate conception of the financial misrule under some of these governments, he knew accurately the still unquenched spirit of slavery, and that nothing which was alleged against it was impossible. And in truth there was, especially in communities in which black voters were in the ascendency, enough of genuine outrage and calculated terrorism practised (under the general name of Kukluxism) to make exaggeration or invention of them for political effect unnecessary. These and worse he anticipated if the restraining Federal arm should be withdrawn, with iniquitous and oppressive legislation directed against the disfranchised blacks (such as is to be found in most of the [262] Southern statute-books to-day). He could not see that any Constitutional obstacle existed to maintaining with Federal troops the governments in South Carolina and Louisiana—the last that remained to be artificially held up in this manner—so long as the legally constituted State Governments invoked their aid. He therefore viewed with foreboding President Grant's admission, towards the close of his second term, that the military administration could no longer be maintained at the South; and entered an earnest protest against President Hayes's retirement of the troops directly after the latter assumed office in 1877.

free Trade.—In January, 1869, Mr. Garrison was elected a Vice-President of the American Free Trade League, of New York, and actively assisted in the formation of a Revenue Reform League in Boston, the following April, making one of the principal speeches at the Boston80 meeting. In justification of his part in it he said:

This is a meeting with special reference to business81 interests in their most substantial form. In a technical sense, I am not a business man, and have nothing more at stake in matters of commerce or manufactures than others whose pursuits lie in another direction. Yet, perhaps, no man has had more to do with the business of the country—at least as a disturbing force—for the last forty years than I have; and, certainly, the industrial elements have had a good deal to do with me, in an antagonizing way, during the same period. Happily, we are no longer at variance for any such cause.

As to mere details and statistics respecting free trade on the one hand, and the protective policy (so-called) on the other, I am but a novice; but as to those principles which underlie all national prosperity, and determine the legitimate scope of legislation in regard to international reciprocity and interchange of commodities, I profess to be considerably enlightened. . . .

For the cause of human liberty covers and includes all possible forms of human industry, and best determines how the productions thereof may be exchanged at home and abroad to mutual advantage. Though never handling a tool, nor manufacturing a bale of cotton or wool, nor selling a yard of cloth [263] or a pound of sugar, he is the most sagacious political economist who contends for the highest justice, the most far-reaching equality, a close adherence to natural laws, and the removal of all those restrictions which foster national pride and selfishness. The mysteries of government are only the juggles of usurpers and demagogues. There is nothing intricate in freedom, free labor, free institutions, the law of interchange, the measure of reciprocity. It is the legerdemain of class legislation, disregarding the common interests of the people, that creates confusion, sophisticates the judgment, and dazzles to betray. The law of gravitation needs no legislative props or safeguards to make its operations more effective or more beneficent ...

It is to be supposed—other things being equal—that those whose lives are devoted to business affairs and financial matters will have a clearer perception of what concerns their interests than those whose pursuits are simply professional or philanthropic. Other things being equal, I say—that is a very important qualification! Alas! they are often most unequal, because of a profligate disregard of principle; and then follow incongruity, entanglement, loss of vision, impaired judgment, desperate expedients, calamitous results. This was strikingly illustrated in the insane conduct of the business men of the nation, of all classes, in burning incense and servilely bowing the knee to the Southern Moloch for a period of threescore years and ten, animated by the belief that it was a paying business investment! What came of it, we have all had bitter occasion to know. . . .

Believing that the interests of the American people in no wise materially differ from those of the people of any other country, and denying the rectitude or feasibility of building ourselves up at their expense by an exclusive policy, obstructing the natural flow of material exchanges, I avow myself to be a radical free trader, even to the extent of desiring the abolition of all custom-houses, as now constituted, throughout the world. That event is far distant, undoubtedly, but I believe it will come with the freedom and enlightenment of mankind. My faith is absolute that it will prove advantageous to every branch of human industry, whether at home or abroad. Its advocacy, however, will not be the object of the proposed Reform League. That object has been stated to you to be the procurement of a simple, moderate, and effective tariff, for revenue purposes exclusively, with the least possible interference with the industrial pursuits of the people; opposition to [264] all special legislation intended to foster private or class interest; the negotiation of treaties of reciprocity with all States upon the continent of North America; the abatement of some of the most onerous taxes imposed under the existing tariff; the restoration of the specie standard of value at as early a day as practicable; and, finally, to promote reform in the civil service, and the appointment of all Government officers upon the sole ground of fitness and ability to discharge the duties of their respective offices. I trust it will meet the hearty approval of this assembly, and at no distant day that of the people of Massachusetts and of the whole country. . . .

Gentlemen, the object which has brought us together is neither partisan nor geographical, but patriotic and all-comprehensive; not for any one interest in special, but for all interests; not for Massachusetts alone, but for the whole country. Its realization cannot fail to bring great and signal blessings along with it, and to foster a more noble and expansive spirit of human brotherhood, through which at last all the nations of the earth shall strike hands in amity and peace.82

In an article in the Independent on ‘Protection vs. Free Trade,’ he declared, ‘There is not a more deceptive and at the same time more plausible word in popular use than “protection.” ’

“The protection of American labor” has a taking sound;83 but it really means the restriction and taxation of that labor. Protection against what? Have we not the best educated and most intelligent population on earth? And does not this imply industry, thrift, skill, enterprise, invention, capital, beyond any other forty millions of people? Have we not muscles as well as [265] brains? Have we not a country unrivalled in the variety and abundance of its natural productions, and the abounding riches of its mineral resources? What more need we to claim, or ought we to have? If, in an open field, we cannot successfully compete with “the cheap and pauperized labor of Europe,” in all that is necessary to our comfort, or even to our luxury, then let us go to the wall! Was the slave labor of the South at all a match for the free labor of the North? In which section of the Union was industry best protected or wealth most augmented? Is it not ludicrous to read what piteous calls are made for the protection of the strong against the weak, of the intelligent against the ignorant, of the well-fed against the half-starving, of our free republican nation against the effete governments of the Old World, in all that relates to the welfare of the people? With all that God has done for us in giving us such a goodly heritage, cannot we contrive to live and flourish without erecting barriers against the freest intercourse with all nations? Must we guard our ports against the free importation of hemp, iron, broadcloth, silk, coal, etc., etc., as though it were a question of quarantine for the smallpox or the Asiatic cholera? Refusing to do so, will the natural consequences be “vacant factories, furnaces standing idle, the shops of manufacturing industry closed, labor begging and starving for the want of employment,” and all the other fearful results that are so confidently predicted by the advocates of the protective policy, falsely so-called? Similar predictions were made by the defenders of Southern slavery in regard to the abolition of that nefarious system, and in order to subject to popular odium those who demanded the immediate and unconditional emancipation of the oppressed. Freedom, as well as Wisdom, is justified of her children; and in proportion as she bears sway will it go well with any people.

On the 10th of December, 1875, Mr. Garrison celebrated at once his 70th birthday and the fiftieth anniversary of his graduation from the Herald office, by going to Newburyport and again taking up the composing-stick in the familiar place. Selecting Whittier's beautiful poem, ‘My Psalm,’ he set it with almost his old-time rapidity and expertness; and though the type was small, and the ‘case’ not over well supplied with it, not an error was found in the seventeen verses when the first proof was [266] pulled. While he was at work, an old fellow-apprentice84 came in to greet him, and though, from the latter's indifference to the anti-slavery movement, there had been little sympathy and intercourse between them in the intervening half century, they now fraternized and found common ground in reminiscences of their boyhood days, and in unexpected sympathy of views on other topics. Very fitting, therefore, seemed the closing verses of the poem, when the veteran printer and agitator, turning once more to his task, put them in type:


That care and trial seem at last,
     Through Memory's sunset air,
Like mountain-ranges, overpast,
     In purple distance fair,—

That all the jarring notes of life
     Seem blending in a psalm,
And all the angles of its strife
     Slow rounding into calm.

And so the shadows fall apart,
     And so the west winds play;
And all the windows of my heart
     I open to the day.

1 Ms. Jan. 27, 1868.

2 Ms. Apr. 7, 1868.

3 1868-69.

4 Namely, Charles K. Whipple and William I. Bowditch. Edmund Jackson, the testator's brother, favored giving one-quarter of the amount to the Standard and the rest to the freedmen.

5 John Codman.

6 A. S. Standard, Mar. 14, 1868.

7 Apr. 15, May 18, 1870.

8 W. L. G. to Hon. C. T. Garland, Feb. 1, 1875. Washington Chronicle, Feb. 5, 1875.

9 Independent, Apr. 16, 1874.

10 His own deep interest in this college was emphasized by his singling it out for a bequest at his death.

11 Nov. 29, 1867.

12 May 13, 1868.

13 Ante, 1.455.

14 Ind. Nov. 24, 1870.

15 Ante, 2.244, 245, 311, 349, 436.

16 Ind. Nov. 24, 1870.

17 Robert C. Pitman. Boston Journal, Nov. 4, 1871.

18 Ms. May 10, 1876, J. H. Coulter to W. L. G.

19 The president (Mr. Daniel F. Appleton) was so pleased by this that he asked permission to print it as a postscript to the formal letter of declination in the pamphlet report of the proceedings, where it appears.

20 Jan., 1870.

21 See Independent, Dec. 31, 1868, Dec. 23, 1869, March 17, May 19, 1870, March 2, July 1, Dec. 7, 1871, April 3, 1873; Woman's Journal, passim, 1870-79; “ History of Woman Suffrage,” Vol. 3, pp. 122, 343, 368. In other ways, too, he had opportunity to bear his testimony in behalf of equal rights for the sexes. Called upon, at a dinner of the American Institute of Homoeopathy (Boston, June 10, 1869), to respond to a toast on ‘Reform and Reformers,’ he urged that women should stand on an equality with men in the medical profession, and the Institute voted by an overwhelming majority, the next day, to admit them as members, winning the honor of being the first medical body that had ever done so.

22 Ms.

23 Rev. Horace Bushnell.

24 Ms. Jan. 4, 1872, W. L. G. to E. M. Davis.

25 Some spirited verses on ‘Human Equality,’ supplemental to, and in the style of, Burns's ‘A man's a man for aa that,’ were written by Mr. Garrison for one of the gatherings of the New England Women's Club, of which he became an honorary member in 1872.

26 Ind. Feb. 27, Sept. 3, 1868.

27 Ind. Sept. 10, 1868. Ind. July 14, 1870.

28 Ind. Nov. 11, 1869.

29 Ibid.

30 1865.

31 Ind. Aug. 31, 1871.

32 1877.

33 Ind. Mar. 6, 1873.

34 Boston Globe, Sept., 1875.

35 Cf. ante, p. 204.

36 Cf. ante, 3.224, 225.

37 See articles on ‘The Late Bishop [John Henry] Hopkins’ of Vermont (Independent, Jan. 30, 1868); ‘A Pro-Slavery Calumny Refuted’ (Ind. Dec. 10, 1868), a reply to Revs. J. M. Sturtevant, Edward Beecher, and John P. Gulliver, who had accused the ‘Boston Abolitionists’ of dividing their denunciations equally between ‘Southern slavery and evangelical Christianity’; ‘Mr. [George] Peabody and the South’ (Ind. Aug. 19, 1869), elicited by Mr. Peabody's expressing his ‘cordial esteem for the high honor, integrity, and heroism of the Southern people,’ and ‘Honored beyond his Deserts [George Peabody]’ (Ind. Feb. 10, 1870); ‘Mistaking the Product for the Germinating Power’ (Ind. Oct. 9, 1873), in reply to an assertion that the anti-slavery agitators ‘made little impression upon the public mind’; ‘False and Invidious Comparisons,’ by Revs. F. H. Hedge and E. E. Hale, at the Memorial Service to Dr. S. G. Howe (Boston Journal, Feb. 10, 1876, signed ‘Fiat Justitia’); Reply to W. H. Ward's aspersions of W. L. G. and the abolitionists in a eulogistic sketch of Joshua Leavitt (Ind. Nov. 17, 1870).

38 Mar. 20, 1874.

39 Mar. 11, 1874.

40 May's Recollections of the A. S. Conflict. Wilson's Rise and Fall of the Slave Power.

41 Ms. May 2, 1870, W. L. G. to H. Wilson.

42 ‘The truth is, in writing his History, he has failed to show the vital difference between genuine and sectarian abolitionism, but tried to play the amiable all round the circle; finding no fault with anything said or done by the sectarian seceders, but mildly deploring the acts of some of the old abolitionists—as in the case of Foster and Beach’ (Ms. Jan. 23, 1872, W. L. G. to Samuel May, Jr.).

43 Ms.

44 Willard Fiske.

45 July 1, 1871.

46 Aug. 19.

47 H. Wilson.

48 On the death of Henry C. Wright, the conduct of his funeral and the decision as to the place of interment devolved upon Garrison and Phillips as his nearest friends. While they knew that Mr. Wright fully shared their own views as to the unimportance of the fate of the body after death, there was still a question, as he had lacked a home of his own for many years, in which of three or four places that were suggested—Newbury, Danvers, Roxbury, Providence—the burial should be made. Temporarily, the body was placed in the receiving tomb at Swan Point Cemetery, between Providence and Pawtucket, R. I., in which latter town Mr. Wright had died. Mr. Garrison, however, being in poor health at the time, and dangerously ill a fortnight later, the responsibility of determining the matter worried him more than it otherwise would have done. On Sept. 7, 1870, he consulted in Boston a ‘healing medium’ in whom he had confidence, solely for a diagnosis of his own case. After that had been given him, the medium described Henry C. Wright as present and wishing to communicate with him. The impersonating spirit accordingly at once assumed control of the medium, and began to speak of his funeral, saying that he perceived his friend was troubled about the disposition of his body. ‘You know my views on that subject,’ he continued, and, suggesting that it would be simplest to inter the remains in the cemetery where they then lay, declared that there was a triangular lot, just large enough for a single grave, in the northwest part of the grounds, at the intersection of two roads; and a small tree which stood on it would serve the purpose of a monument.

Mr. Garrison went to Providence a few days afterwards, for medical treatment, and promptly visited the cemetery. As the Superintendent was absent, he asked his assistant to take him to the northwest portion. He failed, however, to recognize any such lot as had been described, and his conductor told him that they had no lots with single graves for sale, inasmuch as these were always bought up as soon as laid out. Through another medium whom he happened to meet during his stay in Providence, the existence of such a lot was reaffirmed, and he again visited the cemetery. The Superintendent corroborated his assistant's statement, but did not refuse to accompany Mr. Garrison and his brother-in-law, Mr. Henry Anthony, to the locality indicated. On the way, he suddenly remembered an unsold lot there. Lot and tree, in fact, were quickly recognized by Mr. Anthony, as they approached the spot, and the purchase was at once made and the body subsequently transferred to its final resting-place. It transpired that the Superintendent's assistant had, by mistake, led Mr. Garrison to the western instead of the northwestern part of the cemetery.

49 Ms.

50 Dec. 26.

51 Mass.

52 Dec. 27, 1873.

53 Mass.

54 Other funerals at which Mr. Garrison spoke were those of Joseph and Thankful Southwick, James Brown Yerrinton, William Adams, Bourne Spooner and wife, Mary Ann W. Johnson, William C. Nell, James Miller McKim, Edmund Jackson, Abby May Alcott, Charles C. Burleigh, and as many more not named. His tributes to Richard D. Webb, James Haughton, Charles Sumner, David Lee Child, Gerrit Smith, and Henry Wilson will be found in the N. Y. Christian Union, April 9, 1873, Independent, March 19, 1874, Jan. 7, 1875, and Boston Journal, Nov. 29, 1875.

55 Angelina Grimke Wild.

56 Ms.

57 Ante, 2.326.

58 Arthur Tappan.

59 Ante, 1.165-167.

60 “The life of Arthur Tappan.” New York: Hurd & Houghton. 1870. 12mo, pp. 432. With portrait.

61 See Mr. Garrison's reply on p. 424 of A. Tappan's Life.

62 Ms.

63 Rev. John T. Sargent.

64 That is, the American and Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Societies after 1865, of which latter Mr. Sargent was President. In this capacity he expressed the hope that Quincy would freely visit the Anti-Slavery Office. as of old, before the separation. ‘Thank you,’ answered the wit; ‘I'm afraid of ghosts.’

65 Mar. 17, 1873.

66 Aug. 13, Oct. 1, 15, 22, 29, 1868.

67 Ms. July 23, 1868.

68 Greeley to O. Johnson.

69 Ind. June 23, Dec. 22, 1870; Apr. 13, 27, 1871.

70 Ind. Mar. 16, 1871.

71 Ms.

72 Boston Daily Advertiser.

73 Wendell Phillips.

74 Aug. 3, 1872.

75 Sept. 5.

76 Sept. 6.

77 Ind. Sept. 12, Oct. 3, 24, 31, Dec. 15, 1872.

78 Century Magazine, June, 1888, p. 291.

79 Ms. Mar. 28, 1874, to Edward Atkinson.

80 April 20, 1869.

81 Boston Journal, April 21, 1869.

82 Mr. Garrison having alluded, in the course of his speech, to the immense market opened up by the abolition of slavery for a multitude of the appliances of civilization unknown to the slaves and now demanded by the freedmen, a correspondent wrote him: ‘I beg to afford you an incident in this connection, sustaining your sensible application of your principles to the workings of trade. I was informed by a wholesale stove dealer at Wheeling, W. Va., last June, that he was then engaged in sending $100,000 worth of cooking stoves, per Ohio River steamers and those connecting with them, to Louisiana, to supply a pressing demand then existing for them by the emancipated negroes. What a volume of wants and traffic unprecedented in amount and profit is opened up to the mind's eye, through the entire length and breadth of the Ohio and Mississippi valleys, from this source in the future!’ (Ms. April 27, 1869, I. L. Hodsdon, ex-Adjt.-Gen. of Maine, to W. L. G.)

83 Ind. May 20, 1869.

84 Joseph B. Morss.

Creative Commons License
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.

hide Places (automatically extracted)
hide People (automatically extracted)
Sort people alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a person to search for him/her in this document.
W. L. Garrison (39)
William Lloyd Garrison (21)
Ind (18)
Charles Sumner (12)
Edmund Quincy (8)
Wendell Phillips (8)
Henry Wilson (7)
Horace Greeley (7)
Henry C. Wright (5)
Nov (5)
Oliver Johnson (5)
Grant (5)
Samuel May (4)
Lewis Tappan (3)
Arthur Tappan (3)
Lucy Stone (3)
Gerrit Smith (3)
John T. Sargent (3)
George Peabody (3)
Willard Fiske (3)
Dec (3)
Horace Bushnell (3)
Henry Ward Beecher (3)
Aug (3)
H. Wilson (2)
John G. Whittier (2)
Theodore D. Weld (2)
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (2)
Robert C. Pitman (2)
Oct (2)
James Miller McKim (2)
Samuel J. May (2)
Mary A. Livermore (2)
Joshua Leavitt (2)
Andrew Johnson (2)
Francis Jackson (2)
Edmund Jackson (2)
Julia Ward Howe (2)
Sarah M. Grimke (2)
Thomas Garrett (2)
Josephine E. Butler (2)
Charles C. Burleigh (2)
Susan B. Anthony (2)
Henry Anthony (2)
John Quincy Adams (2)
James Brown Yerrinton (1)
Wordsworth (1)
Charles K. Whipple (1)
Anne Warren Weston (1)
Richard D. Webb (1)
W. H. Ward (1)
Amasa Walker (1)
George Francis Train (1)
Francis Todd (1)
J. M. Sturtevant (1)
Harriet Beecher Stowe (1)
Anti-Slavery Standard (1)
A. S. Standard (1)
Bourne Spooner (1)
Southwick (1)
W. G. H. Smart (1)
Horatio Seymour (1)
Samuel E. Sewall (1)
John Sargent (1)
Charles Lenox Remond (1)
John Peabody (1)
William C. Nell (1)
Lucretia Mott (1)
Joseph B. Morss (1)
Abraham Lincoln (1)
Ann W. Johnson (1)
Jefferson (1)
Jan (1)
Hurd (1)
Samuel G. Howe (1)
Henry O. Houghton (1)
Hopkins (1)
I. L. Hodsdon (1)
T. W. Higginson (1)
John Henry (1)
F. H. Hedge (1)
Hayes (1)
James Haughton (1)
Hancock (1)
Newman Hall (1)
E. E. Hale (1)
John P. Gulliver (1)
Arthur Gilman (1)
German (1)
C. T. Garland (1)
Stephen S. Foster (1)
Millard Fillmore (1)
Feb (1)
English (1)
William G. Eliot (1)
Edward M. Davis (1)
J. H. Coulter (1)
John Codman (1)
James Freeman Clarke (1)
Christian (1)
David Lee Child (1)
Maria W. Chapman (1)
Cerberus (1)
Catholics (1)
Burns (1)
William I. Bowditch (1)
Henry B. Blackwell (1)
Berkeley (1)
Edward Beecher (1)
Edward Atkinson (1)
Daniel F. Appleton (1)
N. T. Allen (1)
Abby May Alcott (1)
William Adams (1)
hide Dates (automatically extracted)
Sort dates alphabetically, as they appear on the page, by frequency
Click on a date to search for it in this document.
1870 AD (11)
1868 AD (8)
1871 AD (7)
1874 AD (5)
1872 AD (4)
1876 AD (3)
1873 AD (3)
1867 AD (3)
September (3)
1877 AD (2)
1875 AD (2)
June, 1888 AD (1)
April, 1879 AD (1)
1879 AD (1)
May 10th, 1876 AD (1)
February 10th, 1876 AD (1)
December 10th, 1875 AD (1)
November 29th, 1875 AD (1)
September, 1875 AD (1)
August 26th, 1875 AD (1)
August 18th, 1875 AD (1)
February 1st, 1875 AD (1)
January 7th, 1875 AD (1)
December 8th, 1874 AD (1)
March 28th, 1874 AD (1)
March 19th, 1874 AD (1)
December 28th, 1873 AD (1)
October 9th, 1873 AD (1)
April 9th, 1873 AD (1)
April 3rd, 1873 AD (1)
March 10th, 1873 AD (1)
March, 1873 AD (1)
January 23rd, 1872 AD (1)
January 4th, 1872 AD (1)
December 7th, 1871 AD (1)
July 1st, 1871 AD (1)
February 9th, 1871 AD (1)
December 29th, 1870 AD (1)
December 22nd, 1870 AD (1)
November 17th, 1870 AD (1)
September 7th, 1870 AD (1)
July 14th, 1870 AD (1)
June 23rd, 1870 AD (1)
May 19th, 1870 AD (1)
May 18th, 1870 AD (1)
May 10th, 1870 AD (1)
May 2nd, 1870 AD (1)
April 15th, 1870 AD (1)
March 17th, 1870 AD (1)
March, 1870 AD (1)
February 10th, 1870 AD (1)
February, 1870 AD (1)
January 29th, 1870 AD (1)
December 23rd, 1869 AD (1)
November, 1869 AD (1)
August 19th, 1869 AD (1)
June 10th, 1869 AD (1)
May 20th, 1869 AD (1)
April 27th, 1869 AD (1)
April 21st, 1869 AD (1)
April 20th, 1869 AD (1)
January, 1869 AD (1)
1869 AD (1)
December 31st, 1868 AD (1)
December 10th, 1868 AD (1)
September 10th, 1868 AD (1)
July 23rd, 1868 AD (1)
May 13th, 1868 AD (1)
January 30th, 1868 AD (1)
1865 AD (1)
1834 AD (1)
October 12th (1)
September 27th (1)
August 13th (1)
July 6th (1)
July 2nd (1)
June (1)
May (1)
April (1)
February (1)
January (1)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: