American Experience; The Abolitionists; Interview with Manisha Sinha, part 3 of 4

So how has Garrison changed what has encountered with the mob combustion? Garrison's encounter with the mob personally, and of course all the violent attacks against abolitionists that occur throughout the 1830s, I think is what moves him towards non-resistance. He sees violence as the tool of his opponents, of his enemies, and to answer that he feels that one should not in fact resort to their means. And he moves towards non-resistance, which is a radical form of pacifism, which rejects the use of force by governments and states also. And I think one of the reasons why he moves towards that philosophy is because when these mob attacks take place against him, against abolitionists, many time local authorities and state authorities are complicit.

The people leading these mobs were at times local democratic party politicians. They were gentleman of property and standing, they were prominent men of the community. And Garrison sees the link between mob violence and what he sees as the criminality of the United States government in upholding the system of slavery. If it means turning a blind eye towards these attacks on American citizens for speaking out against slavery or even if it means blaming the abolitionists for, quote, provoking the violence against themselves. And I think that decade does move him closer to this idea of non-resistance, of using a radical pacifism as an answer to anti-abolitionist mobs and violent responses to the abolition movement.

Why do you think Garrison published actually in the criminal case letter? I think Garrison really got Angelina's point. He had already done what Angelina called for, which was to live and die for the cause. He had decided at the young age of 26 to dedicate his life to abolition, even if it meant that it might cost him his life. And it is interesting that many black and white abolitionists in this early period of abolitionism spoke of abolitionism as a dangerous enterprise. They knew they were risking a lot to become abolitionists, that they could be mobbed and attacked the way Theodore Weld was. They could be mobbed the way Garrison was. Garrison could have been lynched that day if he hadn't been jailed and hadn't been protected by the carpenter who hides him or the mayor who then decides to jail him for his own protection.

Angelina in saying that this cause will require sacrifice, that this is not just some white middle-class northerners riding against slavery in the safety of their drawing rooms. They were taking real risks, they were putting their lives at risk in order to join this movement and in order to speak out against slavery. And I think Garrison immediately recognized in Angelina Grimke's letter that aspect of abolitionism. It was not because he or other early abolitionists had quote, a matter complex. But they realized that this was going to be risky. And they never argued that the risk they were taking outweighed the wrongs they were speaking out against. They repeatedly said, what we are suffering is nothing.

It's nothing. It's a drop to an ocean compared to what slaves had to endure day in and day out. But it was worthwhile to draw attention to their suffering. It was worthwhile to take those risks. And Garrison also was known to publish women. He published black and white women right from the start. And I think he never differentiated between male and female authors, encouraged women to come out publicly against abolition and to write for the liberator. He did not just stick them into a lady's department. He would many times publish them in the main body of the paper. And I think that was important to, and it was one of the reasons why he publishes Angelina Grimke. Women were very important to the cause. So, at first glance, it would seem that the schism was a terrible thing for the A-hers in the slashed membership.

And in conclusion, when you read Garrison's letters quite before, why was Garrison thrilled about this? It represented both a strength and weakness of the abolition movement. Its diversity was its strength. You had African-Americans, women, evangelical abolitionists like the Tappans, Garrison and some of his initial radical followers in the movement, but the diversity that was the strength of the movement also proved to be the cause of division. And I think is not so much euphoric or triumphant about the schism, but he realises that he has won an important victory. His opponents want to read him and his, quote, heresies out of the movement. They feel that the movement that Garrison started is actually suffering under his leadership because he was interested in non-resistance, he was too critical of the established church, he flirted with religious perfectionism, he supported women's rights.

All these his opponents saw as extraneous causes that would harm the cause of abolition. And they even accused Garrison of abandoning the cause of the slave in order to espouse these extraneous causes. Garrison never saw it that way. He knew that women, for instance, had been very important for soldiers of the abolition movement. They had been indispensable to the petition campaign, to collecting signatures. And in good conscience, he would never argue for a second reposition for them and he would support them. He would support Angelina Grimke when she spoke out publicly. He would support women like Abby Kelly Foster, Lydia Maria Child, who did make a big deal about women's rights, but who had been in the movement right from the start. So Garrison actually, I think, felt relieved that he was able to retain control of the

American anti-slavery society because he knew that the opposition to him had grown and that it was also pretty powerful because many members of the executive committee of the American anti-slavery society were opposed to him and his ideas. He also knew that there was a group associated with James Bernie and Henry Stanton who wanted to take the movement to a political direction. And he felt that abolition was not ready to go there. He felt that abolition still had a lot of work to do as agitators. So there was difference in ideology, in tactics, not over the program of immediatism and black equality. That was the lowest common denominator in order to be an abolitionist in the antebellum era, at least a commitment to, you know, a programmatic commitment to black equality.

But there were differences over these other issues. And when his opponents tried to read him out of the society that he had helped found, I think he was quite taken aback. His opponents though had underestimated how loyal most abolitionists would be to the old American anti-slavery society, how loyal certainly women and many African Americans would be to the American anti-slavery society. I don't think Garrison is triumphant about the schism, but he is happy that he has saved the society, which he sees as the embodiment of the movement, that he has retained control of the American anti-slavery society, which he was in danger of losing in 1839, 1840. It seems to, it speaks to his role as an educator, as opposed to a lot of the operative. How would he have to find his role, if change was going to come, how would Garrison

bring it up? Garrison felt that the political system reflected public opinion, that it would reflect a change in opinion on issues of slavery and race. He felt that it was premature for abolitionists to enter politics when they had not completely finished that groundwork. Throughout the 1830s, abolitionists had met nothing but opposition, and by the end of the 1830s, when they did have thousands of supporters, when they were gathering millions of signatures for the petitions, there was some hope that abolition might actually make a difference in the political scene, at least most political abolitionists thought that. Garrison felt that that was not the time, that a lot more work had needed to be done. He kept talking about how most northerners were on regenerate races, that most southerners

were having defenders of slavery. He still thought that abolitionism needed to do a lot more work as a social movement, as a protest movement, before it could enter politics. He felt that by entering politics, abolitionists might, in fact, forget their main vocation, which was abolition, and instead become mere politicians who were bent on winning elections. I want to talk about, jump forward to 1847 in Garrison, Douglas on the Western Tour. Do you think Garrison perceived the change in his own colleague? Garrison is very liberal towards, well, I don't want to say that, I want to rephrase that.

Garrison is extremely, well, I want to phrase it precisely because it will be misinterpreted. I think Garrison is extremely supportive of Douglas from the moment he had heard Douglas speak in Nantucket. Garrison as a movement person, if you will, realized how important Frederick Douglass could be to the abolition movement. The testimony of a former slave against slavery would answer slaveholders in a way that abolitionists like himself could not. He was extremely supportive of Douglas and immediately recruits him as an agent of the

society because of that, and indeed, fugitive slaves like Douglas remake abolitionism. They gave abolitionist, it's most potent issue and it's most leading orators and leading thinkers, in fact, as far as Douglas was concerned. Garrison is fairly supportive of Douglas. Even when they come back from England, they have both had a triumphant tour in England, and Garrison knows that Douglas is the star of the show. I think it is wrong to say that Garrison became jealous of Douglas. He did not. In his letters to his wife, he wrote saying, I made a very good speech, but then Douglas came and Douglas made an even better speech, just a paraphrase, what he wrote. I don't see any hint of jealousy at all.

In fact, he is rather happy at the success of Douglas, whom he sees in a way as his protege. But something does change. Douglas comes back from England confident in his abilities, willing to strike out on his own in the movement. And when his English friends raise money to purchase him, many Garrisonians criticize Douglas as reneging on abolitionist principle. He is recognizing his status as property in paying his master for his freedom. And it is Garrison who comes to Douglas's defense. Garrison is the one who says, you know, Garrison is always portrayed as this rigid, unbending person. And repeatedly he shows that he is extremely flexible when it comes to important issues. He realizes that freedom for a person like Douglas, who was now an international celebrity,

was invaluable. And he chites other white abolitionists who do not know what it is like to live as a fugitive slave, run away slave under the threat of re-inslavement. And he also knows that the abolition movement would lose its rising star, literally, if Douglas was, in fact, remanded back to slavery. So Garrison is rather supportive of Douglas at this point when Douglas is increasingly having many conflicts with Garrisonians, other abolitionists, when he is traveling with them. John Collins, he feels, talks too much about criticizing property, not enough about slavery. Maria Chapman is dictatorial towards him, and he does not like the tone that she adopts towards him.

Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, what I want to say is that at this point, many of Garrison, of Douglas's differences with other abolitionists are with people who describe themselves as Garrisonians, other white abolitionists. It's not with Garrison. It's not until 1851, literally, when Douglas comes around to the view that the United States Constitution is not pro-slavery, that Garrison becomes increasingly disenchanted from him. It is true that, on their speaking tour, immediately after their return from England in 1847, Garrison has to stop because he falls ill, and he's hurt that Douglas does not write a letter inquiring after his illness, but that's not a big division. It would be very much a letter that maybe even a parent would write about the inconsiderateness

of a child or a spouse or a family member or a close friend who had not shown enough concern when something had happened to them. It is not even so much when Douglas starts his own paper, The North Star, in 1848. Many Garrisonians are upset because they see that it will compete against the liberator for subscribers, especially amongst the African-American community, that remain a very strong mainstay of the liberator's subscription. Garrison, in his paper, actually commands Douglas, whatever misgiving he may have had, that Douglas is starting his own paper. It's when Garrison moves towards political abolitionism, that Garrison is upset with him. That Garrison is upset with him. Did I say that when Garrison moves towards political abolitionism?

I said when Garrison moves towards him? Oh, okay. Okay, so let me say that again, that would be a big blooper. It's when Douglas moves towards political abolitionism that Garrison becomes extremely upset with him, and Garrison, Douglas announces that change, actually, on a platform that he's sharing with Garrison, so he does it publicly. In Garrison, response saying there's roguery somewhere, that's the first break. By 1853, that break becomes irreparable because it becomes extremely personal and bitter. What are the things that are being drawn around in the 1853? Well, at this point, Douglas is still part of the American anti-Slavery Society. In fact, he's elected to his Board of Managers, even when he's announced his change of opinion on the U.S. Constitution, but many Garrisonians oppose him now and are distrustful of him.

Garrison does not enter the fray. It's when Douglas publishes a piece accusing Garrisonians of, quote, religious infidelity, and then specifically attacking black Garrisonians as betraying their race and attacks them personally for supporting the Garrisonian position on the U.S. Constitution and against going into politics that Garrison takes note. And he responds in a very personal way by questioning Douglas's relationship with Julia Griffiths. This was a matter of considerable gossip in abolitionist circles. But by raising it publicly, Garrison has hit Douglas below the belt. And Douglas has sort of hit Garrison below the belt in arguing that black Garrisonians are

childlike and not manly enough to stake out their own positions. In fact, he accuses black Garrisonians of doing things that he thought Garrisonians were accusing him of, which was being dependent on them for his philosophy and his ideas. So they both, I think, take the low road on this and it is not a happy division. And part of it was because precisely because they were so close that they, when they differ with each other, they do so in such a personal way. It's like a family quarrel where they're airing each other's dirty laundry and it's not a pretty sight. And they do not ever completely break on abolition as such. But in the 1850s and the mid-1850s, that break is pretty bitter and it's pretty personal.

I want to ask you about Anthony Burns, I know this question, do you know that's Trish Merrill? Why would Boston ready to erupt over this, understand that there was a meeting there and a huge slave issue in the 1850s becomes such an important issue for the abolition movement. Both in terms of gaining new converts, but also in developing a more militant stand against slavery. It's free blacks and African Americans who've had vigilant committees in their communities and who've always helped fugitive slaves, who have always sort of been quite militant when it comes to protecting fugitive slaves and helping them.

White abolitionists are in this too before. But by the 1850s with a new fugitive slave law, which is so draconian and which demands that northern white citizens become involved in apprehending fugitive slaves and which denies fugitive slaves trial by jury, that law literally galvanizes the entire abolition movement. And there are these spectacular instances of black and abolitionist resistance to the law, the Christiana riot, the Jerry Henry Rescue and Syracuse, there are other cases in Boston that precede the Antony Burns case. But the Antony Burns case really becomes a focal point because this is one instance, one famous instance, because there are many other instances, less famous where fugitive slaves were actually rendered back to the south. But this is one famous instance at the very heart

of abolitionism where both black and white abolitionists had rallied to get Burns out of the prison and they had opposed his rendition legally through street action whatever methods they could and they fail. These literally federal troops have to be called in to enforce the fugitive slave law. And Antony Burns is sent back to Georgia where he receives a lashing. And it's a failure for the movement, but the fact that this happens in Boston and that the streets are decked in black, it's a pure hick victory for southern slaveholders because I think it gains abolitionists a lot more sympathy and a lot more sympathy for their stance of refusing to abide by this law. So it is an extremely important case, one of those stepping stones to the Civil War, but it illustrates the importance of the fugitive

slave issue and the fact that the abolitionists are able to mobilize against it in such a manner. Did Garrison re-evaluate his stance on politics with the rise of the Republican Party? What's interesting about Garrison is that he is a lot harder on abolitionists who go into politics than politicians who move towards anti-slay rate abolition. He feels that abolitionists in wanting to create an abolitionist political party like the Liberty Party are compromising and reneging on their commitment. But when he sees politicians like Lincoln or anti-slay rate parties, free-soil parties,

like the Republican Party, taking any sort of anti-slay rate stance, ironically he sees that as progress. He sees the realm of abolitionists to be the realm of agitation and the realm of politics to be that of politicians and abolitionists needed to constantly pull these parties and these politicians who are even slightly sympathetic to their aims towards the pure standard of immediatism and black rights. So ironically Garrison is a lot less harsh on the Republican Party than he is on the political abolitionist. He is actually supportive of Lincoln's election. He would rather vote for Lincoln if he believed in voting. He does not believe in voting and he personally does not vote than he would for a political abolitionist.

At the same time, he recognizes the Republican Party for what it is. It's not an abolitionist party. It's a free-soil party committed to the non-extension of slavery. He still sees that as an enormous triumph for the abolitionist movement. That the pendulum has swung so far on slavery in the north by the late 1850s that you could have an entity like an anti-slay Republican Party. I think he does see it as somewhat of a vindication of the abolitionist movement and his work, but he still holds the Republicans to the abolitionist standard. He's still critical of them. He's a critical ally and he adopts that stance with Lincoln. He can be extremely critical of him, but he's also very supportive of him. Unlike some other abolitionists like Wendell Phillips, who never really warms up to Lincoln

and even tries to lead a movement against his re-enomination. Some abolitionists do that. Garrison never does that. He realizes that the Republican Party is the best that you could get in the political world. In the end, the Republican Party, because of the revolutionary nature of the civil war itself and its aftermath, does move from non-extension to abolition to black rights. A lot of people argue that Garrison compromised with his principles in defending John Brown that he was warming up to the notion of using violence in order to overthrow slavery. I don't know whether that is entirely correct.

Garrison is pretty consistent when it comes to violence. In his discussion of Nat Turner's rebellion and other slave rebellions in the use of violence, he always deploys the use of violence and what he calls carnal weapons against slavery. He sees violence as Gandhi and others would later on as dehumanizing even in the best of causes. He's consistent about that, but he also always says, and this is right from the start when he discusses Turner's rebellion right down to Harper's Fairies' raid and his speech on John Brown. He says that if you praise the American Revolution, and if you praise Europeans fighting for their freedom, the Greek freedom fighters, the European revolutions of 1848, if you praise George Washington, then you must praise Nat Turner and John Brown, because they are doing nothing

different, they are just doing it for the cause of black freedom rather than white freedom. That's exactly what he says in the John Brown speech. He argues that in fact, John Brown had taken weapons, which he would not do, but he was a lot like the revolutionary generation in taking up arms to fight for the slave's liberty. In that sense, he sort of admires John Brown. He's never completely critical of him. He praises him, but at the same time he always says, when he talks about Nat Turner, Elijah Laujoy, John Brown, I do not control the use of violence. But if you think that the American Revolution was good, you have to think that these people are also acting on those very precepts. And Garethson realizes that people have criticized Brown and others mainly because they're fighting against slavery and for black freedom. I think the point where Garethson does compromise on his speech principles

is with the start of the Civil War. There Garethson has to choose. He has to choose between his speech principles and abolition. In all those people who had criticized Garethson for introducing extraneous causes into the abolition movement or to have realized that for him, for Garethson, abolition was always the first principle above his speech principles. And when he's forced to choose, like some Quakers during the Civil War, like some Quaker abolitionists, he chooses abolition over his speech principles.