American Experience; The Abolitionists; Interview with Julie Roy Jeffrey, part 2 of 5

So, what was the idea behind the great postal campaign? The great postal campaign took seriously the idea that you could change people's minds by exposing them to the anti-slavery case. And the American anti-slavery society decided to saturate the United States as far as it could with anti-slavery propaganda. This was possible because of the changes in the printing industry that made it cheap to create tracks and pamphlets. And so, this was an important use of the media of the day to spread the anti-slavery message. And so, within a year, the anti-slavery group had produced over a million pieces of propaganda. Tracks, pamphlets, newspapers, all sorts of material that they then sent through the mail and distributed to people to deliver the immediate emancipation message. And what was the response in the South to that?

The response in the South was fury and anger. The same kind of responses happened after the Nat Turner Rebellion. In Charleston, an enraged mob seized the mailbags and burned some of the propaganda with an effigy of Garrison nearby, or the Garrison was hanging in a tree or where the effigy was. But making its anger well-known, from some areas, there were calls for Congress to act to pass legislation that would make it impossible to send incendiary material through the mails. And although that never passed, the Postmaster of New York actually took the material out of the mailbags in response to popular pressure. So it just wasn't a southern issue, was a northern issue to some extent as well. Andrew Jackson denounced the great postal campaign in his state of the nation addressed to the country.

All of these activities helped make abolitionism into a free speech issue. It didn't just illuminate the link between civil authority repression and slavery, but it illuminated the fact that the authorities were willing to suppress free speech in order to protect a southern institution. The response in the South was one of fury and anger. So dissimilar from what had happened during the Nat Turner Rebellion in Charleston, for example, the mob seized the mailbags, pulled out the incendiary material, burned them, and there was an effigy of Garrison hanging nearby. That fury was not just confined to the South in New York. The Postmaster pulled out the incendiary material from the mailbags as well. Andrew Jackson denounced the great postal campaign in an address to the nation.

And it seemed clear to abolitionists that abolitionism wasn't just a matter of conscience. It was becoming a matter of the right to free speech. And so this starts coming north at the violence and the reaction. Can you describe the scene in Boston as the 1835 meeting of the Boston female anti-slang society meeting? It was dangerous to be an abolitionist. And an example of the danger on a large scale was in Boston where the women of the Boston female anti-slavery society were planning to hold their first anniversary meeting. They had invited George Thompson and English abolitionists to be their main speaker. But when the news of this got around, there was so much opposition to the meeting and to Thompson speaking that the ladies had a very hard time even finding a meeting space. Eventually, the women decided that it was too dangerous to have Thompson as their speaker.

So they invited Garrison instead, I guess thinking it would be less dangerous. And the day of the meeting, the anti-abolitionists who did not know that Thompson had been canceled printed a hand bill offering money to anyone that would lay violent hands on Thompson. And when the women went to the meeting, there was already an angry mob gathered. Only about 30 women made it to the meeting. The rest were deterred by the hisses and curses and racial slurs and turned back. Garrison was with them and the commotion outside was so severe that Mary Parker, who was the president of the Boston female anti-slavery society, decided that it was too dangerous to have Garrison speak. So she urged him to leave and he went into a nearby office in the same building. As the ladies proceeded with their meeting, the mayor of Boston broke into the room and

told the ladies that they had to end their meeting and that if they ended immediately, he would be able to get them out. And so the women left arm and arm and constables pushed through the crowds to allow the women to leave the building. They repaired to one of their members' houses where they were joined by the women who hadn't been able to make it through the crowd. Meanwhile, Garrison was in the back room in an office and the mayor told Garrison that he could not protect him and that he had better flee. Now, this was a pretty ominous thing to say. Seeing that the building was surrounded by an enraged mob. Garrison jumped out the window, second story window onto the roof of a shed, the back of the building that overlooked an alley. He went down into the alley, but that was filled with angry and angry mob as well. And he was soon tied and being carried through the alley. He was rescued by two workmen who just took him on their shoulders and pushed their way

through the crowd. And as they went through the crowd, people tore off Garrison's clothes and broke his glasses. They deposited Garrison at the city hall where he remained until he was spirited away secretly to the jail where he spent the night. And this horrifying event, and he couldn't have known for sure that he would come out alive, was an event that I think made him feel completely united with the cause. I think he said something like he was willing to have stone thrown at him rather than to accept gold for the sake of sin. And so the sense of commitment and even martyrdom was solidified. Garrison also felt that every violent event just drew more attention to abolitionism than before.

So in a sense, he welcomed the events of something that would grab the attention of other Americans. Yeah. How conscious was that strategy in the civil rights movement that there was a conscious? We're not going to provoke violence, but if violence happens, it serves our end. But was Garrison consciously, was that a conscious strategy on him? I don't think that Garrison or other abolitionists consciously encouraged violence or pursued violence, but they also felt that if they were called upon to make a speech or to visit a community, that was their first obligation. And so Garrison and other abolitionists would go to communities where they suspected there would be hostility and even danger. But I think it was in the way of, this is my duty, this is my obligation rather than this way is a way I'll get a lot of attention to my cause. Right.

Right. So I want to talk about the schism in 1840. What were the tensions kind of pulling the movement apart at that point? The tensions were building up in the later part of the 1830s and there were several issues about which abolitionists disagreed. One issue was about the role of politics, whether abolitionists should vote and whether in fact there might be some kind of abolitionist party. There was another issue about the participation of women in the movement and exactly what position they should have in anti-slavery organizations, mixed anti-slavery organizations. There was also concern on the part of people I will call non-garisonians for the moment because Garrison was embracing many different sorts of reform issues.

He embraced pacifism, for example. He spoke out strongly about the observance of the Sabbath because he felt Sunday was no more, a sacred day than others. And these people were concerned that Garrison and his followers were really muddying the issue, that the issue was emancipation and equal rights for black people. Issue was not the role of women in the cause. It was not about the Sabbath observance. So these issues simmered for some time and came to the breaking point in the late 1830s where some members of the New England anti-slavery society broke away and formed the Massachusetts abolitionist society. One would, I mean, how was the movement changed by that split? Well, the importance of the split grew obvious over time.

Garrisonians maintained that the only true focus of the anti-slavery movement should be immediate emancipation equal rights through the mode of moral swation or moral persuasion, whereas others who broke with Garrison believed that moral swation hadn't really worked. And not that they denied the importance of changing people's minds, but they believed that operating through the political system offered a better opportunity to deal with a slavery issue than just propaganda. Right. Right. Now, it would seem at first glance that the schism was a disaster for Garrison, the AAS membership of slash, the income of slash, but he, to judge by his letters, seemed quite

related. Why did Garrison consider what had happened to a great thing? Garrison considered what had happened to be a triumph, a purity over pragmatism. And he felt that he had upheld his principles in very significant ways. When he and other delegates went to the American anti-slavery society, there were those who had hoped those non-Garrisonians who had hoped that the anti-slavery society would actually come to an end, that it really couldn't contain the disagreements. Garrison himself feared that his opponents were going to turn the AAS into a political party. So Garrison was determined to keep the American anti-slavery society alive and true to his principles. And so he recruited people to come to that New York meeting, and about 450 people from Massachusetts, mostly women, joined him and went to the annual meeting.

And at a very critical vote, approved Abby Kelly, a woman abolitionist, to be a member of the business board, thus supporting Garrison's position that women should be full members, equal members of anti-slavery organizations. The importance of the numbers that Garrison brought with him are evident when you realize the vote in favor of Abby Kelly was about 570 to about 450 against her being elected. Garrison had brought 450, about 450 people from Massachusetts with him. So obviously the bulk of the vote came from the Garrisonians. So the non-Garrisonians eventually walked out of the AAS leaving Garrison and his group in charge of that original national organization. And for Garrison, that was also a great triumph. That's great.

I didn't know that vote total, actually. That's... Yes. That's pretty interesting. For a pacifist who's pretty good political... Yes. They also didn't have any rules for seating delegates, so firm and fast. So when he brought this great hoard with him from Massachusetts, they were able to actually sit in the convention. Right. Right. So in 1841, this new kid shows up, Frederick Douglass, and what did Garrison see in him? Garrison initially stood up when he heard Douglass speak and said something like, if anyone thinks a slave is a piece of property rather than a man, let him hear this man. And Douglass was an enormous addition to the anti-slavery cause because of course he was a former slave and he was a very persuasive order and could tell his story in very dramatic ways.

He was soon made a lecturer for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. And this was really an addition that was not only an addition of a person who had first an experience with slavery and who was a great speaker, but introducing in a very visible way the issue of race into the anti-slavery campaign. For example, as Douglass and other anti-slavery lecturers traveled on their lecture circuits, they often found themselves in very sticky situations with transportation companies like railroads who insisted that Garrison, excuse me, they just from the de-sacrification. Yes.

Do you mind just brushing your bangs out of your face? Garrison, Douglass was not only a dramatic speaker, but he brought to life the whole issue of racial prejudice. As he and other anti-slavery lecturers traveled around, they found themselves discriminated against on railway cars, conductors tried to force Douglass into the black car. And this mistreatment of Douglass was one of the events that instigated an anti-segregation effort on the part of Massachusetts abolitionists that eventually was successful. What were their tactics? Oh, I think you could call their tactics passive disobedience. They just refused to do what conductors told them to do. And they encouraged other abolitionists not to take train systems that discriminated. Right.

Right. But there were already early tensions in terms of Douglass' participation as a lecturer on one lecture tour where he and another African-American abolitionist traveled with two white lecturers, Douglass complained that the white lecturers were losing their focus on slavery and they were disciplined by the officers of the organization for, in a sense, daring to criticize their white colleagues. Also, I think Douglass was probably well aware that he and other black lecturers were paid less than white lecturers. Yeah, it's kind of stunning. Now, what was just to pull back and look at the anti-slavery movement as a whole? What was Garrison's status in the movement in 1844?

After the split. Yeah. So we're going to talk about this union. Oh, no. This is even before at the split of the American anti-slavery. Right. So after the split, four years after the split. Okay. Well, I want to say one other thing about the split. After the split of the anti-American anti-slavery society, Garrisonians really became a minority group in the anti-slavery movement as a whole because many people really felt that politics was the best way to go. But there was no one ever of this moral stature of Garrison. So though his followers were fewer in number than those who pursued politics, he spoke with the moral authority that a few others with perhaps the exception of Frederick Douglass could muster. That's interesting. I suppose once you get involved in politics here, moral stature is compromised. Right. Yeah.

And so within a few years, so we talked about how the movement had changed in the wake of the split. So Garrison is, in terms of his political impact on a fringe a little bit, but still a moral. Why did he start, why did he advocate this unionism? What was this unionism? This unionism was an idea that Garrison embraced partly because I think he had realized that moral swation was not going to have any impact on the South at all. And that a change in tactics was really necessary. And he came to the idea of disunionism through his study of the Constitution. And he determined that the founding fathers had made really a corrupt deal to ensure the passage of the Constitution that they had in fact been willing to protect slavery.

And this realization made him feel that those who disapproved of slavery really should withdraw from the union as a whole. And he also felt that if the North, of course he was speaking of the North, withdrew from the union that there was a possibility that their action would cause slavery to fall because there would be no military support for slavery. There would be no economic support from the North for slavery. So that maybe this move would have an impact on the South. But I think mainly he was feeling that the North should withdraw from a union that was sinful in nature and then had made all these compromised bargains with the institution of slavery. Was it a practical program or was it a kind of a political device, do you think?

Well, that's always hard to tell with Garrison whether something is a real program or a political device. Garrison was in a sense a great believer in the possibility of change. So it might be that he really thought that disunionism might work from a modern perspective. It seems unlikely that northerners who are not all convinced of the evils of slavery would ever do something as radical as withdraw from the union. On the other hand, I think many people would have thought in the 1830s that was unlikely that the South could have withdrawn from the union. So perhaps Garrison wasn't such a dreamer. Right, right. How was his idea received by disunionism, by other abolitionists, by the public in general? Well, most people were shocked and horrified by the idea that the North would withdraw from the union.

After all, July 4th was a sacred day and most northerners were patriotic, particularly alarmed, where the political abolitionists who had decided to work through the political system rather than withdraw from the current political system. And many of them had become persuaded that the Constitution was not a pro-slavery document as Garrison insisted, but that it actually was an anti-slavery document. So to hear Garrison say, first of all, let's withdraw from the political system. And secondly, the Constitution is this corrupt and evil document was not something that political abolitionists wanted to hear. Right, great. Now, so in 1847, Douglas chose to England and by his own account was living a new life and was really transformed by his experience.

Do you think, when he came back in Garrison, he and Garrison team up for their western tour, do you think Garrison understood the change that had happened in Douglas? I think at the deepest level, Garrison must have understood something very important to change with Douglas. During the two years that Douglas was in England, he was lionized, his freedom was secured, he was offered money so that he would not have to work when he returned to the United States. And Douglas suggested that that money be used to buy a printing press so that he could start a black newspaper. Garrison joined him on that trip for three months, and I'm just can't prove, but I can't believe that Garrison did not realize that this young man whom he had considered his protégé was now someone who was very powerful in his own right. When they returned from England, Douglas had floated the idea of a black newspaper and the American anti-slavery society had rejected the idea and Garrison was very much against

the idea because the liberator had lost some black subscribers and he felt that there were already too many anti-slavery newspapers. So that was a situation when they went on their western tour and everything seemed to be going fine on that western tour, which was several months in duration. That's the end of that tour, Garrison became very sick. And as he recovered, he learned that Douglas had decided to start a black newspaper after all. And he was horrified and distressed. He had initially been unhappy that Douglas had not communicated with him when he was ill, but then he heard the news about the black newspaper and he felt betrayed. Why did Garrison take it so personally? Garrison, I think, did not want anyone else to be in the same leadership position as

he was. And perhaps Douglas was the only one that approached him in terms of talent and moral stature and editorial ability in terms of running a new possibility of running a newspaper. Garrison felt that this was his protégé, Douglas felt that he was only trying to do the very same things that Garrison himself had done and couldn't understand why the older man would not give him the same opportunities that Garrison himself had enjoyed. Now I think it's Garrison's fault that the falling out turned so bitter and personal. Garrison just felt that people who did not agree with him were his enemies and traders. And he had a very vituperative pen and speech when he turned against people who had once been his associates.

There was no compromising for Garrison with people who departed from his position. Right, right. What were the differences? How would you characterize their differences in their approach to this struggle? Well their differences initially were just who was going to have a newspaper but the differences became more significant and I suppose they became more heated as Garrison turned against Douglas. Douglas soon came to embrace political action. It's not that he ever denied that moral swation or moral persuasion was important but he just felt that politics offered a better possibility for dealing with slavery than moral swation by itself did. So he embraced politics. He embraced the idea of black independence not that Garrison had not favored and worked with blacks but there's always this niggling sense that one has that Garrison felt that

he knew best and that African Americans should follow his lead rather than take an independent course. Politics was a very big difference between the two men. Right. Let me see. There was one other thing. Double check on the right.