A Visit to the United States in 1841

by Joseph Sturge

I visited at this time the celebrated Schuylkill waterworks, which are beautifully situated on the river of that name. The water is raised to large reservoirs, at a higher level than the tops of the houses, by pumps worked by the current of the river. The supply not only suffices for the domestic use of the inhabitants, but is abundant for every public purpose of ornament or utility. My kind host, Samuel Webb, who accompanied me, pointed out a plot of land, presented by William Penn to a friend, to enable him to keep a cow, which is now worth many hundred thousand dollars for building purposes. He also showed me a mansion, the late proprietor of which had received a large accession of wealth from the quantities of plate which had been shipped to him in coffee barrels from St. Domingo, on the eve of the revolution in that Island, and whose owners are supposed to have subsequently perished, as they never appeared, with one solitary exception, to claim their property.

It will be necessary, in order to make certain passages of the succeeding narrative intelligible to my readers in this country, that some account should be given of the schism which has recently taken place in the once united and compact organizations of the abolitionists.

The American Anti-Slavery Society, whose origin has been already described, acted with great unity and efficiency for several years; auxiliaries were formed in all the free States; it scattered its publications over the land like the leaves of autumn, and at times had thirty or forty lecturers in the field. It kept a steady and vigilant eye upon the movements of the pro-slavery party, and wherever a vulnerable point was discovered, it directed its attacks. In its executive committee were such men as Judge Jay, Arthur and Lewis Tappan, La Roy Sunderland, Simeon S. Jocelyn, (the early laborer on behalf of the free colored people,) Joshua Leavitt, Henry B. Stanton, and the late Dr. Follen, a German political refugee, equally distinguished for his literary attainments and his love of liberty.

Until the last three or four years, entire union of purpose and concert of action existed among the American abolitionists. This harmony was first disturbed by the course pursued in the Boston Liberator. The editor of that paper, William Lloyd Garrison, whose early anti-slavery career has already been alluded to, and who was deservedly honored by the great body of the abolitionists, for his sufferings in their cause, and for his triumphant exposure of the oppressive tendencies of the colonization scheme, had always refused to share with any society or committee, the editorial responsibility of his journal. About the time referred to, several pieces were inserted in the Liberator, questioning the generally received opinions on the first day of the week. These were followed by others on other subjects, and he continued to keep his readers apprised of the new views of ethics and theology, which from time to time were presented to his own mind. His paper was not the special organ of any anti-slavery society, yet it was regarded, by general consent of the friends and enemies of the cause, as the organ of the anti-slavery movement. The discussion in its columns of new and startling doctrines, on subjects unconnected with slavery, occasioned many of the former much uneasiness and embarrassment, while it furnished the latter with new excuses for their enmity, and with the pretence that under cover of abolition, lurked a design of assailing institutions and opinions justly held in regard throughout the Christian world.

In the summer of 1837, Sarah and Angelina Grimke visited New England for the purpose of advocating the cause of the slave, with whose condition they were well acquainted, being natives of South Carolina, and having been themselves at one time implicated in the system. Their original intention was to confine their public labors to audiences of their own sex, but they finally addressed promiscuous assemblies. Their intimate knowledge of the true character of slavery; their zeal, devotion, and gifts as speakers, produced a deep impression, wherever they went. They met with considerable opposition from colonizationists, and also from a portion of the New England clergy, on the ground of the impropriety of their publicly addressing mixed audiences. This called forth in the Liberator, which at that time, I understand, was under the patronage, though I believe not under the control of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, a discussion of the abstract question of the entire equality of the rights and duties of the two sexes. Here was a new element of discord. In 1838, at the annual New England convention of abolitionists, a woman was for the first time placed on committees with men, an innovation upon the general custom of the community, which excited much dissatisfaction in the minds of many.

About this time the rightfulness of civil and church government began to be called in question, through the columns of the Liberator, by its editor and correspondents. These opinions were concurrently advocated with the doctrine of non-resistance. Those who hold these opinions, while they deny that civil and ecclesiastical government are of divine authority, are yet passively submissive to the authority of the former, though they abstain from exercising the political rights of citizenship. There were not wanting those, among the opponents of abolition, to charge the anti-slavery body at large with maintaining these views, and in consequence serious embarrassments were thrown in the way of a successful prosecution of the cause. The executive committee of the Society at New York were placed in a difficult position, but as far as I am able to judge, they endeavored to hold on the steady tenor of their way, without, on the one hand, countenancing the introduction of extraneous matters upon the anti-slavery platform; or, on the other hand, yielding to the clamor of the pro-slavery party, whether in church or state.

In subsequent anti-slavery meetings in Boston, New York, and elsewhere, it became manifest that there was a radical difference of opinion on the subject of political action; the non-resistant and no-government influence, operating decidedly against the employment of the elective franchise in the anti-slavery cause; and the agitation of this question, as well as that of the rights of women, in their meetings, gave to them a discordant and party character, painfully contrasting with the previous peaceful and harmonious action of the societies. That some of both parties began to overlook the great subject of the slaves' emancipation, in zealous advocacy of, or opposition to, these new measures, I cannot well doubt, judging from the testimony of those, who, not fully sympathizing with either, endeavored to bring all back to the single object of the anti-slavery association. In addition to these intestine troubles, the pro-slavery party made strenuous exertions to fasten upon the society the responsibility of the opinions and proceedings of its non-resistant and no-government members. Under these circumstances it is easy to understand the interruption, for a season, of the unity of feeling and action which had previously characterized the assemblies of the abolitionists. The actual separation in the societies took place in the Spring of 1840. The members of the executive committee at New York, with one exception, seceded and became members of the committee of the "new organization," under the name of the "American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society." There are, therefore, now two central or national anti-slavery societies; the "old organization," retaining the designation of the "American Anti-Slavery Society." The State Societies have, for the most part, taken up a position of neutrality, or independence of both. It is important to add that the division took place on the "women's rights" question, and that this is the only one of the controverted points which the American Anti-Slavery Society has officially affirmed; and it is argued, on behalf of their view of this question, that since, in the original "constitution" of the society, the term, describing its members, officers, et cet., is "persons," that women are plainly invested with the same eligibility to appointments, and the same right to vote and act as the other sex. I need not say how this "constitutional" argument is met on the other side. The other new views are held by comparatively few persons, and neither anti-slavery society in America is responsible for them. In conclusion, I rejoice to be able to add, that the separation, in its effects, appears to have been a healing measure; a better and kinder feeling is beginning to pervade all classes of American abolitionists; the day of mutual crimination seems to be passing away, and there is strong reason to hope that the action of the respective societies will henceforward harmoniously tend to the same object. That such may be the result is my sincere desire. It is proper in this connection to state that a considerable number of active and prominent abolitionists do not entirely sympathize with either division of the anti-slavery society; and there are comparatively few who make their views, for or against the question on which the division took place, a matter of conscience.

I have now given a brief, and I trust an impartial account of the origin of these dissensions. Some may possibly regard the views and proceedings above referred to, as the natural growth of abolitionism, but as well might the divisions among the early reformers be charged upon the doctrines of the Reformation, or the "thirty years' war" upon the preaching of Luther.

On the evening of the 14th instant, we met at a social party the leading abolitionists of Philadelphia of the "old organization." There were present all but one of the delegates from Pennsylvania to the London Convention. I availed myself of the opportunity of briefly and distinctly stating the unanimous conclusion of the London Anti-Slavery Committee, in which I entirely concurred, on the points at issue. I observed, in substance, that in the struggle for the liberation of the slaves in the British Colonies, one great source of our moral strength was, the singleness of our object, and our not allowing any other subject, however important or unexceptionable, to be mixed up with it; that though the aid of our female coadjutors had been of vital importance to the success of the anti-slavery enterprize, yet that their exertions had been uniformly directed by separate committees of their own sex, and that the abolitionists of Europe had no doubt that their united influence was most powerful in this mode of action: that the London Committee being convinced that no female delegate had crossed the Atlantic, under the belief that the "call" or invitation was intended to include women, felt themselves called upon, without in the slightest degree wishing to interfere with private opinion on this, or any other subject, to withhold their assent to the reception of such delegates, as members of the Convention, and that their decision, when appealed against, had been ratified in the Convention itself, by an overwhelming majority, after a protracted discussion: finally, that those whose views I represented, could not be parties to the introduction, in any future convention, of this or any other question, which we deemed foreign to our cause, and therefore that for those with whom it was a point of conscience to carry out what they deemed "women's rights," I saw no alternative but a separate organization, in which I wished that their efforts on behalf of the oppressed colored race, might be crowned with the largest measure of success. I observed, in conclusion, that my object was simply to state the decision of those with whom I acted in Great Britain, and that I must decline discussion, being fully convinced that it was better that the now separate societies should aim at the common object, in a spirit of kind and friendly co-operation, each in its own sphere, rather than that they should waste their energies in mutual contentions, and in the unprofitable discussion of topics not legitimately belonging to the great question of the abolition of slavery.

Although I had to address a company almost unanimously opposed on these points to myself, my communication was received in a kind and friendly spirit, and I was courteously informed that it would be taken into consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.