Right and wrong in Massachusetts

by Maria Weston Chapman

They had, from the very commencement of the agitation, professed themselves abolitionists in the abstract, and met the charge of inconsistency in their practice by strong disapprobation of Mr. Garrison. One might have thought, from their representations, that Mr. Garrison possessed a power over their course, by which he could actually hinder them from doing right. They addressed themselves to the work of communicating their own prejudices to the minds of their congregations, and greatly misrepresented both Mr. Garrison and the Liberator. The most false and derogatory reports were circulated as to his Christian and moral character. His blameless and excellent life nullified these efforts with all who knew him; but it is not wonderful that they should have taken effect in minds at a distance, whose only avenues to information were the ones which this malicious course choked up. It was unhesitatingly affirmed that the object of the Liberator was to abolish the office of the ministry; though its pages were searched in vain for any evidence of such an object. Nothing could there be found but proofs that slavery had disqualified the great majority of the incumbents of that office from exercising it.

It was triumphantly told that the Massachusetts Society had dropped the Liberator—that Mr. Garrison was a Fanny Wright man—an infidel—a Sabbath-breaker—a bad and dangerous man—promulgating the doctrines of the French Jacobins, &c. &c.

An outcry was raised by the enemy without the camp, which was responded to by the confederates within, that Mr. Garrison was loading the cause with a burden of extraneous topics. All the careful observers of the movement were aware of the falsity of this allegation, and testified to his habitual avoidance of such topics in Anti-Slavery meetings.

In fact, such discussions were always introduced by those who complained of them the loudest. All the anti-slavery editors were in the allowed practice of incidentally introducing their own religious and other opinions, notwithstanding their papers were the organs of State Societies, and therefore bound to more caution. But it was made a subject of accusation against Mr. Garrison when he did the same, though his paper was his own, and he introduced no subjects into it unless they had a practical bearing on the cause, and were at the same time considered debateable in all sects. Others might introduce column after column of extraneous matter: he was publicly accused, for a single line. Special efforts were made to induce men to cease to subscribe for the Liberator. It was, like Socrates, termed a corrupter of youth. Men of high ecclesiastical standing declared that they, though “as much abolitionists as any one else,” would never unite with the movement for abolition, as long as Mr. Garrison led the van.

The Rev. Joel Hawes, D. D., of Connecticut, was one of these. Judging of them from their ominous silence, when sectarianism had been most violent in its attacks on the integrity of the cause, he felt a drawing towards the Executive Committee at New York, and fancied them altogether such ones as himself.

His adhesion had been hailed with joy by abolitionists. They soon found reason to know that such adherents are more ruinous than open enemies, to the cause they espouse.

He travelled in Massachusetts, shortly after the New England Convention of 1838, memorable as the scene of the first attempt to exclude women from membership in anti-slavery meetings.

A number of clergymen of his own denomination, headed by Mr. Torrey and Mr. Phelps, had most inconsistently labored to vote away the freedom and the rights of the female members of that Convention. So indefinite were their ideas on the whole great subject of rights, that they overlooked the obvious thought, that no general anti-slavery convocation could take such ground without denying the fundamental principle that brought them together. In the horror of their great darkness on the subject of “woman’s rights,” they trampled on human rights, and the rights of membership, in the persons of those women whom they labored to exclude.

They also deeply wounded the feelings of the great body of the men there present; few of whom but had occasion to acknowledge, with grateful affection and respect, how much a mother, wife or sister had done, in the difficult years that were past, to help and strengthen them in the labors and sacrifices of the cause.