Right and wrong in Massachusetts

by Maria Weston Chapman

The individual and collective energy of the community, both moral and physical, was that year employed to keep women from leaving what was termed “their appropriate sphere,” by petitioning and holding the meetings of their respective Societies; but in vain.

Their sole reply to the restrictive efforts of the public, was conveyed in such resolutions as the following:—“Resolved, that, in a conflict of principles, we believe Scripture to teach that there is neither bond or free, male or female, foreigner or native; but all are one in Christ Jesus; and therefore feel ourselves called in common with man, to toil and suffer, as all must, who effectually defend the truth.” Manifold were the pretences under which men disguised their hatred to freedom. From the beginning, those who professed to be thoroughly opposed to Slavery in the abstract, (such was the cant phrase of that time,) had concealed their hatred to liberty under the guise of dislike to the measures of abolitionists. As those measures were entirely unexceptionable in reality, the pretence settled down into a stereotyped aversion to harsh language. Under this term, were comprehended that faithfulness to principle, accuracy of moral classification, appropriateness of style to subject, and strict impartiality which the effects of Mr. Garrison’s example had been to make general in the cause. It was this example of fidelity which made an expression of confidence in him, or an expression of approbation of his course, equivalent to a test-act. There are so many persons who will assent to an abstractly righteous proposition, though they start back in alarm from righteousness personified, that it was fortunate for the cause, if such were prevented by his faithfulness from clogging it with their useless numbers.

The most delightful and at the same time the most surprising feature of the Anti-Slavery cause was the harmonious co-operation of all engaged in its advancement. Delightful, because rare in any circumstances,—surprising, because the materials of which the Society was formed, were, to human eye, so discordant. But each member, in virtue of a clear perception of the truth that the whole is greater than a part, when sect came in collision with the universal cause of freedom, made the less give way to the greater, and each was zealously and kindly watchful, not to enforce his distinctive opinions, in religion or politics, on his brother. Seeing that his brother had religious and political principles of his own, he contented himself with urging their constant application to the case of the enslaved. This watchfulness was perhaps more careful in Massachusetts, than in any other state. Abolition there had been a growth and not a manufacture; and it was observable that the more devoted was the zeal of the abolitionists, the more enlarged was their toleration. It was neither natural nor desirable that differences of opinion should not occasionally appear in Abolition meetings, but their appearance was never the signal of wrath and clamor.

The great hope of the association was that the church might be roused by its instrumentality to put forth her moral power against slavery; and at the New England convention of 1836, a resolution was proposed declaring that a church using its influence to delay and prevent the fulfilment of the will of Christ, has no claim to be considered his; and that only those churches who employed their associated influence for reform, should be considered the true and real church of God. Elizur Wright objected to any resolution which would divide the church;—our object was to purify. Rev. Mr. Peckham followed him, declaring that this Convention, not being an ecclesiastical body, was not qualified to sit in judgment on the churches. Many of the members of the Convention were not, he said, even church members, and therefore it was improper for them to sit in judgment on the conduct of church members. Should we say to this man, who is an abolitionist, Stand thou here, and to another, who is opposed to abolition, Stand thou there? Were there no spots upon our own garments, which those we undertake to sever from the church might point out? On the question of abolition he was ready to go as far as any Anti-Slavery man he ever saw; but when a measure was proposed that must divide the churches, he must oppose it. The Rev. Geo. Allen, of Shrewsbury, thought the passage of a resolution dangerous which might be followed by denunciation, vituperation and division of the churches. The resolution was recommitted. Subsequently one was offered by Rev. J. T. Woodbury, enforcing discipline and excommunication of slaveholders. The strong words of truth he uttered on that occasion sank deep into the hearts of hundreds who heard them, and influence their conduct to this day.

“What is the Church doing?” he said. “Selling indulgences for sin—the worst of sins—the sin of man-stealing—yea, the sin of stealing and selling a brother in the Church! What do they do? The hammer is lifted over the head of the Christian—yes, the Christian, the child of God—and the cry is, who bids? Brother sells his brother, and the Church says, it is all right, while the watchmen, on the walls of Zion, pass the word, all’s well! Though the auctioneer is a church member, the seller, and buyer, and the poor slave, all members of the same Church, yet the Church does not censure the deed. It is all right. * * * The Church that does not pronounce slavery a sin, and deal with its members, who refuse to confess and forsake it, in effect, licenses slavery. It stands as the virtual endorser of the crime. If men are robbed of the Bible, and of all knowledge of letters; if parents are punished, as felons, for teaching their own children the alphabet, and the Church does nothing, then the Church, by its silence, endorses it, and declares it is all right. If parents are robbed of their children, forced to see them dragged to the market, and knocked off to the negro speculator—the Church stands by, and says, “It’s all right.” The Church allows this, not only in its members, but in its elders, and deacons, and pastors, and bishops; and hence it stands justly responsible for selling indulgences to license the sin of slavery. * * * What! shall the American churches form Bible societies, and pledge themselves before God, that they will give the Bible to the whole world, and then withhold it from twenty-five hundred thousand souls in their very midst? What have we seen here? A Virginia Christian slaveholder comes here, and appeals to us about the Virginia State Bible Society, to send the Bible to the extreme ends of the earth. * * * Why don’t he give the Bible to his own slaves then, and teach them to read it, before he asks for our money to help him send Bibles to the slaves in sin in distant lands? How does he look; the agent of the Virginia Bible Society, begging for money, to give the Bible to Chinese men and Hindoo pariahs, and refusing to give it, or let us give it, to six hundred thousand immortal beings in his own State? Why, what a hypocrite! Is there a being on earth, the most degraded even of the miserable slaves, whose souls are left to perish, who cannot see the inconsistency, the absurdity, the hypocrisy of this? Is God a fool, to be thus mocked? Sir, I will raise my voice against such hypocrisy as long as I live. It shall ring in the ears of every slaveholder who asks us to help him give Bibles to the heathen, thousands of miles off, while he withholds them from the slaves at his own door. Why, his very Bibles, which he sends to the Hindoo, are bought with the blood and souls of his slaves. It is dividing the gains of hell with God. * * * If this is Christianity, well might the heathen say, God defend us from Christianity.”

A graphic picture, distinct as just, and yet there sat a few in this very convention “ready to go as far as any Anti-Slavery man they ever saw,” who deprecated division on Anti-Slavery ground, though their general principle was, to hold no fellowship with immorality. The resolution of Mr. Woodbury passed, with but one dissenting voice. Mr. Sewall, who voted in the negative, and Mr. May, who declined voting on the question, explained their conduct by stating that they “entertained doubts whether any body of Christians had a right to exclude a man from the communion table at all.” At the same time they heartily agreed with the Abolition spirit of the resolution, and thought it the duty of Christians who believe in the propriety of this discipline in the church to vote for it. In the course of the Convention, a resolution was presented, involving a personal pledge from each member, of life and fortune and honor to the cause; and well-remembered words of fervent solemnity yet sound in the ears of those who were then adjured to stand firm, “come what might.” Women were earnestly entreated to assist the passage of this resolution, and almost all present united in it.

The ecclesiastical opposition to the cause could not fail to be brought out in bold relief by the proceedings of this Convention. During the whole year, its workings were manifest, and at the annual meeting of the Massachusetts Society in 1837, its efforts were successfully exerted in reducing the Abolitionists to the necessity of meeting in a stable. Though the church cast its whole weight in their way, the State was less obstinate in its opposition, and the use of the State House was permitted for one session of the Society. Mr. Stanton wished that this yielding on the part of the State might be considered as a keen rebuke to those churches which had refused their houses of worship, that we might plead in them the cause of 2,000,000 of American heathen. Mr. Fitch deprecated this “turning aside” to remark upon the obstacles cast in our way. He feared there was danger of losing sight of the end of our organization as an Anti-Slavery Society. “We should not let these efforts for free discussion so absorb our minds. Let us think of the infinitely more oppressive wrongs of the poor slave.” There was an indefinable something in these remarks, which revealed an entire want of comprehension of the hearts of abolitionists in general. Was it for themselves, then, that they made these efforts, and administered these rebukes? Were not their thoughts riveted on the Slave? and was not this fixedness of determination the very cause of their rebukes, and of their efforts for free discussion? Free discussion of what? Why, of the Slaves’ wrongs and the means of righting them! and yet this incomprehensible jargon about turning aside!

During the succeeding meetings, the Anti-Slavery spirit swelled high and strong. The Liberator was warmly sustained by all the friends present, among whom were Messrs. Chaplin, Walker, May, and Stanton. “The inquiry is often made of me,” said Mr. Stanton, “why does not the American Society sustain it? The answer is, Let Massachusetts sustain it, as she ought.” Mr. St. Clair, in particular, expressed the warmest eulogy on the Liberator. Mr. Garrison spoke as one knowing the folly of being elevated by human applause, or depressed by human censure; he remarked that it was neither his aim nor expectation, to please every subscriber. “It must suffice that free discussion is my motto, and those who are opposed to me in sentiment are always invited to occupy a place.” Political action, as one of the modes contemplated by the Society, was adverted to. Mr. Stanton introduced a resolution, affirming that the people of Massachusetts ought not to vote for an upholder of slavery. Mr. Garrison warmly seconded the resolution.

At the New-England Convention of 1837, Mr. Phelps followed up the efforts upon the church, by a series of resolutions, accompanied by most convincing reasons, urging the necessity of the excommunication of slaveholders, and a solemn consideration of the question whether, the churches remaining obdurate, it be not the duty of the advocates of truth and righteousness to “come out from among them, and be separate.” These resolutions were heartily approved by the Convention, with the exception of the Rev. Samuel Lee. The argument by Mr. Peckham, in 1836, that this Convention was not an ecclesiastical body, and that many of its members were unconnected with any church, weighed much in the mind of Mr. Lee. He represented that the brethren present, ought to consider, before adopting the resolutions, the manner in which they would be met by the associations of the Ministry. They will say that this Convention was composed of men who hold that Christ is God, and must be worshipped as such, and others who deny this, and believe it idolatry so to worship him; again there are others who make no pretensions to religion, but trample under foot the blood of Christ: now they will say, these persons come together in an Anti-Slavery Convention, conniving at each other’s sins, and then pass resolutions touching a particular sin about which the church differs. There were a great many ministers engaged in this good work, but though we were abolitionists, must not the ministers of the church stand up for the church, and protect her walls from being thrown down? These resolutions proposed to divide the church—that would be the effect. They would be an entering wedge. They would be driven home by the newspapers and other influences, till the church was severed. Subsequently Mr. Lee gave his brethren a word of caution not to say too much against the church. Bad as it was, it was the light of the world; and if we wanted to save the world, we must preserve the church of Christ on earth.