Certainty, Crisis, Compromise: The Abolitionists of the Liberator Circle, 1860-1863 A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History in the University of Canterbury By Luis Paterson University of Canterbury 2017 1 Contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 3 Abstract ...................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 5 Frontispiece: The Liberator Circle ............................................................................ 12 Historiography .......................................................................................................... 14 Chapter One: Certainty ............................................................................................ 35 Chapter Two: Crisis .................................................................................................. 65 Chapter Three: Compromise .................................................................................. 110 Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 157 Bibliography ........................................................................................................... 160 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank Peter Field for his invaluable assistance and wondrous discussions, David Monger, for being a salutary secondary supervisor, and Mum and Dad, for always supporting me and allowing me to write this thing in the first place. 3 Abstract This thesis examines the abolitionist community that corresponded through the weekly abolitionist periodical The Liberator, organised into four different circles of the Liberator Circle, over the years 1860-1863. Chief editor William Lloyd Garrison, notable agitator Wendell Phillips, editor Charles Whipple, and their coadjutors in the Liberator Circle, believed that political abolition was impossible because the entire political system was founded on the proslavery compromise of the Constitution. Furthermore, it was impossible to take an uncompromising moral stand as a politician, for achieving consensus within any given party, as well as with the opposition, required compromise, as defined by George Santayana in Character and Opinion in the United States. Garrison and his coadjutors in the Liberator Circle fervently refused to compromise over the evil of slavery, and demanded immediate abolition through the anti-political means of northern disunion. This thesis argues that from 1860 to 1863 Garrison and the majority of the Liberator Circle compromised their ideal means of anti-political abolition and accepted the political abolition of the Emancipation Proclamation. The Circle’s process of accepting political means was not immediate, as revisionist and post-revisionist historiography suggests. Rather, it occurred over three distinct periods: Certainty, from 1860 to Abraham Lincoln’s election on November Eighth, Crisis, from Lincoln’s election to the bombardment of Fort Sumter on April Fourteenth 1861, and Compromise, from Fort Sumter to the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, January First 1863. Each of these periods align with a change in the masthead slogan of the Liberator, and represent different challenges to the identity of the Liberator Circle. This thesis analyses Garrison and his coadjutors’ path to compromise and what effect it had on the activist community of the Liberator Circle 4 Introduction 1860 to 1863 was a time of immense change for the United States. The election of Abraham Lincoln as the first antislavery president prompted the secession of eleven Southern States and led to a Civil War where 650,000 Americans lost their lives. Yet it also led to the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which declared all slaves in the rebellious states free and signalled the end of the peculiar institution. William Lloyd Garrison, founder and chief editor of abolitionist periodical The Liberator, believed that the Proclamation would ‘if energetically and uncompromisingly enforced, inflict a staggering blow upon that fearfully oppressive system.’1 Garrison was supportive of the Proclamation, as long as Lincoln and the Republican Government that enacted it followed it to the letter and truly ended slavery. This response was undoubtedly muted and critical. But the fact that Garrison was willing to accept any form of political abolition at all was a remarkable change from the anti-political agitation he had championed in The Liberator for nearly two decades.2 Over the course of 1860 to 1863, Garrison and the individual abolitionist agitators who corresponded through The Liberator, henceforth termed the Liberator Circle, went through a process of personal compromise that saw them shift away from demanding immediate, unconditional abolition through the repudiation of the Constitution and towards accepting the limited, political emancipation of the Proclamation. This compromise towards political means was not universal nor 1 William Lloyd Garrison, ‘National Anti-Slavery Subscription Anniversary [Advertisement]’ The Liberator, Vol. 32 No. 50, 12/12/1862. In the interest of brevity, all further references to The Liberator will omit the publication title, but include the author, article title, volume and issue number, and publication date. 2 Alieen S. Kraditor, Means and Ends in American Abolitionism: Garrison and His Critics on Strategy and Tactics: 1834-1850, (Pantheon Books: New York, 1969), p. 202 5 immediate amongst the Circle. But it did fundamentally alter the Circle’s activist community and challenged the hitherto concrete definitions of what it meant to be a Garrisonian abolitionist. Unlike other contemporary abolitionist societies, the Liberator Circle did not have any formal hierarchy. Although Garrison was the de-facto leader, he had no official title to this regard; he was an equal agitator along with every member of the Circle.3 Some form of an organizational structure can be ascribed to the four main groups of the Circle, however, by historical importance and amount of correspondence within the Liberator.4 Garrison, abolitionist agent Wendell Phillips, and co-editor Charles Whipple form the primary, or Inner Circle. Notable agitators like Henry Wright, Parker Pillsbury, and Lydia Child (who generally have published biographies) form the secondary circle, or Outer Circle. Regular correspondents form the tertiary circle, and the wider readership make up the quaternary circle, both of which fall under the Wider Circle. Only the tertiary circle prove problematic in terms of methodology. Essentially, they were anonymous; even though some signed with their full names, the majority choose to go by their initials, or a moniker such as ‘JUSTITIA’ or even ‘Yale College.’5 Because of this anonymity, it is impossible to identify these correspondents and ascertain the importance of their views in a historiographical sense. The tertiary circle cannot be ignored, however. Unlike the quaternary circle, the tertiary circle consisted of readers who were moved enough by the Liberator that they felt they had to actively engaged in correspondence, and were 3 Lawrence J. Freidman, Gregarious Saints: Self and Community in Antebellum American Abolitionism, (Cambridge University Press: 1982), p. 48 4 See Frontispiece: The Liberator Circle for a complete list of the Liberator Circle members referenced in this thesis. 5 JUSTITIA wrote four pieces of correspondence over 1860-1863: ‘What is Abolitionism? Who are the Abolitionists?’, Vol. 30 No. 4, 27/01/1860, ‘A Gratifying Testimonial’, Vol. 30 No. 13, 30/03/1860, ‘It Has Had some of the Bacon’, Vol. 32 No. 22 30/05/1862, ‘The Cause’, Vol. 32 No. 31 01/08/1862; Yale College, ‘Not a War for Liberty’, Vol. 31 No. 19 10/05/1861 6 considered to be equal agitators alongside Garrison. Therefore, their views are of equal importance in examining the concerns of the Circle as a whole. The masthead slogan of the Liberator changed twice over the period of Certainty, Crisis, and Compromise. The changes in the masthead slogan align with the Liberator Circle’s overall unity and ideal means of abolition. ‘NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS’ held pride of place from 1845 to 1861.6 A bold, unambiguous statement, this slogan represented the fundamental demand that united the abolitionist readership of the Liberator: the complete, unconditional abolition of slavery through the repudiation of the Constitution and the creation of republic that truly represented the ideals of its citizens. The only way to repudiate the Constitution was through the dissolution of the Union, a revolutionary process that was legitimized by the Declaration of Independence. Garrison formulated northern disunion in 1843 and championed it as the only morally acceptable means of abolition.7 Attempting abolition through politics was a futile endeavour, because to gain any form of progress in Congress antislavery Congressmen had to reach some form of compromise with their moderate and proslavery counterparts. Such was the case in 1820 with Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. Garrison demanded immediate, universal abolition, not the gradual half-measures of politicians. The first slogan change occurred in January 1861 in response to the Secession Crisis. Garrison chose a slogan that did