40
William Lloyd Garrison and the Problem of Non-Resistance
Elizabeth Forest
1838 William Lloyd Garrison and several fellow nonresistants broke with the American Peace Society over the issue of defensive warfare.’ The organization they Jnformed was the New England Non-Resistance Society, and although it faded out as an organization in the early 1840s, the principles that defined the Society remained with the individuals, shaping their approach to life, their individual crusades, and, most importantly, their fight against slavery. These nonresistants, however, would find their belief in nonviolence challenged as tensions increased between the North and South over slavery. As violence became a more widely accepted method for abolitionists, nonresistants found themselves in a difficult position of having either to hold fast to their strict pacifist principles or to acknowledge the use of other means in speeding the abolition of slavery. The Compromise of 1850, with its unpopular Fugitive Slave Law, pushed nonresistants to alter their willingness to accept violent means in the “war” against slavery. Radical abolitionists formulated their initial ideas about the acceptability of physical force in the 1830s, at the same time that William Lloyd Garrison promoted the shift from gradualism to immediatism. The Constitution of the American Anti-Slavery Society, written by Garrison in 1833, included a clause that rejected any use of violence. “Ours forbids the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to reject, and to entreat the oppressed to reject, the use of carnal weapons for deliverance from bondage; relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and mighty through God to the pulling down of strong bonds.”2 In November, 1837, Elijah Lovejoy, an abolitionist and nonresistant in Alton, flhinois, died while defending his printing press. After several previous attacks on his press, he chose to use weapons of self-defense. Most nonresistants deplored the use of violence by either side. Garrison wrote in The Liberator that “we solemnly protest against any of [Christ’s] professed followers resorting to carnal weapons under any pretext or in any extremity whatever.”3 At a meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society, nonresistant Samuel May proposed a resolution “declaring Lovejoy’s actions inconsistent with the principles of the society” because it was essential to be “especially careful in our adherence to our principles.”4 Prior to 1850, the nonresistants were perfectly willing to protest the use of any sort of violence.
1 Fora gooddescriptionofthe schismbetween the nonresistants and the American Peace Society, see “The Genesis of the Garrisonian Formula: No-Government and Nonresistance,” in Peter Brock’s Pacifism in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) 523-558. Lloyd Garrison, Selections from the Writings and Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison (Boston: R.f. Walcutt, 1852; reprint, New York: Negro University Press, 1968), 67 (page citations are to the reprint edition); John Demos, “The Antislavery Movement and the Problem of Violent ‘Means,” The New England Quarterly 37, no. 4 (December 1964): 506. Demos also notes that even in the case of slave revolts, nonresistants did not accept the use of violence. TheLiberator, 24 November 1837, 191. Valarie H. Ziegler, TheAdvocates of Peace in Antebellum America (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992) 63; Aileen S. Kraditor, Means and Ends in American Abolitionism: Garrison and His Critics on Strategy and Tactics, 1834-1850 (New York: Vintage Books, 1967) 82. It is important to note that the Problem led become contemporary were in change reorientation “regeneration no moral they perfect
characteristics millennium
movements, individual, Awakening. individual’s live accountability light individuals
ruler.”° of government,
although associated Pruninghooks: “ultraists.” diss. nonresistants participation Perry promoted University
the nonresistants, 6 movement.
9Peny,
following
Demos, Ronald
Kraditor,
allegiance ideological
Perry,
by God’s
peace
up refused
little
of nonresistants
University
(Radical
suasion The
While themselves Garrison.5
As sanctified to
246. the society.
all of
58.
G.
501;
principles
peace.
with
From
Press,
prerogatives; short Indeed, individual
103.
nonresistants
formation Violent
Walters,
teachings
to
was
private
“were
such,
stemming
and the relationship to
particularly as
The
also and
Abolitionism: According to
such
experiments
nonresistants
be to of split
of of
and
marginal,
In come
1973])
this
human of
were integral ultimately example
Mexico, Intellectual
in David convince
violence not free their
fact, of “radicalism,” while
American
in American In
nonresistants Perry,
millennial.”6 between ‘Means,” John the
the judgment
belief very
never the
and
of make
of
to
Henry to were
this
Lawson from
Garrison, ideology
New
government
Valarie government,
Jesus
on all 1975)
63. make the to image any active
Anarchy
to Demos,
personal
to
a of
were
good abolitionists,
Foundations
stemmed the
Reformers, in
Lewis abolish way,
England earth” C. large
tried
the
accepted conservative God, New
compromise Jesus
the
that their
wrote society,
Wright, Christ.
states participants religious
Ziegler
their unregenerate
were arguments
was of
Protestant all
group,
American was
and
the
to
nonresistants Perfectionism
wanted Christ. England
Perry, in
and and
understandings Non-Resistance in part
the
Christ.7
primarily
movement,
own
“society
the set that of
an a (The 1815-1860 a
the his they
of his
not
existing notions
prominent
government.”8 this
heightened which
Government of
significant God.”9 the
dissertation abhorrence perfectionism;
one illustrating
in
all focus the
Advocates Anti-Slavery decisions, private
peace article
the repudiated
Reformation’s over
the
First
a notion
Non-Resistance abolitionists
was
concerned
to
man nonresistant They
primarily
peace
same
government
(New
of
would American placed
on
nonresistant, accept their
advocates
were
Society. The judgment was
perhaps
“The
that the perfectionism
of “Swords between of
of
of crusade.”
by believed
York: paradigm; aspect but
of
God Peace Society
periphery
and
principles,
perfectionism
there on
nonresistants “the virtue. all
were
Nonresistants on the nonresistance, human radical require
Antislavery
and those Peace
the
It in deeply
Hill
war
insistence
into movement private
in were
is
Antislavery one went notion nonresistants.
revivals and
fringe rejected
(17) “suggested
of
another
of
Antebellum
evident, Society
its
that
and
Movement,
of
Plowshares, and
decisions It
“they government;
involved
nonresistants
on most the because
Although the
a God. of long-range
Wang, was
and and
and
love, judgment.
a
that all
May’s
profound peace
radical
tour
however,
accepted the on of guided
considered man Movement
were
in Thought
would a
they
“paralleled resorts
the antebellum
always
America)
in 1978),
corollaiy individuals the of Fearful a the
not
1815-1865”
had 1838
resolution. it movement” Spears
the
Slavery, most they
responsibility
Europe
and is
sinful coming
who
would
primacy nonresistants,
Second
nonresistants
that force, abolitionist likely acknowledge
it expectations
to [Ithaca: 26.
to
the formalized The
of ideological to working
into actively was his
and
wanted be
the
important
violence,
to be being
invasions
and
of
that
various
rely right
(Ph.D.
Lewis done promote
rightful and role would reform
of human natural Cornell could
of
moral
Great
the
41
the
that
the
the
on
to
of
of to
in a in
to
to
in
in to
of
to
of
its
that the
his his
from may low fetter
shall
and
us
public
against
sense,
in of
to in
against of
only
used
we mean
become
resort
associated
imply Society
dictate.’3
hold be 126-27.
government and
forever.”5
movement
one
through
abolitionists,
We
going Anarchism,
how nonresistant
nor
or not attack ecclesiastical to have
movement
Thought
willingness
spiritual the
passive
Declaration behooves
strength
abolitionist
1966),
permitted
the
and
closely did
would
reign
it of
its confidence some itself, nonresistance
and
will
places,
vote
their
and
was be plainly
blow,
the in
Christian
in
conscience too in
to
and another. Garrison,
but
For
and
major
as
high
shall for
legal
was Antislavery
a with Winston,
opposition where,
world
must
and
moral
Society’s proven
Non-Resistance
in
in violence
were
a
he
and
nonresistance
historians
that
well
to Lloyd and Action!—Action!—thus choice
this position
believed
blow in
unswerving
God the had
supposed
Society.
of the as
of
reason of
and
measures,
extreme associated his weapons...
nonresistance In
political,
who
iniquity
actual
of
that England
give God. resort Liberator,
Rinehart
not determination
when,
of
non-resistance
own
inspire
to were for “nothing
William the This
for
own us
propose, one
The
nor
to
civil, Holt,
New
nonresistants assail
government his
in
were
weapons
coercive
Society, of
a
kingdoms As
tell
Government For
as to
conviction “we
CHRIST,
active bold
the
their
the
to evil,
refusal the
to role
the
individual
the
be
abolitionists ability Anarchism.”2 of
defence.”4 government
by
that
his Non-Resistance
editor
the importance
for
nonresistants existing to
Francisco:
speak
a and
GOD;
government find.
moral thing; and his
men
Testament. were
or
resort
of small
to the
Not when to
all of
and
the
many
of a (San
supporting
evil
states
to
and
one
mean
such
“his
Nonresistants and
meeting
to
it
in New
and
could
England
Anarchy
is “cynosure.”6
a
and “Christian
kept
organization,
time,
suasion only
Non-Resistance
bound cause
God.
body written, We
the
was
its
return
At
is
founder
1973).
stated:
or was violent.
the
New no era, protection
the
oppose
nonresistants,
Garrison Conscience as new obedience
it
and
the LORD not moral
in
one
246.
played
Garrison,
leadership,
the willingness the if
for against
principles the for
act
participate the Press, how
as
England
need
on
Abolitionism: movement by
agents.
hasten of its
for would our
spoken will of
of
Pactfist
each
and
individual.”11
principles.
did
nonresistants Christ
our Perry,
even
way Chapman
to role
We boldly
non-resistance
going
New
of in “it
contribution gift The
of
he
but 247.
relied
the our
repudiated
Garrison
as
act Radical
any
His
account
University
and
written
the
weapons
overcome critics also
his ed.,
passive
of
apply
Words, slavery,
that
forum
real
in
of
Perry,
Garrison and
88.
Significantly, war,
Passive apply we of preach. speak, to 1230s,
Perry, or
513;
nonresistant
newspaper in
MariaW. While
527. his
anarchism,
62. were to Cornell
nonresistants
many detailed
spirit
Mayer,
teachings
kingdoms sense
a
the
late
speak
Lewis
42 that the office the in and 1839, with
they joining
Demos, For Quoted Garrison,
Peter Nonresistants violence. Perry, Brock, whatever founders the murderous Sentiments, to places; institutions; the
Nonresistants support
resort the notes, personality, disciples.”7 reform
‘ see (Ithaca: ‘
17 43
movement makes Garrison a central figure to consider. The Liberator was Garrison’s forum. In the first issue he stated emphatically that “I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD.”8 Garrison did not believe in holding his tongue. When accused of damaging the movement with the harshness of his language, Garrison responded by demanding “new and stronger dialect.”9 In a letter to Samuel May, dated January 13, 1850, Garrison wrote that “we must use great plainness of speech; like the reformers of all ages, we must call things by their right names; like Jesus, we must be willing to make ourselves of no reputation, as without conflict there can be no victory—without the cross, no crown.”20When it came to declaring his tenets, careful language was not a concern. Garrison certainly possessed a militant stance on speaking out against oppression. He did not, however, present his convictions at the expense of others. Indeed, for Garrison, truth was only possible if there was freedom of discussion. People could not be persuaded towards the “right” way unless they were free to consider the alternatives. More importantly, he believed that to ignore the beliefs of others was a form of coercion for it “forced” one ideology to take precedence over others.2’ As a correspondent from the Providence Herald wrote, in a piece reprinted in The Liberator: “We differ with him, perhaps in our views on slavery; certainly in our choice of a remedy for the evil. But we cannot wonder that our path seems to him, as his does to us, the highway to destruction, through turmoil and tribulation.”22 The Liberator, therefore, served as the voice of many, not just Garrison and his supporters. Garrison’s openness to differing opinions foreshadowed his eventual acceptance of violence by those who were not nonresistants, provided that the violence was committed for the greater good. In 1837 Garrison wrote: “If the slaves of the South have not an undoubted right to resist their masters in the last resort, then no man, or body of men, may appeal to the law of violence in self-defence—for none have suffered, or can suffer, more than they.”23 It is evident that Garrison believed the slaves had suffered, and suffered greatly, but it could not justify violence. Evil could not be returned for evil. Later, however, his position was not so clear cut. In a piece included in his Selections from the Writings and Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison, published in 1852, Garrison stated: “We grant that every successful struggle for freedom on the part of the oppressed, even with the aid of cannon and bomb-shells, is to be hailed with rejoicing; but simply in reference to its object, and not to the mode of its accomplishment.”24 He claimed not to support the use of violence, but his unwillingness to refute its use clearly represented his ambiguous position. This seemingly vacillating position on the use of physical force represented a problem of consistency in the implementation of the nonresistants’ peace principle.25
18 Garrison, 63. 19mid.,122. 20i Ruchames, ed., The Letters of WilliamLloyd Garrison, Vol. IV, From Disunionism to the Brink of War, 1850-1860 (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1975), 3. 21 Kraditor, 104. The Liberator, 15 February 1850, 25. Quoted in Kraditor, 86. ‘ Garrison, 86-87. See Lewis Perry, Charles DeBenedetti (The Peace Reform in American History [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 19801),and Valarie Ziegler for the argument that the oscillating position of Garrison and the nonresistants over the issue of violence was due to the lack of a clear program. of
of
in to
by
by
its for
As
the
the
the the
It The
Era,
York
trade
Clay,
of
level,
those
Slave
of
of which
which
passed
further
clearly
from law
Proviso
loyalty
into
series affidavit
sectional
defense, even
to
time
for it
increasing
letter surprising a
a
states.
individual
slave law. profound
an New
the
was a
federal
Henry such determining
into
some Constitution
$5
expansion
way
the
Not
territories.
Federalist
settlement the
the opposition
the
the
cooperation of
with
Fugitive
and
to was
The
a
extent
slave the
slave
the
for nonresistants, The
test. hardly
new
which
an
only
enacted.
Discussion present
Liberator, their
should
resolving
because
and
representative newspapers of
oversee signed
state in
the positions.
presenting new
from the
them.
a
calm
to
speech
into proposing Among
and
was
from
for over
and
by to the
of
method was
The
Miller,
been
support by
the
severe allegiance
to
by was
made
abolished
fugitive
other
Compromise
provided
C.
a
of Compromise
be his conduct
both
the
on
slavery
had
disunion
Wilmot,
sanction
state
to
stance simply
at to
and
had
fugitive
antislavery
the as indicated
the
power Webster’s
dispute
slavery
The
bound
(John state,
from
hoped
of
of
newspaper measures
slavery
statute.30
states, reprinted
abolitionists.
the nonresistants
ideology
compromises
to
David Mr.
editor
the
This
be
each
the
abolitionists
indicated 1850
stringent
of
$500 free of
by
to
expansion enforced
the
“if
requires servitude
as
previous
primarily
in
free
a
read
of wrong
not
and
of
readers,
1793
support appearance
to
principles law
the
1850, threatening
his
of
or as was
radical
article, 1846,
more
right issue
Compromise
and
different
sovereignty have 7, It the
of
will returned
a Compromise
Selections the 104).
focus
back
Kentucky,
from
of
I
proposed
an
the
the
the
right
to
slave
chagrin
‘We
nonresistant principle
the
him
Garrison,
Webster’s
1793.
was significant of
March fellowship among
prevented
than
Compromise.
portion 1960],
Carolina
several
because obstruct
be Massachusetts.27
September of
from in
after
of
over the
popular
government compromise; on letters
fugitive
California
to
carry
came
the
included
that Proviso
refused
in
North.
to highest
was
essential
nonresistants’
no Commissioners
to
the
Proviso
humanity,
long
Proviso
from
South
Its
author with the
limited
the would each
Senate
South 1850,49). and enacted
of
put
and
“For
trial, in
bills the
stringent
included to aspects
villainies.”29
1850
accept
unjust.”28
much
the
Torchbooks,
attempted for
until low.
instituted was
nonresistants admitted significant
politician with
was
The
and
Wilmot
Wilmot
to
to
bill,
along
Utah
violate all
850s
us
of jury
March
a
37.
1 me
uproar
and nature
a who
Texas,
regard fugitive
denunciations
more $10 the
Law
to
demanded appointed
main
the
29
Compromise
of
a
Harper
and
peak,
given
in
separate larger
the
North
1850,
great
by a
a proposals
those
which
the
congressman the much
1846,
law
Slave
a
proposed
make of
seems as
seize
1850, supported,
in
sum
much
slaveholders:
a Columbia,
of
fugitive
to
of
Liberator,
coercive
law.
speech,
fined the
Liberator.
Compromise
March
of Compromise Liberator, first
abolitionists
slaveholding level
Mexico
dispute
Francisco:
constituted
was
Clay’s
adamantly 8 ‘the
caused shall
the without
unwillingness was
with
Compromise August, to between
the
reached
into
events
Fugitive
The and
Irritated
Hidden
one
It
owner
the
(The
The in
The
[San
Fillmore.
his
were
in
moral
New
Congress
February
an
Commissioners
had
of
requisitions
The
Webster,
The
Criticism
of Webster’s
us.”
District that Its
passed
denied
38. which as
1801
the previous
Liberator,
boundary -
passed.26
not
prominent the
Constitution
ownership,”
The Daniel
The
antagonism
44 a slavery
measures. be disputes.
whether in
Compromise the
Daniel through President
exemplified early pages Constitution
include Independent, indicated given compromise appeared support
perpetuating Compromise measures
characteristics, cases, Law, paid
Pennsylvania. sorrow. was the involves 26lnfroduced Compromise.
1789 disappointment “permitted of
29Ibid., prosecution, In new not foot, claimant, the Angry one hour to towards with woman, law.”36 bondage. that demanded nonresistant on duty abolitionists that it or Furthermore, Immediately published slave slave life
32 required habeas then not Ibid., 34Ibid., involving 36
37 presenting
A Ibid.,
Ibid., The Perry,
to
see
by The
the
always
common
signal-word”
returned,
of have
of
position,
be “we
Fugitive
the
it
of at Liberator,
revolts
such
corpus,
it
27 27 revolts 25 responses
11
Fugitive
man;
In
Garrison’s Liberator’s
Of the
234.
the
that shall
all
peril.”35
the
and
repealed,
Richard a
following
The
September September October October
views recommend
successful,
the
September,
right
the
that
After
person hazards.”33
greatest
technique other “hazards,”
in
use
child
and,
alike.
philosophy which and
be
after to
federal
subjected
stating
Slave
he nonresistants,
Fugitive
6
to
taken
if
to
The
Neal
of
September fill
Slave
to
present
1850, 1850,
the
filled a
to
means would
if
so
reinforced
A
in
had this we
any
passionate
1850. fugitive
1850, the
it
be
see
statement: crime a
from out
used
(see
Law
that set section,
this
did Fugitive
Liberator, fugitive
treasury
instead
Garrison brought to 170. 162.
the will
Law.
impassioned means
his
a the
that
his
struggles
Slave While
page allow
154. be
of
those to those far
The
as, case
Union,
had
others
1850,
was
that
appointment
get
granted
language pages teach
resolutions
is
critique
Liberator’s in rather
no
Henry
15 for
before
some As this “Refuge sources that
been
“seized around
was necessary
Slave
would response
man
justifiably
Law
“It who
their 142.
Garrison
of vehemently
person
release
might
a
early
our
of
by this
Wright
slaves
belief participation fugitive is rescued
of
the die
to
can
C.
of
the
a declaration, considered assisted
The opinion, would
Law
a certainly
paper).
children
repay
federal by
court
encourage from
column
the
Wright
of
than bill
voting as
come
inability
adopted
is
commit,
of
to
to
Liberator.
did
any
should
by
slaves
Oppression,”
had 1842 seen
deprived
after
and unlawful demanded:
oppose
a
to
the
revolutionary
presented
judge. be the
stain
not
negating
Vigilance fugitive
on one”
to
are
proslavery. be
and
to
the was
been
of
indicated
to
Fugitive vigorously as
Wright
in the
slaveowner being
by
the
escape he to
explicitly
providing
oppose
resisted,
get
right.”
charges
slaves
my
If slavery.”32
a constitutional they
the
restraint.
“Refuge
one
take,
the
stated:
of
fugitive’s
a their
enacted,
One
law
person
own
slaves
his turned
statute.
the
liberty
of
Boston
had should
Committee
Garrison “DEATH
from
explained
cases to
or
it Slave
a
that
subscriber
In
view
a
the
of disobeyed,
heroes.37
hands
“I defense argument after suggest While vague
rejected to
refuse
was
the
“rais[edJ
a Oppression”
over
to
dismissed, however,
am most
bondage
imposed
assume
letter without
aid,
“make
of
Protective
being Law
value
heavy
we
the
government,”
to
a
introduced with
the
was
to willingness
the
being
outspoken the non-resistant;
TO the
use of
wrote, are he
by
held
the
did
fugitive the
used the
the the and
of
individual,
acceptance
such
a Initially, due
fines
14
of “by
use
“upon
was wrote
he
dead.”34
nonresistants
authorities
for
use
KIDNAPPERS brother’s
the
not
habeas
“prompt abstract
right air
Union trampled citizens,
no
as
dedicated
“if
by process
of
running a
of
resound slave.3’
and
crime,
the
the
stand
to in
a every longer
violence
on
Slave
we
to
others
comparing
corpus
who
writ
one
his
Garrison,
Wright’s new
I resolved
possible
take,
Another
his
issue
live
of
in
blood.”
the
believe
by
of whose
to
would
alone. of
under
views
away,
Law.
man,
their
with
their
took
was
writ The part
law
and
that
not 45
the
the
the
as
of !“ 46
resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Yet in the same letter, just after his repudiation of physical violence, Wright wrote:
If it ever was right for any man to kill those who seek to enslave them or their wives and children, I believe it is the right and duty of every fugitive slave, of every human being in the North, to inflict instant death, without judge or jury, on all who seek, with law or without law, to return the fugitive slave to his chains.
In the span of one paragraph Wright refuted the use of brute force and justified it, even suggesting that those who did not follow the tenets of nonresistance were “bound” to “inflict death, with [their] own hand, on each and every man who shall attempt to execute the recent law of Congress.”38 Wright’s reaction was, to be sure, more extreme than other nonresistants. William Jay, a judge and nonresistant, wrote an opinion on the law compelling people to avoid the use of forcible resistance. He believed that the resort to such actions would simply cause greater violence on part of the slaveholders. He also argued that if acts of violence were left to the slaveholders, Northerners would respond in outrage when seeing their “streets stained with human blood, shed by the slave-catchers.”39 Another correspondent to The Liberator wrote that an associate had announced boldly that he would open the doors of his home to those fugitive slaves seeking asylum, for it was as Jesus Christ would have done.4° Yet another wondered where the nonresistants had gone, fearing that they had given up their principles in a time of trial. He wondered that others could not see as clearl7 as he that as “the spirit of war subsides, slavery must correspondingly vanish.” Four distinct acts of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law revealed the increasing willingness of abolitionists and nonresistants to adopt violent measures. These acts consisted of the rescue of escaping slaves who had been seized by the authorities. The first important fugitive slave case took place in Boston, in February 1851. A fugitive slave, by the nickname of Shadrach, was arrested and brought before the Commissioner. Through a writ of habeas corpus, a stay was granted until the case could be heard properly. At the moment the case was put over, “The door of the court room was pressed open by a crowd of sympathizing colored persons, who, without any deliberate concert— without any weapons in their hands—without any wish or intention to do personal violence to any one,” pulled Shadrach peacefully from the court room.42 Once free, Shadrach fled to Canada. Garrison emphasized the lack of violence in the Shadrach rescue: “Nobody injured, nobody wronged, but simply chattel transformed into a man, and conducted to a spot whereon he can glorify God in his body and spirit, which are his!”43 Nonresistants, as noted earlier, did not take a pledge of inaction. Their focus was simply to avoid using force, violence, or coercion as means of bringing about their desired result. It is not
The Liberator, 4 October 1850, 158. Ibid., 8 November 1850, 179. 40Ibii, 4 October 1850, 159. 41 Ibii, 10 January 1851, 7. 42 Ibid., 21 February 1851, 30. Another description of the Shadrach rescue included a number of whites in the crowd that rescued the fugitive (The Liberator, 21 february 1851, 30). Ibid. rescue surprising, ideal; When different other they mortally aware nonviolence, freedom tolerant explicitly they unregenerate
outside slave and second courthouse Canada. rescue
say rescue actually the When ambiguity their violent.46 humanity rescue distress.” this
“involvement” Those The fugitive The
effectiveness charges
47
Ibid.,
Ibid., Ibid. ibid.,
Liberator, that
incident statement
was
“peaceful,
armed
did”
men, lives,
it
rescue
tried
that
the
Shadrach.
Later and
19
were
21 In or Garrison
17 brought
attempt
The
was
Slave broke
of
injured.45
some
result.
through
having
wounding
September
The November October
that
he
with
October, because blacks
were
he
therefore, On
Garrison
it, of
disperse came
windows,
their
themselves,
of
a
Jerry
nonviolent,
was
in
took Law—and chose a
in
in could
that
was
peaceful especially
the
public
the
there
against
selection only
officers
into
acquitted
joy”
the
determined
proved
the
response
In
certainly
his fortunes,
commented 1851,
to
were
day
nonresistant being the
the
place, Christiana
The
Rescue
September,
1851,
1851, the
not resort
same the
to
incidences the opinion
was Christiana, was
when
the
those
that case
although
of
Fugitive use
165. ended from
the
opposition
of
and to
Shadrach
to
fired
example
gathering. courthouse
hunted, prepared an 151;
187.
but either in
the a slaveowner’s
in
Garrison year, to
to be who
mention the
heard he
justification
the
and relief exaggeration, in of
the
is
opposition
Incident. the
in Syracuse,
the
violence.
10
actual Samuel
successful
influencing
upon
“called
trials law
violated particularly
on
the armed
Wisconsin
October
position their not however,
1851,
police cases
of
Pennsylvania Slave
episode
fortified
in
of of
triumph
rescue,
the
to
to
were
violence “ended
and
it
Even
they
aware
rescue,
and
the The
nonresistants,
the
sacred
defend
an May,
when
the upon
a
of resistance.’14
rescue
did
to 1851, New
Law
but
slaveowner, court other
Telegraph son.
for
trials unjust
and
courthouse. “subjected
on
returned Fugitive removed nation of
those he
though
in
the
a his
for
that
the
fire
the
interesting
May an the
he fugitive the
violence,
the
wrote: 162. honor,
decisions. consisted Jerry
York. ought
the
continued
Slave
home. nonresistants
sentiment
Garrison
he
human
Despite
ardent
reiterated
defeat looking
May
into law.
who free
use
was Slave
encouraged
Several supposed
one noted
noted
the
was
Jerry.
another
Power.”47 “The
to to
the
men
to
had
The in did slave
of of
over
Garrison
With
Southern
one
nonresistant, Law
but
on
A the gunfire,
was
protect
the be severe
of
able the
because
for
physical
and Garrison’s people crowd
not into
advocated that
the
that
and
large
fugitive,
blacks
end
government—ended he did some
that
strong.
resisted, incident
He
company the
fugitive
a
rejoiced
to
diabolical
successful
nonresistants,
1852. claim
of
the was result fugitive
women
there
May
were
bodily
the
flee, was
aid
in
continued
declared killing newspaper
crowd
the
rocks
it
are
crowd force.
In
an
becoming
In
trembling
of in
“Christiana arrested
“Jerry,”
plainly to
preached concluded was
fact,
soon violence “filled
much oft-repeated
from
even
in
the fully
acquittals,
attempt of
principle
several
injuries,”
of
be
slave.
which
being
the
the
nonviolent
his
January
many
much to
Syracuse
The
the
nonresistants;
recaptured,
the
and if
justified
like
to
remain
went
actions
slaveowner
represented
son
every
represented
was
in
the Treason
more just
cases
among
black fugitive to legitimacy
shortly thrown
tried
avoid The
results
slavehunters. had
indicating
the
to
with
Shadrach,
9
and
no
prevent
edition so
in
result
learn defeat
views
before
for
involving
friend to
peaceful.
fugitive,
gathered
taken
publicly
one
far
friends, fugitive
custody men.” in
several
quite
Trial.”
stating
their pledge
before
of
at
but
in
what
as
of of
the from
and
was
was 47
the
the
the the
the
the
on
the
his
to
of
the
to
to
of
a
a 48
In 1852 Garrison continued to advocate peaceful means in the abolition of slavery. In his introduction to a new year of The Liberator Garrison wrote that the purpose of the newspaper continued to be the “overthrow of slavery by moral and peaceful instrumentalities, for the benefit alike of the oppressor and the oppressed.”48 In April, however, he added an editorial note to a letter from a correspondent who wrote questioning the consistency and legitimacy of advocating slave resistance to capture under the Fugitive Slave Law, even if resistance ended in violence. His correspondent wondered where the violence would end. Garrison, in a condescending manner, responded by saying that the letter was “such a jumbling together of assumed non resistance, Fugitive Slave and Maine Liquor Law, pretended leverance for legislative enactments, and false notions of moral obligations.”49 Garrison’s position remained ambiguous. Despite his continued support of nonviolent means, his opinions were wavering and he remained unwilling to come out completely against the use of brute force. Garrison further confused his position in a proposed amendment at an antislavery meeting. He suggested that violence may be justifiable after all:
if ‘resistance to tyrants,’ by bloody weapons is ‘obedience to God,’ and if our revolutionary fathers were justified in wading through blood to freedom and independence, then every fugitive slave is justified in arming himself for protection and defence... in taking the life of every marshall, commissioner, or other person who attempts to reduce him to bondage; and the millions who are clanking their chains on our soil find ample warrant in rising en masse, and asserting their right to liberty at whatever sacrifice of the life of their oppressors.5°
As long as “resistance to tyrants was obedience to God” was the rule followed, then violence was legitimate. Only for those who advocated nonresistance was such brutality not acceptable. His resolution did little to clarify his position. One month later, at the New England Anti-Slavery Society meeting, Garrison was noted as closing the anniversary discussions “with a most effective statement of the methods of abolishing the slave system—deprecating for our own sakes, and for the slave’s sake, any nurturing of the spirit of violence and blood.”51 This gradual accommodation of nonresistants to violence did not go unnoticed. Micajah Johnson, for example, wrote to Garrison via The Liberator expressing his distress over Henry Wright’s embrace of “any means as they see fit” in preventing the return to slavery of an escapee. For Johnson, as for the correspondent criticized by Garrison above, Christian morality made it abhorrent to ‘justify war, or the use of carnal weapons in any shape” and that such a justification “lets down the purity of Jesus to the common level of public opinion.” In the same paper, another correspondent, signing as “A Friend of Progress,” wrote that “to do away with Slavery we must have the spirit of Christ.”52 Not all nonresistants were ready to give up their doctrines, at least not in theory.
Ibid., 2 January 1852, 2. Ibid., 30 April 1852, 70. ‘50Ibid.,23 April 1852, 67. Ibid., 21 May 1852, 83. 52lbid., 23 July 1852, 119. Rescue.
court York to William the charge when incident was petty over doing was pro-slavery chooses oppose actually
charge Anthony Wendeall Hall, house
that get the persons, slavecatchers personnel, Garrison
followed and
provided
and Slave 55IbkL, writ
come Ibid., Thomas. could and 57Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
take
neighborhood
inside Neal
the
employed.
of
a shooting.
eventually
their
a
that
Law
out, were abolitionists the
affirm
magistrate
rescue
their
to habeas
4 Numerous
19 brought
slave
judge claimants 16 2 of The 14
the
In
for
involved
February
was to In
Thomas June occurred
without
Bums. even claimant
protest November
September
stated heard continued
October by
being
Phillips,
trial
and
the
job Fugitive and the November,
make that encouraged
element
taken
culmination
corpus
through
attempt
a
1854,
if
was
decreed return
the large
rescue
released to eventually
hopes
it
were against
the
aided
Supposedly
that Abolitionists
a
1853,
his
1853, into plan meant In
who
complaints
of
those
be
incidents
where claimants
fugitive
86.
to in failed tried stabbed
Neal
1852,
1853,
called
case
of
Boston
Slave
forced
affect being to
incarceration,
crowd custody. it
“harassed
was
a
September,
18.
fugitive
or
161. Burns.
in
of
his chooses
country that had
1852, was
nonresistants
a
to
by who
186.
them,
146.
determined
to system he
The
free
fleeing
death. of in
the
preserving for to
Law.
soldiers decide
shot
slave.
and
returned
a
several
appear, been
in related
in
used
Bums
flee, process.
not
This
had Thomas actions
Some slaves. resistance
Commissioner
fugitive
a
against
nonviolence.
black May,
denied
at During a
claiming
group
several
at where
The to
but of
knowing
Thomas, silent
case
the
attempted
to
upon to
every
A 1853,
abolitionist
to
surrounded
harass
any
but to
abolitionists the of would
ruckus they It
be
was
1854,
that large man,
the Canada.
was
“act
represented, of them.”56 and
the
A
the slave
peace,
slavery
the any
procession,
shots
charges
they kind.”57 a a
care were
chased
step to slaves
group that
as in
courts. actually
the
course
slave.
caused Fugitive
who
wh5y abolitionists of
them, group Richard
Burns
rescue
if
be
Wilkesbarre, the
responsibility
of
to
and
and At
eventually
to
remained
were
slaves in
some he
Boston’s
heard
the
to
does
sent capture kill the
had
being
he
against
that their
The
black
outside law
a
however, would
a
of
to
attacked
A
The
of
court
or was
crowd
nearby
attempt
him.
was
fired,
courthouse.
Slave
took rushed Neal’s half
Neal, writ action.
not go
were
people back
moment,
by decision
performance was
friends
transported
arrested
significance being
after
of
peaceful. Thomas.
The attacked,
to
alike, Neal to
not
exist.”53
dozen river,
Mayor of
any
Bums
although
how
the
case Law
free
gather
Pennsylvania. of
him court
to
the
a a the
for
sentiment
habeas
managed
had
Those allow
hot
actual
held
scuffle
“enticing”
the were
and
unprincipled
where
slavery. decided
and
reinforced
because however,
court
followed
case
in impulsive
the
pursuit.
and
to
Protests
turmoil
gathered
to
called
brought
he
The
at Another through
sphere
the At
no
those
hardened the
dropped.54
of presiding,
provided corpus
he
plead
of
to failed in
fought
the
house occurred.
of
in
one
a their dove
the
get
restaurant
Judge
transport
this
caused
favor
“no
meeting
of to court the
A
for
away
the the remained
who
crowd a
the
outside
their was
trial
Whites the the and
in judge
case
was
rescue in duties
military
witnesses
interloper back, one
particular
of
crowd fugitive
October
and more
the
who
by
law
power
most
an
were house Port
for
the
wounded slaves
Yet unreasoning
grew
issued, case.
has
involved
to Fugitive One
refused
that
resolve
at
attempt
that
where attacking
claimant
fled,
the by
issue
presided
peaceful accused
of attempt.
another
military
Faneuil
notably
learned
merely
hostile
a who
on
escort,
of
of would
every
Jerry
from New
right slave court
case
who
The
a
to
and
but 49
the
the
the
he
by
to
to
a of It
of
as of
the
the
and not
the the end
was
just
and
May
were
good
copy done
John
every
of
to
Bums
part
use
by
of people a
clearly
affected
Yet outrage.
the
of
Garrison
have
large
slip,
Although was
was
and “William
1850s,
Liberator,
the escalated,
especially the
the (Winter
In way
beating
costs,”
had 1 the it
self-defense
Law,
Anti-Slavery
made
Coercion
on
and
revolutionary
“we
did
The
the
because
all arrest
to in
he the no.
over
only
that shape
rescue,
incident
South
in
American meant
“by of
our at
Senate, Jannuzzi,
nonresistants 23,
that
forbearance.”6°
act Slave
the
law.
repudiation
ruffians,’
the
purpose.”59 R.
mainly War,
the
and a
that
the
be faithful
half by
slave
and
taking
that
American
criticisms of
then outrage
peace
any
surely to Kansas,” claim
during
of
contradictory.
unjust Constitution.6’
provided
Garrison
response the Civil to responding
may attempted
Fugitive
to
the
states for
nonresistants
North
but Lawrence
struck
most
by
and the
of
and
“hope could
his second
violence, Massachusetts
the
to
to
the floor
the
occurred.
fugitive
gradual, struck see
patience
force,
the
by
if of of
man
of
them,
of
too
her of
bad
the
blow
cited “maintain
to
Garrison’s
the
“Bleeding
inevitably
Ziegler Slowly
this
until
a
was War,
any
Liberator
given “some only
responded blow
to
of continued even
copy
rioting
on
day
as
copy Journal
up
a
irritating
a lead
ambiguous Civil
letter,
without resort
but
no The stating between accepted
any
During
fugitive
s
him,
deeply
Valarie
or
killing the
seen incidences very
all a in
and
the troops
as
violence
and
climax
blood.”58
position.
was of
in
measure.62
although case,
Garrison
Garrison
“murderous
statement
to
the Historical
it remain burned
was
how with
from
the
a so.163
1859 The case,
tensions
to
unto Grimke’
especially
1850s.
the
he
any
on their
of
principle,
of
nonresistant
liberty,
isolated
support
injured In
essay
in
issue,
since
what
a purpose, in
Massachusetts,
the and “believe
that acceptance
was
liberty even
outpouring
doing
part
Bums when 23
was
its
their of
violence, some
peace appropriate
that
views.
not principles”
could
same
printed
his
from Ferry
in
Angelina
the continued
the
an
one Nonresistance,” of
repudiate views.
huge remain examples
he the enforce
that
stating
did ultimate
June
1854,
it
the of
were
accommodation
a
on
on
incident
no to
their take
to to
retaliation
defend
he
further
4,
lofty contested
in
that
the
best
to
to
or
senator
but
considered substantially
led
as be
was Crisis
in
Harper’s
that 82. 98. provocation
There 117.
a
Liberator, July however,
try
the
claim
could
Courier, Garrison’s
troops the
dichotomy
argued
nonresistant
nonviolent and
decision
repudiated
on
conclusion on violence may
the of
of stuck
were
considered
of
particular 1854, 1854,
The 1854, and
decision
in There later,
The
wrote
nonresistant to
He
of
Ironically, the violence
his
south.
she
of
would
everyone
raid
one
use
increased
personnel,
he
who slave the July May came June
Sumner, to 133. 133.
This
was
Garrison,
someone
The analysis
court’s curious
quality, 28 26 23
to
him 21-43. Garrison
a
month
individuals
threat an
issue
which
its
the
those
response Ziegler, For Ziegler, 50
send
military the offensive. massive
in
Perhaps people
slavery. fugitive coming 26
Society, one reiterated struggle.”
in newspaper, should
that violence. counseled was
of incident
Garrison
come
by in
violence nonresistants
nonresistants Charles 1995), certainly Brown’s Ibid., 59Ibid., 60Ibid., 61 Lloyd 63. principles
War nonresistants was be be embraced nonresistance,
Although use the ultimately
Elizabeth
main to
UThe
slaveholders. of
The Charles (Perry, 67 Sumner
pursue
Ibid.,
Quoted
sure
Non-Resistants
nonresistance.
mid-1850s
ultimately
was
of
interests
Bleeding Liberator,28
241).
power—heaped the Though heads
tyrants,’ worthy who 23 and
Sumner
made
a violence
Forest
in
Adin
June the
career Garrison of
allow
Jannuzzi,
shedding
fight
is
For
are
Stearns
concerning
nonviolence.64
who
War of
of
1854,
willing
was
Ballou his a of Ballou.
a
American Furthermore, a accepted
that
to
Kansas
those
him master’s
on
brief non-resistant
July
death,
remained
made in
Principle,
views themselves,
any
claimed
98.
38. continued
merges
the
to
synopsis
of
1854,
fighting
to
who
Brooks’
caused
stated,
extent,
by
right
exclaim,
by
In
candidate
radicalism
act
blood, it
were
by
Preston
history that
117.
the
because
is,
abhor
those
faithful
as
Charles
or
The side.”65
of
most
uncle,
the
to
first
myself,
his “few same contradictory ‘is
against spend
Stearns’
have
with to
Brooks,
profess
slaveholders
“Thank
at
Civil
slavery,
and
obedience
who,
there
accomplice,
Senator
nonresistants, of
S.f.S.
Stearns save
to
computer
issue
become
On
(how
U.S. their
all,
I
change
his
was
War,
a
slavery.
am
in
U.,
allegiance
representative
June
a
God’ religious
Butler,
because the to
principles
that
no
main
their
expects
fellow-man not
were
few!)
repudiate
to
technology.
enough
of which
law
dumb
slave-hunter;
23,
whether
noted
heart,
God.’
for willing
also
not
in
strength own
history.
including
to
1854
This
they remain Kansas,
the
human
to on
was
of
receive
see
nonresistance
and to
from
Angelina
South
case,
the
war.”67
Surely,
the
to
officially
indicate Ziegler, Garrison
have
from
the
gradual
who Once
and
in
see South
the
principles
subject,
faithful.
her
Carolina.
and,
exhorting penultimate
maintain Garrison.
laws
therefore
forcibly
contumely
she
refused
becoming
degree
if
116
Carolina,
Grimke’s
a
and
there
wrote:
next
of or
receives
accommodation
clear -
or
Christ
11$.
otherwise.66
take
in
of
not
while The
interposed,
to to
that
be
fighting
December
because
nonresistance, acceptance
up
The
entitled One
heaped
her
accept
him, were act
a
departure any
arms
rest
‘resistance
victim
professing
attack
M.A.,
of
irrelevant of
one
of
the
against to
people
violence,
have the
upon 1998.
insults
the
the
she
on
even
who
wretch
would
of to
Civil
from
safety
hopes
few
the
51
the
re
Her
the
its
by
to to
to
t7
is