WHAT IS THE DUTY OF RADICAL ABOLITIONISTS IN THE PRESENT CAMPAIGN?

REPLY TO 'A.P.'—NO. II.

FRIEND DOUGLASS:— I have no wish 'to prolong this discussion' for the sake of discussion, or for the sake of having the last word. It seems to me it involves the vital principles upon which the anti-slavery cause is based. If we are not to drift with the current, and go back to the old Whig doctrine of choosing 'the least of two evils,' it seems important that a few, at least, should bear aloft the standard of unceasing and uncompromising hostility to the towering iniquity of our land.

Our friend 'A.P.' says:

'We maintained that its masses were acting from an impulse of hatred to slavery. . . . and could possibly be educated into a genuine anti-slavery power.'

I have no disposition to underrate the generous 'impulses' of the 'masses,' or the manly virtues and heroic utterances of the Sumners and Lovejoys. I simply maintain that the activities of the 'masses' are not wisely directed, and our friend does not regard them in their present attitude as 'a genuine anti slavery power.' How are they to be educated? By swinging our caps, and shouting, with them, 'long live Lincoln?' or by standing on a higher plane, and saying to them, 'come up hither?'

I think it is perfectly fair and right to form 'an estimate of the position and animating impulse of a great party,' from the public speeches of its acknowledged leaders. If, 'in view of local circumstances,' they ignore the rights of the slave, and deny the right of suffrage to the colored man, no amount of 'radical anti-slavery sentiments' uttered by Sumner or Lovejoy (to whom be all honor) can be put in as an 'offset.' Besides, both Sumner and Lovejoy are in bad odor with the Republican wire pullers. They are looked upon as 'fanatics.' Probably they could not have gotten ten votes in the Chicago Convention as Republican standard bearers, simply on account of their high-toned speeches. A man cannot advocate drunkenness 'in view of local circumstances,' and some where else plead for temperance as an 'offset.' As well might we serve the Devil to day, and 'offset' the crime by being pious to-morrow.

'A.P.' says:

'The Republican party occupies the same general position on the slavery question, as that occupied by the Liberty Party in '44.'

In '44 there was no Fugitive Slave Law to be executed. The Liberty Party then advocated negro suffrage, the abolition of slavery in the District of C., and the abolition of the interState slave trade. What created the Liberty Party, and brought it to its present standard? The labors of the Abolitionists. What will elevate the people to radical anti-slavery?—The same instrumentalities, if as faithfully, perseveringly and unremittingly put forth.—Does 'A.P.' want us to advance backward sixteen years, for the sake of accomplishing a 'partial good?'

The anti slavery reform, like all other reforms, is progressive in its very nature. In the progress of the cause, new applications of the truth upon which it is based, are constantly unfolded.

'New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still, and onward,
Who would keep abreast of Truth.'

'A.P.' seeks to find 'full license to the reign of Republican philosophy 'by my fatal concession,' as he terms it. Radical Abolitionists contend that no man should go in favor of actual wrong, for the sake of securing any hypothetical good. On the question of human bondage, they have always contended that he should go the 'farthest verge of ideal right,' politically, socially and religiously.

There are many questions pertaining to Government besides the foundation stone—personal liberty. The tariff, postal arrangements, national treaties, internal improvements, education, agriculture. On such questions as these, which are of no value while human rights are withheld, a difference of opinion has been tolerated. Between all these 'great interests' (as the Whigs used to call them) and American slavery, there is a gulf as wide as that which separated Dives from Lazuras; and here the Radicals have urged every man to honor his highest convictions.

One fault in our friend's 'road' which he is so anxious to travel awhile, and by and by 'jump off,' (to the great danger of breaking his limbs,) consists in the fact that it lies right across the Underground Railroad. Collisions must therefor ensue, and, 'on the side of the oppressor is power.'

My complaint against the Republican party is, that AS A PARTY they do not preach genuine anti-slavery at all. Would that they preached it, even of 'envy.'

Slavery in the Carolinas is either constitutional or unconstitutional. If the former, then the only consistent ground is to say with GarrisonGarrison, William Lloyd

William Lloyd Garrison (1805-79) was the foremost white abolitionist of the nineteenth century and was credited with the discovery of Douglass as a speaker at an antislavery meeting in Nantucket in 1841. He began his career as an apprentice printer on the Newburyport (Mass.) Herald at the age of thirteen. Garrison became editor of the Newburyport Free Press in 1826, but the paper closed within a year. He was then associated with a series of periodicals in Boston that advocated reform before Benjamin Lundy offered the young journalist the opportunity to write for his antislavery newspaper. Garrison joined Lundy in editing the Genius of Universal Emancipation in Baltimore, Maryland, in 1829, during the last year of the paper's 1821-1830 run. In 1830 a libel suit against the editors forced the paper to close and landed Garrison in jail. After his release, he courted the wealthy merchants of New York and Boston in order to start the Liberator (1831-65), a weekly journal based in Boston in which he advocated an immediate end to slavery. Garrison's brand of abolition condemned any institution that would tolerate the existence of slavery, including churches, political parties. and even the United States itself and any scheme aimed at removing black people from the country. Instead, Garrison hoped to raise the public's awareness that slavery was morally wrong and thereby force its end in an almost millennial moment of emancipation. His approach appealed to both white and black antislavery advocates but earned him many enemies among those only moderately opposed to slavery and slaveholders alike. Seeing the need for greater action and organization beyond the pages of the Liberator; Garrison joined with other abolitionists to form the New England Anti-Slavery Society in 1831. Two years later he helped found the larger American Anti-Slavery Society. In 1833 he established ties with English abolitionists after a trip to Great Britain, and he later brought the noted and notorious speaker George Thompson to the United States for a tour. Garrison also dedicated himself to women's rights, encouraging women to enter the public sphere by inviting them, via the Liberator, to form female antislavery societies. In addition to the thirty-three women's antislavery societies that flourished by 1838, Garrison's American Anti-Slavery Society welcomed women as well as blacks into its ranks. However, female delegates were excluded from the World's Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840 in London. The issue of women's participation in the antislavery movement and Garrison's absolute refusal to turn to politics to end slavery caused a division in the American Anti-Slavery Society. Brothers Lewis and Arthur Tappan, who opposed women's acting as speakers and who hoped to use politics toward abolition, broke with Garrison's American Anti-Slavery Society, forming the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, or the "New Organization" in 1841. Garrison's ideas were so closely associated with the "Old Organization" that the American Anti-Slavery Society became known simply as the "Garrisonians." With the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, Garrison believed that he had accomplished his life's work and that of the antislavery movement. He then resigned from the presidency of the American Anti-Slavery Society and closed the Liberator. Wendell Phillips Garrison and Francis Jackson Garrison, William Lloyd Garrison, 1805-1879: The Story of His Life Told by His Children, 4 vols. (New York, 188589); Henry Mayer, All on Fire: William Lloyd Garrison and the Abolition of Slavery (New York, 1998); James Brewer Stewart, William Lloyd Garrison and the Challenge of Emancipation (Arlington Heights, Ill., 1992); John L. Thomas, The Liberator: William Lloyd Garrison (Boston, 1963); Dictionary of American Biography, 20 vols. (New York, 1928-36), 7:168-72. , 'down with the Constitution.' If the latter, then you are bound to abolish it.—The Republicans can take which horn they please. I have no desire to do them 'injustice,' or get up 'false issues.'

'A.P.' claims that

'The question between them. . . is one of powers and measures, instead of one of principle and moral right.'

The simple effort to abolish slavery by 'unfriendly legislation,' (and I do not clearly comprehend what he means by that term,) by keeping slavery from entering the Territories, does in itself considered, involve no 'moral principle;' but there are terms and conditions annexed, which you must accept, in order to get the power to wield this 'unfriendly legislation.'

The Devil takes the Republican party 'up into an exceedingly high mountain,' showing it the White House, all the fat offices in the land, and the broad spread Territories in the dim distance, saying, 'all these will I give thee' if thou will execute the Fugitive Slave Law, and keep the slave in his chains. It's
a bargain, says the party ; and the 'masses,' with their 'nebulous anti-slavery impulses,' cry amen! and some of our old Radical guard echo the same.

'A.P.' says:

'Nor is it correct to say that the Republican party pledges the whole force of the Government to put down a slave-rising. They regard the Government as having been so pledged by the Constitution long before their existence as a party, and when they could not control the matter; and believing that all such risings retard, rather than advance the cause of freedom, they seek what they regard as a more safe and speedy exodus for the slave through peaceful channels.'

Here is a distinction without a difference. 'They could not control the matter.' Why should they desire to, since they deem it a wise provision? I think 'A.P.' uses language very loosely when he talks about 'starving out slavery.' I do not understand how it is to be done. The present Slave States already embrace within their limits about 4,000,000 slaves. They are capable of supporting that number twice two fold. Admit that to be the maximum. There they are. The Territories are free; but what then? There they must REMAIN by Republican party philosophy, for all 'slave-risings' must be put down, because they 'retard the cause of freedom.'

I cannot agree with my friend that the 'American people cannot be moved by the sublime philosophy of Radical Abolitionists.' Has any other reform ever made such rapid progress as this in twenty-five years? We search the page of history in vain for a parallel. We must remember that the CRIME is the greatest the world ever saw, and by it our morality was eaten out, our sympathies paralyzed, and our religion turned into a lie.

I do not regard the men who claim the Pilgrims for their fathers, and revolutionary heroes as their sires, such 'BABES' as 'A.P.' would have us believe them to be. 'Babes' or men, our business is to give free utterance to the highest convictions of our souls, and to let those convictions be exemplified in all the activities of life.

After 'A.P.'s' able defence of the Republican party, I am not al all 'shocked' to hear him say that he would 'help pirates to do good;' but I was a little disappointed at his readiness to 'give the Devil his biggest loaf of bread, when he was not willing to go over more than HALF of the parish.' I think it would have been better for him to save his big loaves and distribute them to the other half. However, it is in keeping with Republican philosophy, which goes over only HALF of the anti-slavery parish, and our friend throws in bread, body, bones, and all.

It seems to me that this whole question lies in the compass of a nut shell. If there is any significance or moral responsibility attaching to a vote, the man who votes for the candidates of the Republican party votes for the return of fugitive slaves—votes for slavery in the District of Columbia —votes to keep the slaves in the States in bondage during the pleasure of their masters— votes against negro suffrage—in short, votes that 'black men have no rights which white men are bound to respect.'

I am a slave. A Republican approaches me with a bland smile, and in a patronizing tone says: 'We will not allow your master to carry you into the Territories.—Those we reserve for white men. Now you just remain quiet where you are. If you run

away, the Constitution compells us to return you to your master. Now DON'T run away. Perhaps you have heard of Garibaldi. He is away off in Italy. It would not be right for you here, in free America, to do what he does in those old monarchies. It would "retard your peaceful emancipation." Besides, the Constitution binds us to shoot you if you do as Garibaldi does. Now be patient, WON'T you? We are going to "hem in slavery and starve it out." Oh! what a debt of gratitude is laid up on my shoulders; it fairly weighs me down.'

It is an easy matter to sneer at the Syracuse Convention and the Radicals. They can afford to be ridiculed. At one time the disciples all fled, but truth survived nevertheless. It is better to do 'nothing,' than to do wrong, and the man who maintains his integrity, does more than he who 'votes for a partial good.' There are times in the world's history in which men are commanded to 'STAND STILL and see the salvation of God.'

J. C. H.