Showing posts with label Wendell Phillips. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wendell Phillips. Show all posts

Saturday, October 28, 2023

Mary Ann Day Brown to John Brown, November 29, 1859

NEAR PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 29.

My dear Husband: I have just received your letter to Mr. M., saying that you would like to have me stay here until you are disposed of. I felt as if I could not go any further away until that sad event. You are the gainer, but we are the losers; but God will take care of us all. I am with Mrs. Lucretia Mott. . . . I find warm friends every where I go. I cannot begin to tell you the good this Sacrifice has done, or is likely to do, for the Oppressed. O, I feel it is a great Sacrifice; but hope that God will enable us to bear it. . . . I went to hear Mrs. Mott preach to-day, and heard a most excellent sermon; she made a number of allusions to you, and the preaching you are doing, and are likely to do. I expect to hear Wendell Phillips tomorrow night. Every one thinks that God is with you. I hope he will be with you unto the end. Do write to me all you can. I have written to Governor Wise for your body and those of our beloved sons. I find there is no lack of money to effect it if they can be had. Farewell, my dear, beloved husband, whom I am never to see in this world again, but hope to meet in the next.

From your most affectionate wife,
Mary A. Brown.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 428

Saturday, May 27, 2023

Charles Sumner to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, January 24, 1850

[January 24, 1850.]
DEAR HENRY,

Whittier is here on a short visit. I go to-night with Miss Bremer to hear Wendell Phillips, and to-morrow evening dine out, or I should insist upon taking him [Whittier] to you. He is staying at the Quincy Hotel, in Brattle Street.

I regret the sentiments of John Van Buren about mobs, but rejoice that he is right on slavery. I do not know that I should differ very much from him in saying that we have more to fear from the corruption of wealth than from mobs. Edmund Dwight once gave, within my knowledge, two thousand dollars to influence a single election. Other men whom we know very well are reputed to have given much larger sums. It is in this way, in part, that the natural antislavery sentiment of Massachusetts has been kept down; it is money, money, money, that keeps Palfrey from being elected. Knowing these things, it was natural that John Van Buren should say that we had more to fear from wealth than from mobs. He is a politician,—not a philanthropist or moralist, but a politician, like Clay, Winthrop, Abbott Lawrence; and he has this advantage, that he has dedicated his rare powers to the cause of human freedom. In this I would welcome any person from any quarter.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 212

Wednesday, April 5, 2023

Diary of Gideon Welles: October 21, 1865

Have been unable to write daily. The President has released A. H. Stephens, Regan, Trenholm, and others on parole, and less dissatisfaction has manifested itself than I expected.

The Episcopal convention at Philadelphia is a disgrace to the church, to the country, and the times. Resolutions expressing gratification on the return of peace and the removal of the cause of war have been voted down, and much abject and snivelling servility exhibited, lest the Rebels should be offended. There are duties to the country as well as the church.

Montgomery Blair made a speech to a Democratic meeting at Cooper Institute, New York. As much exception will be taken to the audience he selected as to his remarks. Although he has cause for dissatisfaction, it is to be regretted that he should run into an organization which is hostile to those who have rallied for the Union. True, they profess to support the President and approve his course. This is perhaps true in a degree, but that organization was factious during the War, and was in sympathy with the Rebels prior to hostilities. Their present attitude is from hatred of the Republicans more than sympathy with the President. Those of us who are Democrats and who went into the Union organization ought to act in good faith with our associates, and not fly off to those who have imperilled the cause, without fully reflecting on what we have done, and are doing. Perhaps Blair feels himself justified, but I would not have advised his course.

Wendell Phillips has made an onset on the Administration and its friends, and also on the extremists, hitting Banks and Sumner as well as the President. Censorious and unpractical, the man, though possessed of extraordinary gifts, is a useless member of society and deservedly without influence.

Secretary Seward has been holding forth at Auburn in a studied and long-prepared speech, intended for the special laudation and glory of himself and Stanton. It has the artful shrewdness of the man and of his other half, Thurlow Weed, to whom it was shown, and whose suggestions I think I can see in the utterances. Each and all the Departments are shown up by him; each of the respective heads is mentioned, with the solitary exception of Mr. Bates, omitted by design.

The three dernier occupants of the Treasury are named with commendation, so of the three Secretaries of the Interior and the two Postmasters-General. The Secretary of the Navy has a bland compliment, and, as there have not been changes in that Department, its honors are divided between the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary. But Stanton is extolled as one of the lesser deities, is absolutely divine. His service covers the War and months preceding, sufficient to swallow Cameron, who is spoken of as honest and worthy. Speed, who is the only Attorney-General mentioned, is made an extraordinary man of extraordinary abilities and mind, for like Stanton he falls in with the Secretary of State.

It is not particularly pleasing to Seward that I, with whom he has had more controversy on important questions than with any man in the Cabinet, — I, a Democrat, who came in at the organization of the Lincoln Cabinet and have continued through without interruption, especially at the dark period of the assassination and the great change when he was helpless and of no avail, it is not pleasing to him that I should alone have gone straight through with my Department while there have been changes in all others, and an interregnum in his own. Hence two heads to the Navy Department, my Assistant's and mine. Had there been two or three changes as in the others, this remark would probably not have been made. Yet there is an artful design to stir up discord by creating ill blood or jealousy between myself and Fox, whom they do not love, which is quite as much in the vein of Weed as of Seward. I have no doubt the subject and points of this speech were talked over by the two. Indeed, Seward always consults Weed when he strikes a blow.

His assumptions of what he has done, and thought, and said are characteristic by reason of their arrogance and error. He was no advocate for placing Johnson on the ticket as Vice-President, as he asserts, but was for Hamlin, as was every member of the Cabinet but myself. Not that they were partisans, but for a good arrangement.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 382-4

Diary of Gideon Welles: December 1, 1865

It is some weeks since I have had time to write a word in this diary. In the mean time many things have happened which I desired to note but none of very great importance. What time I could devote to writing when absent from the Department has been given to the preparation of my Annual Report. That is always irksome and hard labor for me. All of it has been prepared at my house out of the office hours, except three mornings when I have remained past my usual hour of going to the Department.

My reports are perhaps more full and elaborate than I should make them; but if I wish anything done I find I must take the responsibility of presenting it. Members of Congress, though jealous of anything that they consider, or which they fear others will consider, dictation, are nevertheless timid as regards responsibility. When a matter is accomplished they are willing to be thought the father of it, yet some one must take the blows which the measure receives in its progress. I therefore bring forward the principal subjects in my report. If they fail, I have done my duty. If they are carried, I shall contend with no one for the credit of paternity. I read the last proof pages of my report this evening.

Members of Congress are coming in fast, though not early. Speaker Colfax came several days since. His coming was heralded with a flourish. He was serenaded, and delivered a prepared speech, which was telegraphed over the country and published the next morning. It is the offspring of an intrigue, and one that is pretty extensive. The whole proceeding was premeditated.

My friend Preston King committed suicide by drowning himself in the Hudson River. His appointment as Collector was unfortunate. He was a sagacious and honest man, a statesman and legislator of high order and of unquestioned courage in expressing his convictions and resolute firmness in maintaining them. To him, a Democrat and Constitutionalist, more than to any other one man may be ascribed the merit of boldly meeting the arrogant and imperious slaveholding oligarchy and organizing the party which eventually overthrew them. While Wendell Phillips, Sumner, and others were active and fanatical theorists, Preston King was earnest and practical. J. Q. Adams and Giddings displayed sense and courage, but neither of them had the faculty which K. possessed for concentrating, combining, and organizing men in party measures and action. I boarded in the same house with King in 1846 when the Wilmot Proviso was introduced on an appropriation bill. Root and Brinkerhoff of Ohio, Rathbun and Grover and Stetson [sic]1 of New York, besides Wilmot and some few others whom I do not recall, were in that combination, and each supposed himself the leader. They were indeed all leaders, but King, without making pretensions, was the man, the hand, that bound this sheaf together. From the day when he took his stand King never faltered. There was not a more earnest party man, but he would not permit the discipline and force of party to carry him away from his honest convictions. Others quailed and gave way but he did not. He was not eloquent or much given to speech-making, but could state his case clearly, and his undoubted sincerity made a favorable impression always.

Not ever having held a place where great individual and pecuniary responsibility devolved upon him, the office of Collector embarrassed and finally overwhelmed him.

Some twenty-five years ago he was in the Retreat for the Insane in Hartford, and there I knew him. He became greatly excited during the Canadian rebellion and its disastrous termination and the melancholy end of some of his townsmen had temporarily impaired his reason. But it was brief; he rapidly recovered, and, unlike most persons who have been deranged, it gave him no uneasiness and he spoke of it with as much unconcern as of a fever. The return of the malady led to his committing suicide. Possessed of the tenderest sensibilities and a keen sense of honor, the party exactions of the New York politicians, the distress, often magnified, of those whom he was called upon to displace, the party requirements which Weed, who boarded with him, and others demanded, greatly distressed him, and led to the final catastrophe.

King was a friend and pupil of Silas Wright, with whom he studied his profession; was the successor of that grand statesman in both branches of Congress. Both had felt most deeply the bad faith and intrigue which led to the defeat of Van Buren in 1844, and to the ultimate downfall of the Democratic party, for the election of Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan were but flickering efforts to rekindle the fires of the old organizations. Confidence and united zeal never again prevailed, and parties subsequently took a sectional or personal character.
_______________

1 There was no Stetson in Congress at the time. Perhaps Wheaton of New York, who was one of the supporters of the Proviso, was the man whom Mr. Welles had in mind.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 384-7

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Diary of Caroline Cowles Richards: March 4, 1862

John B. Gough lectured in Bemis Hall last night and was entertained by Governor Clark. I told Grandfather that I had an invitation to the lecture and he asked me who from. I told him from Mr. Noah T. Clarke's brother. He did not make the least objection and I was awfully glad, because he has asked me to the whole course. Wendell Phillips and Horace Greeley, E. H. Chapin and John G. Saxe and Bayard Taylor are expected. John B. Gough's lecture was fine. He can make an audience laugh as much by wagging his coat tails as some men can by talking an hour.

SOURCE: Caroline Cowles Richards, Village Life in America, 1852-1872, p. 139-40

Friday, May 8, 2020

Frederick Douglass to Theodore Tilton, October 15, 1864

Rochester, Oct. 15, 1864.
My Dear Mr. Tilton:

I am obliged by your favor containing a copy of your recent speech in Latimer hall. I had read that speech in the Tribune several days ago, and in my heart thanked you for daring thus to break the spell of enchantment which slavery, though wounded, dying and despised, is still able to bind the tongues of our republican orators. It was a timely word wisely and well spoken, the best and most luminous spark struck from the flint and steel of this canvass. To all appearance we have been more ashamed of the negro during than those of '56 and '60. The President's "To whom it may concern," frightened his party and his party in return frightened the President. I found him in this alarmed condition when I called upon him six weeks ago — and it is well to note the time. The country was struck with one of those bewilderments which dethrone reason for the moment. Every body was thinking and dreaming of peace — and the impression had gone abroad that the President's antislavery policy was about the only thing which prevented a peaceful settlement with the Rebels. McClellan was nominated and at that time his prospects were bright as Mr. Lincoln's were gloomy. You must therefore, judge the President's words in the light of the circumstances in which he spoke. Atlanta had not fallen; Sheridan had not swept the Shenandoah —and men were ready for peace almost at any price. The President was pressed on every hand to modify his letter “To whom it may concern,” — how to meet this pressure he did me the honor to ask my opinion. He showed me a letter written with a view to meet the peace clamour raised against him. The first point made in it was the important fact that no man or set of men authorized to speak for the Confederate Government had ever submitted a proposition for peace to him. Hence the charge that he had in some way stood in the way of peace fell to the ground. He had always stood ready to listen to any such propositions. The next point referred to was the charge that he had in his Niagara letter committed himself and the country to an abolition war rather than a war for the union, so that even if the latter could be attained by negotiation, the war would go on for Abolition. The President did not propose to take back what he had said in his Niagara letter but wished to relieve the fears of hit peace friends by making it appear that the thing which they feared could not happen and was wholly beyond his power. Even if I would, I could not carry on the war for the abolition of slavery. The country would not sustain such a war and I could do nothing without the support of Congress. I could not make the abolition of slavery an absolute prior condition to the re-establishment of the union. All that the President said on this point was to make manifest his want of power to do the thing which his enemies and pretended friends professed to be afraid he would do. Now the question he put to me was "Shall I send forth this letter?" To which I answered "Certainly not." It would be given a broader meaning than you intend to convey — it would be taken as a complete surrender of your antislavery policy — and do yon serious damage. In answer to your Copperhead accusers your friends can make this argument of your want of power — but you cannot wisely say a word on that point. I have looked and feared that Mr. Lincoln would say something of the sort, but he has been perfectly silent on that point and I think will remain so. But the thing which alarmed me most was this: The President said he wanted some plan devised by which we could get more of the slaves within our lines. He thought that now was their time— and that such only of them as succeeded in getting within our lines would be free after the war is over. This shows that the President only has faith in his proclamations of freedom during the war and that he believes their operation will cease with the war. We were long together and there was much said—but this is enough.

I gave my address, To the People of the U. S., to the Committee appointed to publish the Minutes of the Convention. It is too lengthy for a newspaper article though of course I should be very glad to see it noticed in the Independent. You may not be aware that I do not see the Independent now-a-days. It was discontinued several months ago. If you were not like myself taxed on every hand both by your own disposition to give and the disposition of others to ask I should ask you to send me the Independent for one year on your own account.

We had Anna Dickinson here on Thursday night. Her speech made a profound impression. Nothing from Phillips, Beecher or yourself could have been more eloquent, and in her masterly handling of statistics she reminded one of Horace Mann in his palmiest days. I never listened to her with more wonder. One thing however I think you can say to her, if you ever get the chance, for it ought to be said and she will hear it and bear it from you, as well or better than from most other persons, and that is Stop that waiting. She walked incessantly — back and forth — from one side the broad platform to the other. It is a new trick and one which I neither think useful or ornamental but really a defect and disfigurement. She would allow me to tell her so, I think, because she knows how sincerely I appreciate both her wonderful talents and her equally wonderful devotion to the cause of my enslaved race.

I am not doing much in this Presidential Canvass for the reason that Republican committees do not wish to expose themselves to the charge of being the "Niggar" party. The negro is the deformed child which is put out of the room when company comes. I hope to speak some after the election, though not much before, and I am inclined to think I shall be able to speak all the more usefully because I have had so little to say during the present canvass. I now look upon the election of Mr. Lincoln as settled. When there was any shadow of a hope that a man of more decided antislavery convictions and policy could be elected, I was not for Mr. Lincoln, but as soon as the Chicago convention my mind was made up and it is made up still. All dates changed with the Domination of McClellan.

I hope that in listening to Mr. Stanton's version of my visit to the President you kept in mind something of Mr. Stanton's own state of mind concerning public affairs. I found him in a very gloomy state of mind, much less hopeful than myself, and yet more cheerful than I expected to find him. I judge from your note that he must have imparted somewhat of the hue of his own mind to my statements. He thinks far less of the President's honesty than I do, and far less of his antislavery than I do I have not yet come to think that honesty and politics are incompatible.

SOURCE: Buffalo Public Library, Descriptive Catalogue of the Gluck Collection of Manuscripts and Autographs in the Buffalo Public Library, p. 35-7

Saturday, March 16, 2019

Wendell Phillips to George L. Stearns, June 19, 1863

[June 19, 1863.]
Dear Stearns:

Yours recd, and communicated to Sanborn. We congratulate you — your success seems full.

I forward the official document as requested with two remarks. 1st. Mr. Jay Browne is no “friend” of mine. He knew me and wrote me, and, as in duty bound, I forwarded his letter to Andrew, 2d. I remember well our understanding, a wise one, that you had nothing to do with commissions, and I had nothing to do in recommending any one to you.

SOURCE: Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 295

Thursday, March 7, 2019

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Colonization Love and “Logic,” September 8, 1838

Abolition Logic

Not hate of one's neighbor.” We prove it to be hate, because it wants to send off. Hatred repels, and would expel. Love attracts, draws, wishes to detain. Colonization proposes to rid the land of colored people. It therefore, cannot love them. Its love is mere pretence. — Herald of Freedom.

This argument, poor as it is, with hardly speciousness enough to deceive a sensible boy of six years old, is the same that was used by George Thompson, in our debate with him in Boston. But how will this argument work? A New Hampshire father sends off his son to make his fortune on the rich lands of the West. Therefore he hates him. A Boston merchant sends off his son to Europe or the East Indies, that he may extend his schemes of enterprise, and acquire wealth. Therefore he hales him. We send off missionaries to barbarous nations, that they may extend the blessings of Christianity, and receive in a future world the rewards of those that turn many to righteousness. Therefore we hate these missionaries. The consent of those who depart seems to make no difference in the view of this sage editor. “We prove it to be hate because it wants to send off.

It is a little ludicrous that the editor of the Herald should actually kill his own argument, even before he reaches the bottom of his column. “It won't hurt a slave to send him to Africa. It won't, to send him any where out of the infernal regions. We had rather he might get to Canada, — but if he can't go there — or to the West Indies — or to England — or France — or Spain, or Turkey, or Algiers — or any other comparatively free country under heaven — why, rather than remain in America, among our Colonizationists, let him go to Liberia — or to the bottom of the sea — or to the sharks. No monster of the deep would devour him with the cruel tooth of our republicanism.”

He also proposes, in another article, to colonize slaves in Canada. Seriously, we think there are strong indications of insanity in the Herald.

The above is from the Rev. R. R. Gurley, Secretary and chief engineer of the American Colonization Society — that grand "American system” of machinery for clearing this country of free colored people, by a sort of suction-pump force, called “consent.” They say, however, the “Niggers” come hard; and though the pump draws upon them, like doctor's instruments upon a tooth, yet they stick to the soil like a lamprey eel to the rocks; and though the Secretary “hangs on like a dog to a root,” they “hang back, like a dog going to the gallows.” Resist sternly, colored friends! “Abide in the ship.” The land shall soon be indeed your country and your home. Lay your bones in it. Your tyrants and persecutors will go and evangelize Africa, themselves, when they really wish her evangelized.

The wily Secretary has ventured upon a little article of ours, with true Tracy philology and word-hunting. “Send off.” The magnificent “statesman” here finds a field for the scope of his continental philanthropy. The argument, he says, is the same that was used by George Thompson. All the better for that. George Thompson is an authority. He is a mm of instinctive and intuitive judgment on this question. But it is a poor argument, says the Secretary, “with hardly speciousness enough to deceive a sensible school boy of six years old.” Any argument is always poor in the eyes of the Secretary, that is clear “of speciousness and false show, and that can't deceive sensible school boys. We don't intend to use specious arguments,— “showy, plausible, superficially not solidly right,” as Walker defines them! The Secretary had better not use any more of them. “Fair play is a jewel.”

“How will this argument work?” Try it and see, Secretary.

You don't try it. You put different cases. You speak of farmers sending away sons for their benefit and fortunes. We speak of sending off — a sending off to get rid of. Farmers don't send off their sons, unless they get angry, and forget their nature, and disinherit them. Then they send them off. This sending to the West is not true in fact. The sons want to go from New Hampshire rocks to the prairied West. They have heard stories about it almost as extravagant and false as the Secretary tells about the death-haunted capes of Liberia, where bones lie bleaching as they do in the valley of the fabled Upas. The father wants them to stay with him, if he has got land for them, and if he han't, he would go with them. That is the way the father sends off his sons. Does the Secretary send off the dear colored people so?  Would he accompany them? Let him go and edit at Cape Palmas, and sing his ditty of the “African steeples” about among king Joe Harris' people. They would admire his tall presence and his fine head, as the Cossacks did Murat on his black charger. No. The Secretary loves —  “society,” that has got more “frame-work” in it. The dragon take Liberia, for all his going there! It is a grand country for “free niggers;” but the Secretary belongs to another race.

“The Boston merchant sends off his son,” &c. Whoever heard of such a sending off? Would the weeping father, as the vessel, with his dear boy on board, was clearing the harbor and standing out into the wide sea, tell the disconsolate mother and the brothers and sisters — all in tears — “I've sent off Charles?” Sent him off! for shame, Secretary! If you had instanced a Boston merchant, who had a poor, miserable, profligate, drunken, prodigal son, that had exhausted his paternal nature, and forged his name to checks — whom he did not wish to see hanged at home, for the disgrace it would bring on the family, and he had shipped him aboard a man-of-war for the Mediterranean — or a whaler for a three years' chance among the storms of the cape, and the grampuses of the arctic circle, peradventure to come back, and peradverture not, then you might talk of a father's sending his son off. But that comes too near colonizing, for the Secretary's purpose, — only he wants to ship the innocent — the blameless — the unoffending — guilty of nothing but want of the roseate hue of the beauteous, Absalom-looking Secretary.

“We send off missionaries,” &c. Only to Liberia, Secretary. We send out to every other quarter. Note this peculiarity, reader, in our American efforts to evangelize the world. We send out white, educated, college-learned, beneficiary, Andover-finished theologians to those people we have never enslaved; and to our old human hunting-ground we send off  abated nuisances, called “free niggers,” — sent off with their own consent.  (“He ’ticed him out of the field,” says the witness; “’ticed him clear out.” How did he ’tice him? said the court. “O, he 'ticed him with a pitchfork.’”) We had the curiosity to look, in this very number of the Secretary's “Statesman,” to see what he called the sending of missionaries. He has a deal to say about love to the heathen. We lit upon “Missions to Liberia,” the first thing almost. It is not the Secretary's own, but his faithful Achates, R. McDowell's. He gives us the very technical phrase for missionary sending; but there is no off to it. “The first mission, established in Liberia,” says McD., “was the Swiss mission, &c., sent out by Rev. Dr. Bleinhardt,” &c.

Don't talk of sending off sons and missionaries, any more, Mr. Secretary. It is too “specious.”

The Secretary says, we “ludicrously kill our argument before we get down our column.” What is our argument? That sending off our free colored people, to rid the country of them, is proof of hatred towards them. How do we kill it? Why, by saying it won't hurt a slave to send him away. Commend us to such killing. “What is sauce for the goose, may be for the” Secretary; but it don't follow, that what is bad for the freeman, would be bad for the slave. Would it be good for the freeman of America to be sent to Algiers? We say it would not hurt the slave to be sent there. He would rejoice to get there, and we should rejoice to have him, if we can't free him here,—even to Liberia—rather than stay within influence of such teachers of humanity as McDufie and Gurley.

The Secretary's mention of our proposal to colonize the slaves in Canada, as a serious proposal, is so roguishly specious,” that we can't answer it. — The charge of “insanity,” abolitionists are used to. The Secretary will be glad to be so, by and by, when we get slavery down in this country. The cry from the West Indies makes him look wild. He will exclaim, by another year or two, when Congress, with old John Quincy Adams at their head, and Alvan Stewart and Wendell Phillips and Vermont Knapp to back him up, declare slavery down in the capital and the' district — he will then cry out, as Atlialiah did, when she “heard the noise of the guard, the clapping of hands, and the God save king Joash.” He will be stark crazy then, — if he does not repent — which we hope he may.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 21-5 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of September 8, 1838.

Friday, December 14, 2018

Gerrit Smith to Wendell Phillips, 1855

Considerable as have been the pecuniary sacrifices of abolitionists in their cause, they fall far short of the merits of that precious cause. It is but a small proportion of them who refuse to purchase the cotton and sugar and rice that are wet with the tears and sweat and blood of the slave. And when we count up those who have sealed with their blood their consecration to the anti-slavery cause, we find their whole number to be scarcely half a dozen.

In none of the qualities of the best style of men — and that is the style of men needed to effectuate the bloodless termination of American slavery — have the abolitionists shown themselves more deficient than in magnanimity, confidence, charity. They have judged neither the slaveholders nor each other, generously. . . . The quarrels of abolitionists with each other, and their jealousy and abuse of each other would be far less had they more magnanimity, confidence, charity. Many of them delight in casting each other down, rather than in building each other up. Complain of each other they must; and when there is no occasion for complaint, their ill-natured ingenuity can manufacture an occasion out of the very smallest materials. Were even you, whose trueness to the slave is never to be doubted, to be sent to Congress, many of your abolition brethren would be on the alert to find some occasion for calling your integrity in question.

. . . It is no wonder that slaveholders despise both us and our cause. Our cowardice and vacillation, and innumerable follies have, almost necessarily, made both us and it contemptible. The way for us to bring slaveholders right on slavery is to be right on it ourselves. The way for us to command the respect, ay, and to win the love of slaveholders, is to act honestly, in regard to slavery and to all things else. Do I mean to say that slaveholders can be brought to love abolitionists? Oh yes! and I add, that abolitionists should love slaveholders. We are all brothers; and we are all sinners too; and the difference between ourselves, as sinners, is not so great, as in our prejudice on the one hand and our self-complacency on the other, we are wont to imagine it to be.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 230-1

Monday, October 1, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, about 1858

Mr. Emerson is bounteous and gracious, but thin, dry, angular, in intercourse as in person. Garrison is the only solid moral reality I have ever seen incarnate, the only man who would do to tie to, as they say out West; and he is fresher and firmer every day, but wanting in intellectual culture and variety. Wendell Phillips is always graceful and gay, but inwardly sad, under that bright surface. Whittier is the simplest and truest of men, beautiful at home, but without fluency of expression, and with rather an excess of restraint. Thoreau is pure and wonderfully learned in nature's things and deeply wise, and yet tedious in his monologues and cross-questionings. Theodore Parker is as wonderfully learned in books, and as much given to monologue, though very agreeable and various it is, still egotistical, dogmatic, bitter often, and showing marked intellectual limitations. Mr. Alcott is an innocent charlatan, full of inspired absurdities and deep strokes, maunders about nature, and when outdoors has neither eyes, ears, nor limbs. Lowell is infinitely entertaining, but childishly egotistical and monopolizing.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 93-4

Sunday, September 9, 2018

Gerrit Smith to Edmund Quincy, November 23, 1846

Peterboro, Nov. 23, 1846,
Edmund Quincy, Esq., of Massachusetts:

Dear Sir, — I have this evening, read your letter to me, in the last Liberator. I am so busy in making preparations to leave home for a month or two, that my reply must be brief. A reply I must make — for you might construe my silence into discourtesy and unfriendliness.

From your remark, that you have not seen my “recent writings and speeches,” I infer, that you do not deign to cast a look upon the newspapers of the Liberty Party. Your proud and disdainful state of mind toward this party accounts for some of the mistakes in your letter. For instance, were you a reader of its newspapers, you would not charge me with “irreverently” using the term “Bible politics.” You evidently suppose that I identify the federal constitution and the Liberty Party with the politics of the Bible. But, in my discourses on “Bible politics,” which, to no small extent, are made up directly from the pages of the Bible, I seek but to show what are the Heaven-intended uses of civil government, and what are the necessary qualifications of those who administer it. So far are these discourses from commending the constitution, or the Liberty Party, that they do not so much as allude either to the one or to the other. Again, were you a reader of the newspapers of this party, you would know its name. You would in that case know, that “Liberty Party” is the name, which, from the first, it has chosen for itself; and that “Third Party” is only a nickname, which low-minded persons have given to it. You well know, that there are low-minded persons, who, seeing nothing in the good man who is the object of their hatred, for that hatred to seize upon, will try to harm him by nicknaming him. It is such as these, whose malice toward the Liberty Party has, for want of argument against that truth-espousing and self-sacrificing party, vented itself in a nickname. Be assured, my dear sir, that I have no hard feelings toward you for misnaming my party. You are a gentleman; and your error is, therefore, purely unintentional. Upon your innocent ignorance — too easy and credulous in this instance, I admit — the base creatures who coined this nickname, have palmed it as the real name of the Liberty Party. You are a gentleman; and hence, as certainly as your good breeding accords to every party, however little and despised, the privilege of naming itself, so certainly, when you are awake to this deception which has been practiced upon your credulity, you will be deeply indignant at it. I see, from his late speech in Faneuil Hall, that even Mr. Webster has fallen into the mistake of taking “Third Party” to be the name of the Liberty Party. The columns of the Liberator have, most probably, led him into it. Being set right on this point yourself, you will of course, take pleasure in setting him right. He will thank you for doing so; for when he comes to know, that “Third Party” is but a nickname, and the invention of blackguards, he will shrink from the vulgarity and meanness of repeating it. Again, were you a reader of the newspapers of the Liberty Party, you would not feel yourself authorized to take it for granted, that to hold an office under the constitution is to be guilty of swearing to uphold slavery. On the contrary, you would be convinced, that nine-tenths of the abolitionists of the country — nine-tenths, too, of the wisest and worthiest of them — believe, that an oath to abide by the constitution is an oath to labor for the overthrow of slavery. Were you a reader of the newspapers of the Liberty Party, you would know, that this position of these nine-tenths of the abolitionists of the country is fortified by arguments of William Goodell and Lysander Spooner, which there has been no attempt to answer, and that, too, for the most probable reason, that they are unanswerable. I am not sure, that you have ever heard of these gentlemen. Theirs are perhaps, unmentioned names in the line of your reading and associations. Nevertheless I strongly desire that you may read their arguments. Your reading of them will, I hope, moderate the superlatively arrogant and dogmatic style in which you, in common with the abolitionists of your school, talk and write on this subject. If this or aught else, shall have the effect to relax that extreme, turkey-cock tension of pride, with which you and your fellows strut up and down the arena of this controversy, the friends of modesty and good manners will have occasion to rejoice.

I have not taken up my pen to write another argument for the constitution. Two or three years ago, I presumed to write one and the way in which it was treated, is a caution to me not to repeat the presumption. I shall not soon forget the fury with which the Mr. Wendell Phillips, whom you so highly praise in the letter before me, pounced upon it. Nothing short of declaring me to be a thief and a liar could relieve his swollen spirit, or give adequate vent to his foaming wrath. He would, probably, have come to be ashamed of himself, had not his review of me been endorsed by Mr. Garrison, and also by one, who it is said, is even greater than Mr. Garrison — “the power behind the throne.”

I do not doubt, my dear sir, that you and your associates have sincerely adopted your conclusions respecting the constitution. That you should be thoroughly convinced by your own arguments is a natural and almost necessary consequence of the self-complacency, which uniformly characterizes persons who regard themselves as ne plus ultra reformers. I wish you could find it in your hearts to reciprocate our liberality, in acknowledging your sincerity, and to admit, that we, who differ from you, are also sincere. No longer then would you suppose us, as you do in your present letter, to be guilty of “Jesuitical evasions,” or to be capable of being, to use your own capitals “PERJURED LIARS.” No longer then would you and the gentlemen of your school speak of us as a pack of office-seekers, hypocrites, and scoundrels. But you would then treat us  — your equal brethren, as honestly and ardently desirous as yourselves to advance the dear cause to which you are devoted — with decency and kindness, instead of contempt and brutality. I honor you and your associates, as true-hearted friends of the slave; and nor man, nor devil, shall ever extort from my lips or pen a word of injustice against any of you. I honor you also for the sincerity of your beliefs, that they, who dissent from your expositions of the constitution, are in the wrong. But I am deeply grieved at your superciliousness and intolerance toward those, whose desire to know and do their duty is no less strong nor pure than your own. Far am I from intimating that the blame of the internal dissensions of the Abolitionists belongs wholly to yourselves. No very small share of it should be appropriated by such of them as have indulged a bad spirit, in speaking uncandidly and unkindly of yourselves. All classes of Abolitionists have need to humble themselves before God for having retarded the cause of the slave by these guilty dissensions.

I would that I could inspire you with some distrust of your infallibility. I should, thereby, be rendering good service to yourself and to the cause of truth. Will you bear to have me point out some of the blunders in the letter to which I am now replying? And, when you shall have seen them, will you suffer your wonder to abate, that the great body of Abolitionists do not more promptly and implicitly bow to the ipse dixits of yourself and your fellow infallibles? Casting myself on your indulgence, and at the risk of ruffling your self-complacency. I proceed to point out to you some of these blunders.

Blunder No. 1. You charge me with holding, that the clause of the constitution relating to the slave-trade, provides for its abolition. What I do hold to, however, is, that the part of the constitution which entrusts Congress with the power to regulate commerce, provides for the abolition of this trade. That Congress would use the power to abolish this trade, was deemed certain by the whole convention which framed the constitution. Hence a portion of its members would not consent to grant this power, unless modified by the clause concerning the slave-trade, and unless, too, this clause were made irrepealable. When the life-time of this modification had expired, Congress, doing just what the anti-slavery spirit of the constitution and the universal expectation of the nation demanded, prohibited our participation in the African slave-trade. I readily admit, that the clause in question is, considered by itself, pro-slavery. But it is to be viewed as a part of the anti-slavery bargain for suppressing the African slave-trade — and as a part, without which, the anti-slavery bargain could not have been made. Did I not infer from your own words, that you cannot possibly bring yourself to condescend to read the “writings or speeches” of Liberty-party men, I would ask you to read what I wrote to John G. Whittier and Adin Ballou on that part of the constitution now under consideration.

Blunder No. 2. But what pro-slavery act can that part of the constitution which respects the African slave-trade, require at the hands of one who should now swear to support the constitution? None. No more than if the thing, now entirely obsolete, had never been. What a blunder then to speak of this part of the constitution, as an obstacle in the way of swearing to support those parts of it which still remain operative!

Blunder No. 3. In your letter before me, as well as in your approval of an article in the Liberator of 30th last month, you take the position, that the pro-slavery interpretations of the constitution, at the hands of courts and lawmakers, are conclusive that the instrument is pro-slavery. But you will yourself go so far as to admit, that all slavery under the national flag, and in the District of Columbia, and indeed everywhere, save in the old thirteen States, is unconstitutional. Nevertheless all such parts of unconstitutional slavery have repeatedly been approved by courts and law-makers. You say, that the constitution is what its expounders interpret it to be; and that, inasmuch as they interpret it to be pro-slavery, you are bound to reject it. But the dignified and authoritative expounders of the Bible interpret it to be pro-slavery. Why, then, according to your own rules, should you not reject the Bible, also? Talleyrand, you know, thought a blunder worse than a crime. You and I do not agree with him. But we certainly cannot fail to agree with each other, that your blunder No. 3, is a very bad blunder.

Blunder No. 4. You declare, that because the constitution is as you allege, pro-slavery, it is inconsistent and unfair to reject a slaveholder from holding office under it. Extend the application if you will, that you may see its absurdity. The constitution of my State makes a dark skin a disqualification for voting. Hence, in choosing officers under it — even revisers of the constitution itself — I am not at liberty, according to your rule, to exclude a man from the range of my selection, on the ground that he is in favor of such disqualification. Nay, more, I must regard his agreement with the constitution on this point, as an argument in favor of his claim to my vote. Again — to conform to your rule, a wicked community should, because it is wicked, choose a wicked preacher — or because it is ignorant, choose an ignorant schoolmaster. Yours is a rule that refuses to yield to the law of progress, and that shuts the door against all human improvement. You would, for the sake of their consistency, have an individual — have a people — remain as wicked as they are — and vote for drunkards and slaveholders, because they have always done so. The provision of the constitution for its own amendment, is of itself, enough to silence your doctrine, that the agreement of a man's character and views with the constitution, is necessarily an argument for, and can never be an argument against, his holding office under it. This provision opens the door for choosing to office under the constitution, those who disagree with it. This provision implies, that in the progress of things, a man's agreement with the constitution may be a conclusive objection to clothing him with official power under it.

But I will stop my enumeration of your blunders, and put you a few questions.

1. Do you not believe, that it was settled by the decision in the year 1772 of the highest court of England, that there was not any legal slavery in our American Colonies?

2. Do you not believe, that there was no legal slavery in any of the States of this nation, at the time the constitution was adopted?

3. Do you not believe, that the constitution created no slavery; and that it is not to be held as even recognizing slavery, provided there was, at the time of its adoption, no legal slavery in any of the States?

4. Do you not believe, that had the American people adhered to the letter and spirit of the constitution, chattel slavery would ere this, have ceased to exist in the nation?

You will of course, be constrained to answer all these questions in the affirmative. And I wish that, when you shall have answered them, you would also answer one more — and that is the question whether, since you are hotly eager for the overthrow of all civil government (they are not governments whose laws, if laws they may be called, are without the sanctions of force) you ought not to guard yourself most carefully from seeking unjust occasions against them, and from satisfying your hatred of them, at the expense of candor and truth? An atheist at heart is not unfrequently known to publish his grief over what he (afflicted soul!) is pained to be obliged to admit are blemishes upon the Bible. His words are, as if this blessed book were inexpressibly dear to him. Nevertheless, his inward and deep desire is, that with or without the blemishes he imputes to it, the Bible may perish. Our Non-resistants throw themselves into an agony before the public eye, on account of the pro-slavery which they allege taints the constitution. But, aside and in their confidential circles, their language is: “Be the constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery, let it perish.” Were the constitution unexceptionable to you on the score of slavery, you would, being a Non-resistant, still hate it with unappeasable hatred. Now I put it to you, my dear sir, whether the Non-resistants, when they ask us to listen to their disinterested arguments against the anti-slavery character of the constitution, do not show themselves to be somewhat brazen-faced! I say naught against your Non-resistance. That I am not a Nonresistant myself — that I still linger around the bloody and life-taking doctrines in which I was educated — is perhaps, only because I have less humanity and piety than yourself. Often have I tried to throw off this part of my education; and that the Bible would not let me, was, perhaps, only my foolish and wicked fancy.

You ask me to join you in abandoning the constitution. My whole heart — my whole sense of duty to God and man — forbids my doing so. In my own judgment of the case, I could not do so without being guilty of the most cowardly and cruel treachery toward my enslaved countrymen. The constitution has put weapons into the hands of the American people entirely sufficient for slaying the monster within whose bloody and crushing grasp are the three millions of American slaves. I have not failed to calculate the toil and selfdenial and peril of using those weapons manfully and bravely — and yet for one, I have determined, God helping me, thus to use them — and not, self-indulgently and basely, to cast them away. If the people of the north should refuse to avail themselves of their constitutional power to effectuate the overthrow of American slavery, on them must rest the guilty responsibility, and not in that power — for it is ample. To give up the constitution is to give up the slave. His hope of a peaceful deliverance is, under God, in the application of the anti-slavery principles of the constitution.

No — I cannot join you in abandoning the constitution and overthrowing the government. I cannot join you, notwithstanding you tell me that to do so is " the only political action in which a man of honor and self-respect can engage in this country." Your telling me so is but another proof of your intolerance and insolence—but another proof of the unhappy change wrought in your temper and manners by the associations and pursuits of your latter years. Your telling me so carries no conviction to my mind of the truth of what you tell me. It is a mere assertion;—and has surely, none the more likeness to an argument by reason of the exceedingly offensive terms in which it is couched.

Since I began this letter, I have received one from a couple of colored men of the city of Alexandria. Never did I read a more eloquent, or heart-melting letter. You remember that Congress, at its last session, left it to the vote of the whites in that part of the District of Columbia south of the Potomac, whether that part of the District should be set back to Virginia, and colored people be subjected to the murderous and diabolical laws which that State has enacted against colored people, the free as well as the bond. The letter which I have received, describes the feelings of our poor colored brethren, as they saw themselves passing from under the laws of the nation into the bloody grasp of the laws of a slave State. I will give you an extract:

“I know that, could you but see the poor colored people of this city, who are the poorest of God's poor, your benevolent heart would melt at such an exhibition. Fancy, but for a moment, you could have seen them on the day of election, when the act of Congress, retroceding them to Virginia, should be rejected or confirmed. Whilst the citizens of this city and county were voting, God's humble poor were standing in rows, on either side of the Court House, and, as the votes were announced every quarter of an hour, the suppressed wailings and lamentations of the people of color were constantly ascending to God for help and succor, in this the hour of their need. And whilst their cries and lamentations were going up to the Lord of Sabaoth, the curses and shouts of the people, and the sounds of the wide-mouthed artillery, which made both the heavens and the earth shake, admonished us that on the side of the oppressor there was great power. Oh sir, there never was such a time here before! We have been permitted heretofore to meet together in God's sanctuary, which we have erected for the purpose of religious worship, but whether we shall have this privilege when the Virginia laws are extended over us, we know not. We expect that our schools will all be broken up, and our privileges, which we have enjoyed for so many years, will all be taken away. The laws of Virginia can hardly be borne by those colored people that have been brought up in a state of ignorance and the deepest subjection: but oh sir how is it with us, who have enjoyed comparative liberty? We trust that we have the sympathies of the good and the virtuous. We know that we have yours and your associates in benevolence and love. Dear friend, can you and yours extend to our poor a helping hand, in this the time of our need? Remember, as soon as the legislature of Virginia meets, which is in December, they will extend their laws over us: and in the spring forty or fifty colored families would be glad to leave for some free State, where they can educate their children, and worship God without molestation. But, dear sir, whither shall we go? Say, Christian brother, and witness heaven and earth, whither shall we go? Do we hear a voice from you saying: ‘Come here?’ Or, are we mistaken? Say, brother, say, are we not greater objects of pity than our more highly favored and fortunate brethren of the North—(Heaven bless and preserve them!”)

If such, my friend, is the woe, when but a few hundred colored persons (and part of them free) find themselves deserted by the National Power, what will it not be, when, in the bosoms of three millions of slaves, all hope of the interposition of that Power shall die? That Power I would labor to turn into the channel of deliverance to these millions. That Power you would destroy. Alas, were it this day destroyed, what a long, black night would settle down upon those millions! Vengeance might, indeed, succeed to despair; and its superhuman arm deliver the enslaved. But, such a deliverance would be through blood, reaching, in Apocalyptic language, “even to the horses’ bridles:” and to such a deliverance neither you nor I would knowingly contribute.

But I am extending my letter to double the length I intended to give it—and must stop.

With great regard, your friend,
Gerrit Smith.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 201-8

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to a Louisa Storrow Higginson, October 27,1859

Worcester, October 27,1859
Dearest Mother:

While you are dreaming of me in this alarming manner, I am placidly laying out a new bed of crocuses and tulips for the spring, and buying at auction a second-hand tapestry Brussels, quite handsome, for seventy cents a yard, to put in the study. This afternoon an African brother visits us, not for insurrectionary purposes, but to aid in putting down the same on the study floor.

Of course I think enough about Brown, though I don't feel sure that his acquittal or rescue would do half as much good as his being executed; so strong is the personal sympathy with him. We have done what we could for him by sending counsel and in other ways that must be nameless. By we I mean Dr. Howe, W. Phillips, J. A. Andrew, and myself. If the trial lasts into next week, it is possible to make some further arrangements for his legal protection. But beyond this no way seems open for anything; there is (as far as one can say such a thing) no chance for forcible assistance, and next to none for stratagem. Never was there a case which seemed more perfectly impracticable: and so far as any service on the spot is concerned, there are others who could perform it better than I. Had I been a lawyer, however, I should probably have gone on at once, to act at least temporarily as his Counsel. A young man from Boston named Hoyt has gone on for this, and probably Montgomery Blair, of Washington, will be there to-day, to conduct the case.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 85-6

Sunday, July 15, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to Louisa Storrow Higginson, March 22, 1861

March 22, 1861
Dearest Mother:

Did you ever hear of George Smalley [the newspaper correspondent], a young lawyer who once lived here and was at one time engaged to our pretty Susan Gray? He is now in Boston; never heard Wendell Phillips speak till the time of Richard S. Fay's row, then fell desperately in love with him and in all the dangers since was his bodyguard, never leaving him and watching many nights in his house. This he enjoyed thoroughly, being a trained athlete and a natural soldier. When I saw him at Wendell's planning with us to mount guard, and then turning to pretty Phoebe to arrange little plans to keep everybody still and spare Mrs. P.'s nerves, I thought to myself that the adopted daughter might prove the next attraction, and now it turns out they are engaged. He is tall, erect, strong, blond, Saxon, and she a brunette with lovely eyes and a Welsh smile — you know her mother was Welsh; they will be a picturesque couple, and it is quite a chivalrous little affair.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 82-3

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, January 27, 1857

Worcester, January 27, 1857

I send you my speech at our Convention. You asked if I was led into it. It was entirely my doing, from beginning to end; nobody else would have dared to do it, because I knew of nobody at first who would take part with me, except the Garrisonians who were Disunionists before, but I found several rather influential persons, and the whole thing has succeeded better than we expected.

A nice pamphlet report will soon appear. I am surprised that you should not see the weakness of Theodore Parker's idea of preserving the Union for the slaves, when everybody admits that but for the Union, ten would escape where one now does, and slavery be soon abolished in the Northern Slave States. Last week Colonel Benton was here, and when he said these things as arguments against Disunion, everybody applauded, much to his surprise. They say his speech did more than our Convention.

I had a note from Mr. Sumner the other day, who thinks that Virginia will secede, first or last, and take all the States except perhaps Maryland, which can only be held by force. If it were not for the necessity of keeping Washington and the Mississippi, it would be well to have it so, but since those must be kept, it is hard to predict the end. I think however that you need feel no anxiety in Brattleboro'; I don't think the battering-rams (of which the old lady in the Revolutionary times, according to Rose Terry, was so afraid, her only ideas of warfare being based on the Old Testament and Josephus) will get so far. And I think there is more danger of compromise than war, at any rate.

I don't know whether you are aware of an impression which exists in many minds, but which I cannot attach any weight to, as yet, that the seceding States will prefer to abolish slavery, under the direction of England and France, rather than come under Yankee domination again. Wendell Phillips thinks this and says the Fremonts are very confident of it. If they made such a bargain, I think it would end the war and separate us and I don't think it would be so formidable a result, certainly. Even as a matter of Union, it would lead to ultimate reconstruction, for nothing but slavery can ever keep us permanently apart. And the slaves may be better off if emancipated by their masters than by us. Still I don't believe there is any chance of it.

Nothing could have happened better fitted to create enthusiasm than to begin the war by such a distinct overt act from the Southern Confederacy — and by a great disappointment. When you consider that such a man as Mr. Ripley firmly expected to see fighting in the streets of New York with the friends of the South there, and that the New York Mayor advocated annexation to the Southern Confederacy, the unanimous enthusiasm there is astonishing, compelling Bennett [of the "New York Herald"] to turn his editorials to the Northern side, for personal safety. Nothing else has been so remarkable as this.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 78-80

Thursday, May 31, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, March 1859

March, 1859

My lectures are over [for the season]. One of the last was at Dedham, and I stayed at Edmund Quincy's charming, English-looking place. Did you ever hear of an English traveller who, looking out of Mr. Ticknor's window, pointed out as the only two Americans he had seen who looked like gentlemen, W. Phillips and Edmund Quincy?

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 72

Saturday, May 26, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, February 1859


Worcester, February, 1859

George Curtis lectured here last week. With the most delicious elocution we have — except perhaps Wendell Phillips's — and a fascinating rhetoric and an uncorrupted moral integrity, he showed yet a want of intellectual vigor and training which will always prevent him from being a great man. Yet he perfectly fascinated everybody.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 72

Wednesday, May 23, 2018

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to George William Curtis, January 23, 1857

Do you remember, on your last visit to Worcester, that I said that there was but one thing wanting to your position — that you should become an abolitionist? I rejoiced in your brave action and fine speeches. But anti-slavery has to you been a summer sea, and you riding nobly on the advancing waves. What is to be your future? We do not ask you to join us, till time be ripe.

Make Sumner your star, till time has taught you to see the greater greatness of Phillips. . . . Remember that with or without Frémont, slaves are carried from Philadelphia, and to lift a finger is Treason. Colored men are thrust illegally out of cars in New York, and to take their part is Fanaticism. In presence of these things, with your upright and unspoiled nature, the end is sure, you will be more than a Republican orator, and God may grant you the privilege of being an Abo.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 71-2

Saturday, March 31, 2018

Samuel Gridley Howe to Horace Mann, 1848

Sunday, —1848.

My Dear Mann: — I have been much exercised in spirit about your position, but conclude that you find it necessary to maintain it.

I can understand how poignant must be your grief at the thought of leaving the field of your labours; but without allowing myself to look back I see much in the future to console me.

I could not say anything last evening, for Charlie1 talks faster and better than I can. May it not be that you will do even more for the cause of education out of the office of Secretary2 than in it? Will not the moral effect of your unofficial labours be greater than that of your official ones? Can you not attain a position in which you will bring even more official influence to bear upon your favourite subject?

Should you, as you may, put yourself at the head of the great anti-slavery (not abolition)3 party which is growing up here, you can become Governor or anything else that you aspire to. It is true that you will aspire to nothing but what will give you greater means of usefulness, but that very disinterestedness will promote your high ends. It appears to me that you should in the very outset, in the letter to the committee of nomination, take the high ground you will afterwards maintain.

It is absurd for me to reach up from my littleness to tender counsel to one so high as you, but my love for you is as great as though we stood face to face.

You can afford to trample all doctrines of expediency, all trimming, all manÅ“uvering, all tactics under foot. If you have one fault it is over caution; you are not reliant enough upon your own powers, — and upon the power of the earnest, honest, noble purposes of your mind. I hope you will throw all calculations about effect to the winds, and speak right out to the electors what your heart prompts you. I hope you will not, as Sumner advises, try to write a letter to disarm the liberty party, but one that ought to do so whether it is likely to do so or not.

Oh! for a man among our leaders who fears neither God, man nor devil, but loves and trusts the first so much as to fear nothing but what casts a veil over the face of truth. We must have done with expediency: we must cease to look into history, into precedents, into books for rules of action, and look only into the honest and high purposes of our own hearts; that is, when we are sure we have cast out the evil passions from them.

Would to God I could begin my life again; or even begin a new one from this moment, and go upon the ground that no fault or error or shortcoming should ever be covered up from my own eyes or those of others.

I believe you can write a letter that will ring through this land like a clarion, and proclaim that a champion is entering the political arena with vizor up and with no other arms than truth and honesty and courage. I know you will do so. I only want to warn you against the over activity of your caution. You are too much afraid of the Devil and his imps; you do not rely enough upon your own generous and high impulses. Believe me, you need no armour and should fear no open assaults or secret ambuscades.

However, I need not write any more; all I have said is nothing worth except to show you that I am ever and most sincerely yours.

S. G. Howe.
_______________

1 Charles Sumner.

2 Of the Board of Education

1 At this time the opponents of slavery formed two distinct parties, the Abolitionists, headed by Garrison and Phillips, who refused to vote or take office under a Constitution sanctioning slavery, and the more moderate Anti-slavery Party, who, working for the same end, the emancipation of the negro, believed that they could best do so by taking part in politics and working with the tools already provided.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 256-8

Friday, October 20, 2017

Franklin B. Sanborn to John Brown, July 27, 1859

[July 27, 1859.]

Dear Friend, — Yours of the 18th has been received and communicated. S. G. Howe has sent you fifty dollars in a draft on New York, and I am expecting to get more from other sources (perhaps some here), and will make up to you the three hundred dollars, if I can, as soon as I can; but I can give nothing myself just now, being already in debt. I hear with great pleasure what you say of the success of the business, and hope nothing will occur to thwart it. Your son John was in Boston a week or two since. I tried to find him, but did not; and being away from Concord, he did not come to see me. He saw S. G. Howe, George L. Stearns, Wendell Phillips, Francis Jackson, etc.; and everybody liked him. I am very sorry I could not see him. All your Boston friends are well. Theodore Parker is in Switzerland, much better, it is thought, than when he left home. Henry Sterns, of Springfield, is dead.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 534-5

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Theodore Parker to Ralph Waldo Emerson, December 9, 1859

Dec. 9, 1859.

My Dear Emerson, — Mr. Apthorp leaves me a corner of his paper, which I am only too glad to fill with a word or two of greeting to you and yours. I rejoiced greatly at the brave things spoken by you at the Fraternity Lecture, and the hearty applause I knew it must meet with there. Wendell Phillips and you have said about all the brave words that have been spoken about our friend Captain Brown — No! J. F. Clarke preached his best sermon on that brave man. Had I been at home, sound and well, I think this occasion would have either sent me out of the country — as it has Dr. Howe — or else have put me in a tight place. Surely I could not have been quite unconcerned and safe. It might not sound well that the minister of the Twenty-Eighth Congregational Church had “left for parts unknown,” and that “between two days,” and so could not fulfil his obligations to lecture or preach. Here to me “life is as tedious as a twice-told tale;” it is only a strennous idleness, — studying the remains of a dead people, and that too for no great purpose of helping such as are alive, or shall ever become so. I can do no better and no more. Here are pleasant Americans, — Mrs. Crawford, my friend Dr. Appleton, and above all the Storys, — most hospitable of people, and full of fire and wit. The Apthorps and Hunts are kind and wise as always, and full of noble sentiments. Of course, the great works of architecture, of sculpture and painting, are always here; but I confess I prefer the arts of use, which make the three millions of New England comfortable, intelligent, and moral, to the fine arts of beauty, which afford means of pleasure to a few emasculated dilettanti. None loves beauty more than I, of Nature or Art; but I thank God that in the Revival of Letters our race — the world-conquering Teutons — turned off to Science, which seeks Truth and Industry, that conquers the forces of Nature and transfigures Matter into Man; while the Italians took the Art of Beauty for their department. The Brownings are here, poet and poetess both, and their boy, the Only. Pleasant people are they both, with the greatest admiration for a certain person of Concord, to whom I also send my heartiest thanks and good wishes. To him and his long life and prosperity!

Theodore Parker.1
_______________

1 Parker's letter to Francis Jackson on the deed and death of Brown was one of his last public utterances, — for he died and was buried in Florence, where Mrs. Browning was afterwards buried, in May, 1860.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 513