A publication was circulated in 1829 urging violent action against slaveholders and their sympathizers. Free black citizens and white citizens alike were developing a contempt for slavery beyond what could be considered civil political disagreement. It was under these conditions that David Walker, a free black man from Boston, wrote his Appeal.蜉 However, not all of those involved in the abolitionist movement during the early 1800s subscribed to the idea that their hopeful ends justified violent means.
William Lloyd Garrison and his followers were no less dedicated to the cause than even the most violent and angry of abolitionists. While they believed in peaceful protest and practiced moral soundness, they were unwilling to stand for the unacceptable institution of slavery, and were additionally unwilling to stand for even gradual emancipation. Despite his commitment to non-violence, Garrison’s abolitionist movement was one of total non-compromise. His name became linked to all who held the same morals and standards he did; the demand of immediate emancipation, the irreconcilability of slavery with religious standards, and for some, an intolerance of the United States Constitution itself. The “Garrisonians” were those who subscribed to his ideas; whether or not as whole-heartedly as he would have wished them to, considering their forging of the legacy of his name. Their most significant accomplishments, events, conflicts, and internal rivalries took place during the 1830s.
Abolitionist sentiment grew increasingly indignant during the early 19th century. After the publication of David Walker’s Appeal, there was a coinciding fearful and reactionary sentiment among slaveholders. The threat of force against them, unfortunately, proved counter-intuitive as it lead to more strict and repressive slave codes in states such as Georgia and North Carolina.蜉 The Southern Historical Association member and author Henry H. Simms claimed in a 1940 article that militant abolitionist literature “did much to cement the South in defense of her own way of life.”蜉 This fact was not, however, solely evident a century later in retrospect, as even in 1833, the Annual Report of the New England Anti-Slavery Society actually admitted that they expected abolitionist literature to lead to more repressive slave codes. However, their hope was that this would spawn stronger reactions against slavery from complacent citizens and the more temperate abolitionists.蜉
Indeed, the conflicts of this time period did provide the proper breeding grounds for the advent of Garrison-style abolitionism. Still only in his twenties, William Lloyd Garrison published the first article of The Liberator on January 1, 1831, which today is one of the most historically widely recognized abolitionist publications. Garrison’s view on the abolitionist movement and the slaveholding phenomenon was made abundantly clear to the public; he demanded immediate emancipation, he condemned the concept of gradual emancipation and those who subscribed to it, and state that “No compensation should be given to the planters for emancipating their slaves.”蜉
At a glance, Garrison’s demands and ideals would seem comparatively similar to that of David Walker. Garrison’s words were not tame or tolerant. “I will be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising as justice on this subject – I do not wish to think, or speak, or write with moderation” he proudly wrote to introduce his first copy of The Liberator, with the added flourish of its infamous “I WILL BE HEARD” phrase.蜉 Yet, in contrast with the sentiments of Walker and other militant abolitionists, Garrison’s commitment against complacency and compromise was paired with more humane and religious morals; other facets of his belief system that were not to be compromised. Garrison would not tolerate violence any more than he would tolerate gradual emancipation. His commitment to peace was solid enough for the word to become the title of a regular column in The Liberator years down the road.
1833 proved to be a landmark year for Garrison and his followers, and for abolitionism in general. As a semi-victory overseas for the Garrisonians, it was this year that England began the process of gradual emancipation.蜉 A lot took place at home in the United States as well. A Kentucky slaveholder named Cassius M. Clay, inspired by Garrison, joined the abolitionist movement. He not only freed his own slaves, but also joined the abolitionist media movement in creating his own publication titled The True American.蜉 In Philadelphia during this year, the American Anti-Slavery Society (AAS) was formed. The members of this society wrote their own “constitution,” which, unlike the United States Constitution, was very clearly and deliberately written as an anti-slavery document. It stated that “slavery is contrary to the principles of that natural justice, of our republican form of government and of the Christian religion.”蜉 Such ideals were perfectly reflective of Garrison’s personal politics and morals. There was a stark difference between Garrison and many other abolitionists, such as Frederick Douglass (years later, of course), who argued against the constitutionality of slavery. Garrison argued against the Constitution instead, believing that it was indeed a pro-slavery document, and therefore against America’s own codes of religious morality. It was this same year that he was quoted as addressing the document as a “compact… dripping with blood.”蜉
Garrison’s uncompromising, radical beliefs and words went beyond challenging the rightness of the federal government or the rule of law. He was incredibly critical of many facets of American life and was outspoken about anything that he perceived as hypocritical or out of sync with his own morals, down to the most specific details. Even other abolitionists were fair game to him, as he was often incredibly critical of them. He described Unitarian pastor and ardent abolitionist William Channing’s words on slavery as “moral plagiarisms from the writings of abolitionists.”蜉 Garrison was attacking other abolitionists over semantics; he was a ‘true’ abolitionist where others failed to be. His biographers have described him as having “an unyielding purpose to expose and refute the errors, fallacies, and misrepresentations of every proselyte to the cause, or every ally, however great his name or desirable his accession.”蜉 Albert Bushnell Hart, in a book written in 1906, described Garrison as a man who “put his whole strength and vitality into his addresses, violently and often unfairly attacking foes and even friends, but hammering his principal home”蜉 – of course, making no reference to physical violence, but rather a sort of ‘verbal violence’ to depict the harshness of the abolitionist’s words. Physical violence was out of the question, as Garrison was dedicated to a concept he coined as “non-resistance” – essentially, a synonym for non-coercion. Leo Tolstoi commented on this concept, stating that Garrison “denied the right of any man whatsoever… forcibly to coerce another man in any way.”蜉
Garrison’s criticisms were not restricted only to who he perceived as insincere abolitionists and Unitarian ministers. While a deeply religious man, he unabashedly attacked the entirety of the American religious establishment, particularly in the later half of the 1830s. He believed that slavery was indeed out of sync with Christianity, that Christianity and government were incompatible, and that most Christians and followers of organized religion were too hypocritical to see eye to eye with him on this issue.蜉 He outwardly insulted and lashed out at the Methodist Episcopal Church, which he described as “a cage of unclean birds, and a synagogue of Satan.”蜉 There was no way that true Christians could reconcile their treatment of slaves with the morals of the religion he so un-blindly followed.
Unfortunately, it was not only rival abolitionists and churchgoers who were put off by Garrison’s unrelenting, inflammatory attitude. Often he caused drama between himself and his own associates. In 1835, the president of the American Anti-Slavery Society and acclaimed abolitionist Arthur Tappan, brother of abolitionist Lewis Tappan, almost decided to leave the entire movement.蜉 He was dissatisfied with Garrisonian radicalism, and believed that Garrison and his followers were more likely to create enemies than friends. They were a detriment to their own cause, in Tappan’s eyes. This would not be the last rift caused between Garrison and his followers, though at the moment, the movement had more severe problems to address than the dissatisfaction of one member.
During 1835, the Garrisonians began to spread their word throughout dangerous territory. They began distributing their papers and publications throughout the South, and they were, of course, not met with cordial ears. The Southerners were inflamed by the abolitionists, who were posing a threat to their economy, their lifestyle, and their perceived constitutional and state rights. Southern protest grew violent, conveying a stark contrast with the non-violent protest of Garrison and his followers. A rally in Norfolk, Virginia called “for the heads of Garrison, Tappan & Co.”蜉 Dr. Reuben Crandall, one of Garrison’s more prominent followers, was thrown in a Washington D.C. jail for a period of time for distributing abolitionist publications.蜉
Unfortunately, this conflict was not only confined to the South. The Garrisonians were not popular with Northerners either, despite the lack of legal slavery. Garrison met opposition of abolitionist sentiment from North due to economic ties with Southern states and due to general race prejudice.蜉 Not all Northerners were against slavery. In fact, in 1835, the same year that Garrison’s protests met violent opposition in the South, he was almost lynched in Boston, Massachussetts by an angry pro-slavery mob. Fortunately, he escaped through the city’s streets.蜉 Being as uncompromising as he was, Garrison had more interest in condemning Northerners than trying to win them over. They, too, were hypocrites in his eyes, willing to “barter their own souls for bales of cotton, and hogsheads of sugar and molasses,”蜉 referring of course, to the goods that they obtained from Southern plantations.
A movement with roots in South Carolina began over the coming years not to do business with the abolitionists, spreading throughout the entirety of the South. This movement specifically boycotted the purchase of Arthur Tappan’s products, as the man was not only an abolitionist, but a merchant of silks. Tappan’s will and dedication was indeed tested, as was obvious from his threat to leave the movement. However, when urged by his business acquaintances to renounce abolitionism for the sake of his company, Arthur Tappan famously stated “I will be hung first!”蜉 His will was not yet broken. However, by the end of the decade, even after his eventual secession from the Garrisonian movement, Tappan’s moral perseverance would take its toll on his finances. By 1841, Tappan declared bankruptcy.蜉
A clear correlation could be drawn between the conflicts of 1835 and increase in media interest. Despite the fears of level-headed abolitionists, that their hot-headed Garrisonian counterparts were proving detrimental to their own cause, interest in the movement increased during the following few years. The Anti-Slavery Record’s highest circulation of abolitionist publications was during the years of 1835 and 1836.蜉 Additionally, the American Anti-Slavery Society, founded by the Tappans and Garrison, which published The Liberator and various other papers, saw record success in their numbers. By 1836, periodicals circulated by the society reached 1,095,800.蜉 By the following year, however, that number would drop somewhat significantly.
1837 brought about a changing tide for the Garrisonians and the entire abolitionist movement. Elijah Lovejoy, the editor of an anti-slavery newspaper, was murdered this year, after he (or one of his men) killed a local youth who was attempting to destroy his printing press.蜉 This brought about negative attention for the abolitionist movement and their dedication to non-violent protest. In 1838, Lewis Tappan decided to write to The Liberator considering it to be “a very suitable time to discuss the Peace question.”蜉 The paper then featured a discussion of Tappan’s opposition to violence, and began to question whether or not violence is warranted for self defense: in other words, they wanted to discuss the answer to the question “What should Lovejoy had done?” The word “Peace” began to show up a lot during this year, even becoming the title of a regular column in The Liberator.蜉
Unfortunately, this sentiment of ‘coming together’ under the umbrella of peace did not hold strong over the coming few years at the end of the decade. As dedicated as Garrison was to “non-resistance,” he was equally dedicated to his contempt for government. He urged “non-resistance” in his papers through abstinence from voting. This argument led to an open feud printed in The Liberator in 1839 between Garrison and James B. Girney, another member of the American Anti-Slavery Society.蜉 The society was beginning to lose members (including the Tappans) who felt alienated by the uncompromising and radical Garrisonian principles. By 1840, Garrison caused Birney and many other abolitionists to secede from the society and form their own parties, such as the Liberty Party for voting abolitionists.蜉
Garrison, of course, would continue to persevere beyond this decade and keep on printing his uncompromising ideals in The Liberator until slavery was abolished throughout the United States by the 13th Amendment of the Constitution. Finally, the document and the government that he had railed against so strongly had succumbed to his own will and the will of those who remained dedicated to him. Garrison and his followers may have been angry, unrelenting, and radical, and they may have induced violence against their own will to suppress it. However, there is no doubt that their uncompromising and fiery protest provided the backdrop for the righteous outrage of American citizens, and for the cessation of the most cruel and unusual punishment in the United States’ history.