Rights of Leadership: The Propaganda of Race and Class During the Abolitionist Movement

Henry Highland Garnet and William Lloyd Garrison were two of the most instrumental leaders of the Abolitionist Movement. Their social backgrounds and experiences were responsible for contrasting the two leaders and influenced their approaches, beliefs and solutions to the abolishment of slavery. Their opinions and approaches were voiced in terms of the role of the political process, the role of moral persuasion and the role of violence as a means to an end.

Though both Garnet and Garrison shared a common interest in the anti-slavery movement they differed greatly in their rhetoric and advocacy styles and techniques. Garrison, who was from a poor New England family was involved from an early age in the business of publishing as an apprentice to a printer, a job that laid the foundation for what would later be a career as editor of the Liberator, a paper that actively addressed controversial issues about the eradication of slavery. Although Garrison addressed issues concerning the eradication of slavery, he also focused on other causes such as temperance and women's voting rights. Due to his involvement in advocating for many other reforms, his critics accused him of being unfocused on the issue of abolition.

Oppositely, Garnet focused solely on the elevation of the Black community which included a more extreme and active means to end slavery. Garnet, who escaped slavery with his family to the North, was still subject to racial violence. One incident that exemplified the racial aggression was when his house had been looted and his sister had been arrested as a "fugitive from labor." This event in the early part of his life was an introduction to the inhumanity Garnet would experience as a black man whether he lived in the North or the South. In 1834, Garnet read in Garrison's Liberator a notice for Noyes Academy formed by abolitionists in Canaan, New Hampshire, that admitted "colored youth of good character on equal terms with whites of like character." (Schor 12). At Noyes, he learned to articulate his earlier feelings of anger towards solutions that included nonviolent, moral suasionist views, ideologies that were promoted at Noyes. After repeated personal attacks, Garnet reluctantly abandoned his nonviolent doctrines. This led him to form an alliance with Walker who also believed "the end justifies the means." Unlike Garrison who believed that people were capable of infinite improvement Garnet believed it was sinful "not" to use violence. Garnet's resistance, though more extreme that Garrison's, appeared appropriate, even moderate because of the turmoil in the climate of the country that led to the civil war.

Both Garrison and Garnet shared a belief in the importance of the written word and speech. Garrison who was convicted of libel for denouncing a Newberryport merchant, was sentenced to jail, during which time he also published a pamphlet that became widely circulated. Through his pamphlets and his anti-slavery newspapers, he was able to spread his message. Garrison effectively used his rhetoric to organize the American Anti-Slavery society in 1833. He argued that slavery was evil because it perpetuated inhuman relationships as did politics in a male dominated society. Garnet was known for communicating his anti-slavery doctrine through orature. In particular Garnet's "Address to Slaves," won him national exposure which voiced his support of reactionary violence. Though this idea was controversial, it broadened and deepened the debate over slavery.

These two leaders were set apart as a result of ideological differences over the same goals. These differences were a reflection of differences in the origin of antislavery forces. For Instance, Garrison championed moral suasion and propaganda by word to achieve emancipation. He advocated nonresistance and the rejection of political action, disunion and a proslavery interpretation of the Constitution. This is where Garnet broke off from Garrisonian objectives because he did not believe Garrison's weapons were suitable or realistic with which to abolish slavery (Schor 33).

Garrison's objections for the abolishment of slavery were contained in a framework that exemplified him as a model Christian who attempted to explain his argument as logical and reasonable. Even his first antislavery newspapers, including The Liberator and The Emancipator were a way to express his moral and Christian duties. As Garrison pointed out, "most of my anti-slavery work was of the missionary character as was that of the first Christian apostles who went everywhere preaching the word." (Pillsbury 2). The word that he spread was that slavery violated God's law that all men and women were created equal, and consequently should be abolished immediately. However, the abolishment of slavery was merely one of Garrison's reforms that he advocated. The central force in Garrison's life was his religious faith so his aim was merely the "redemption of the human race."

Garnet's aim was more focused politically and socially. Socially, he believed in the self-elevation among the black community, and asserted the rights of all Blacks to full citizenship rights (Schor 30). Garnet's moral questions were not restricted to the religious sphere. They were also secularly rooted since he believed that slavery was indeed a moral question being a sin as distinguished from a social evil. It followed that slaveholders, traders, and apologists who perpetuated it were sinful so Garnet believed that Christian worship which conferred grace upon the faithful should exclude these "traffickers" in human flesh until they freed the bondsmen (Schor 29). Politically he hammered away for a Liberty party endorsement and remained a loyal political abolitionist and party organizer until one of the party's candidates was elected president of the United States.

Another major ideological difference between Garnet and Garrison was on exactly how to go about abolishing slavery. Garrison wanted "no union with slave holders," and disunion with the South. Garrison saw the constitution as corrupt document that was "a contract with hell" (Dick 58). Garnet on the other hand fought for suffrage for African American voters. In 1845, Garnet was very involved in the New York Colored Suffrage Convention and fighting for African American's civil rights (Dick 57). Garnet did not see the constitution as an innately corrupt document, but as a document that contained unconstitutional laws. Garnet wanted to work within the context of the Constitution to change these laws to eradicate slavery and give equal rights to African Americans. Garnet was a prominent member of the Liberty party, which fought for abolition (Dick 95). He urged all African Americans and all abolitionists to vote for the Liberty party. Garrison argued that abolitionists should not necessarily vote and that the constitution as it stood should be dissolved. Garrison's argument was a less aggressive approach to immediate abolition than Garnet's appeal. Garnet clearly had a more personal stake in the movement, as a result of being African American himself, which explained his desire for immediate change. Garnet's primary goal was to uplift his race where for Garrison, the issue was more of a moral issue.

Garrison's commencement of The Liberator carried his statement of his aims and purposes. He pointed out that he shall not array himself as the political partisan of any man and that he planned to defend the great cause of human rights and called upon assistance of all religions an of all parties. He used the passage in the Declaration of Independence, "that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights- among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." He contended for the immediate enfranchisement of the slave population. In addition, he answered for his aims by stating that,

"I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? 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. I will not equivocate- I will not excuse- I will not retreat a single inch- AND I WILL BE HEARD." (Ruchames 31).

Prior to Garnet's call for slave resistance, including the use of force, he was labeled a radical. While attended Noyes Academy in New Hampshire, he addressed an audience and postulated that the "duty of every Patriot and Christian was to adopt the principles of the immediate abolitionists, for the safe and speedy overthrow of Slavery, that every man who walked the American soil, might tread it unmolested and free." (Schor 14). His speech angered a group of farmers who called the academy a "public nuisance" and resolved to removed the academy out of the neighborhood. Even though Garnet did not advocate violent means as an end to slavery at this point, his views were still seen as "radical" because his means to achieve freedom and equality was not laid out as Garrison did, addressing only religion and ignoring social and political discourses.

Garrison was still seen as the most influential leader of the Abolitionist Movement even though his fight for the emancipation of the Black community ended with the Civil war. This was such because his goal was merely the abolishment of slavery. Infact he used The Liberator, which was to be a anti-slavery newspaper, as a public platform to voice his opinions on other reforms that he advocated. In his final issue of The Liberator, he publicly admitted "although The Liberator was designed to be mainly devoted to the abolition of slavery, yet it has been instrumental in aiding the cause of reform in many of its most important aspects." (Cain 181).

Garnet's abolishment of slavery meant not only to abolition the institution, but all the implications that came with it, including racism and inequality. He advocated political abolition, full suffrage and slave resistance. So why were these things considered so radical? Was it because of Garnet's famous speech "An Address to Slaves" were many began to condemn him as advocating the use of violence to achieve freedom? Why is it that history remembers and teaches Garrison as the most influential leader in the Abolition movement and tends to leave out images of Garnet? W.E.B DuBois suggests that this is due to the propaganda of history which presents African Americans as ignorant of the country's needs and as African Americans as extravagant in their views. DuBois added that, "if we are going to use history for our pleasure and amusement, for inflating our national ego, and giving us a false but pleasurable sense of accomplishment, then we must give up the idea of history either as a science or as an art, using the results of science in order to influence and educate the new generation along the way we wish." (DuBois 714).

While Garrison and Garnet's approaches towards abolition were similar in form, their ideologies on how to reform were quite different. Garrison's interest in the Abolitionist Movement was due to his belief that slavery was morally wrong. Though Garnet agreed with this belief, his main objection was the elevation of the Black community which he believed was impossible without the abolishment of slavery. Both Garnet and Garrison demanded a swift dissolution of slavery, but Garnet's push to end slavery was more immediate which led to an anti-slavery ideology of "by any means necessary." Although Garrison had more publicity as the editor of The Liberator, he also had the advantage of his race and class during a period when people took these factors into consideration. On the other hand, Garnet is often left out of the picture when discussing influential leaders in the Abolitionist Movement. The reason posed is usually that Garnet was a radical, although he was labeled a radical long before his outward cry to use violence as a means to abolish slavery. Again, one can look at the propaganda of history to explain this discrepancy. The rights of leadership often lie within the propaganda of race and class.

References:

Cain, William E., ed. William Lloyd Garrison and the Fight against Slavery: Selections From The Liberator. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press, 1985.

Dick, Robert C. Black Protest: Issues and Tactics. London: Greenwood Press, 1974.

Dillion, Merton L. The Abolitionists: The Growth of a Dissenting Minority. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974.

DuBois, W.E.B, Black Reconstruction in America: 1860-1880. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

Gates Jr.,Henry Louis and Mckay, Nellie Y., eds. The Norton Anthology: African American Literature. New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1997.

Korngold, Ralph. Two Friends of Man: The Story of William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips and Their Relationship with Abraham Lincoln. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1950.

Nye, Russel B. William Lloyd Garrison and the Humanitarian Reformers. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1955.

Pillsbury, Parker. Acts of the Anti-Slavery Apostles. Concord, 1883.

Rogers, William B. "We are All Together Now" : Frederick Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, and the Prophetic Tradition. New York: Garland Publishing, 1995.

Ruchames, Louis, comp. The Abolitionists: A Collection of Their Writings. New York: Capricorn Books, 1963.

Schor, Joel. Henry Highland Garnet: A Voice of Black Radicalism in the Nineteenth Century. London: Greenwood Press, 1977.

Walters, Ronald G. The Antislavery Appeal: American Abolitionism After 1830. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

Send Feedback to the Authors at:

Devon Saunders

Renimah Al-Mattar

Thomas Shields