Viewing page 2 of 4

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[heavy double line across page]]
[[/heavy double line across page]]

[[first column]]
contempt and rebuke of every fair and honest mind; and such a paper, in spite of its pretensions, is unworthy to receive the countenance and support of the friends of liberty and justice.
PARKER PILLSBURY said that some appeared surprised at the developments relating to the report in the Republican organ of this city. But it is not among the anti-slavery agents and lecturers that this surprise is felt; they know but too well what to expect of the Republicans.
He then went on in a searching review of the position of the Republicans towards the Abolitionists, saying that the most bitter opposers that we meet with are the leaders of the Republican party, and the so-called anti-slavery ministers. 
He said he cared not for a whole regiment of Dr. Adamses, and Dr. Lords, and Dr. Plumers, and Dr. Fullers; he could handle them easily. He might say the hardest things he could say of them, and all the community would approve; but how are we to withstand the influence of the Beechers and the Cheevers, whose position enables them to stab with more fatal effect than any others can the anti-slavery cause?
So, he cared not for the New York Observer, the Journal of Commerce, and such papers. But when the New York Tribune, the Evening Post, the Boston Traveller, and other Republican organs come to us laden with all the old abuse of us and our movement that used to fill the columns of the New York Herald and Express, what shall we do with them?
Mr. GARRISON said that he was not prepared to say that the Republican movement is a worse movement or a more dangerous one than any other. He believed in progress, and these men are making slow progress, though now they see men but as trees walking. He then went on to show that the Republican party is not an anti-slavery party, but only a non-extension party, and we should judge it by its own standard.
The Republicans, however, on their own platform, are not true even to their own idea. They are 'hail fellows well met; with border-ruffians after election. Mr. G. proved this by reading a report of a supper partaken by Republicans and Democrats at the Revere House in this city, to celebrate the election of James Buchanan!
Mr. PILLSBURY offered the following as a substitute for the resolution of the business committee upon the Republican party, and moved its adoption:-
Whereas, in Hon. John P. Hale of New Hampshire, Nathaniel P. Banks and Henry Wilson of Massachusetts, and the New York Tribune, we have a full and fair exponent and representative of the acknowledged leaders of the present Republican party;
And whereas, all these together avow their determination to uphold the Union; and Mr. Banks declared emphatically, and then repeated more emphatically, 'that it was in theory, and only in theory, that one portion of the confederacy was arrayed against the other,' in the late Presidential election; and then said, "i would to-day entrust the liberties and the institutions of the country with a Palmetto man'; and then added, 'I would say, in God's name, give us a Palmetto man, always and forever'!! And Henry Wilson pronounces the Republican party pre-eminently the party of the Union; that, for the sake of the Union, it will 'vindicate the right of the South to hold slaves,' 'will vote for a Southern gentleman for President or Vice-President,; and were the Republican party in power, 'any men, North or South, who should lay their hands upon the Union, should die a traitor's death, and leave traitor names in the history of the Republic'!! And Mr. Hale asserts that 'the Republican party is not going to introduce anything new,' and then argues that the party, being emphatically the part of State Rights, even slavery would be more secure to [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] and the New York [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] ed a slaveholder for President and is ready to do it again; therefore,
Resolved, That until these men repudiate these doctrines, or the party repudiate these men, we shall hold both as really more dangerous to the cause of liberty, on account of their anti-slavery pretensions, other party ever formed since them may be, than any the foundations of government were laid.
C.L. REMOND seconded the motion, and discussed at length, and with his usual ability and earnestness, the position of the Republicans towards the anti-slavery movement.
Adjourned to 7 1-2 o'clock.

[[short line centered in column]]

EVENING. The President in the chair.

CHAS. L. REMOND said that much had been said in condemnation of the Dred Scott decision; but he held that that decision was in perfect accordance with the practice of the American people, and Judge Taney had not outraged that practice, but simply announced it as law. 
Mr. R. continued in a strain of eloquence and power that would be too much marred by any attempt to report it, but which we hope to be able to give in full hereafter.
Mr. PILLSBURY then took the stand, and with graphic tongue portrayed the corruption and debasement of American politics, and especially the short comings of that 'best' of parties, the Republican. He reviewed the history of the anti-slavery movement, and the prophecies of the Abolitionists, with their fulfilment.
SUSAN B. ANTHONY, of Rochester, N.Y., presented the claims of THE LIBERATOR on the confidence, respect, and support of every friend of humanity and freedom. 
Mr. GARRISON said if any were present who did not know what the South said of him and THE LIBERATOR, it might be well that they should know, before they decided to become its subscribers; and proceeded to read from several Southern journals some choice specimens of their criticisms on himself, his paper, and the anti-slavery movement generally.
Mr. GARRISON, from the Business Committee, offered the following resolutions:-
10. Resolved, That the decision of the majority of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott, is at once unjust, inhuman and unconstitutional; founded on falsifications of history and perversions of law; an outrage and insult to all the decency, morality and Christianity in the land; a distinct revelation of the remorseless and insatiable spirit of slavery, and the unscrupulous eagerness of its official tools to do - whether with legitimate or usurped authority - its most atrocious bidding.
11. Resolved, That wanting every essential element of law, it ought nowhere to be respected or obeyed; but everywhere to be denounced, reprobated, and utterly repudiated by legislators, judges, magistrates and people, with united voice.
WENDELL PHILLIPS (who was received with tumultuous applause, constantly renewed through his speech,) addressed the Convention. He treated of the Boston Traveller, of the 'Christian Anti-Slavery Meeting' at Park Street church - a church which drive its own church member from its doors because he had a colored skin, and had dared to buy a pew there, - of Dr. Cheever and Henry Ward Beecher, - of Gov. Chase and the heroic Margaret Garner, (whom that Governor had suffered to be dragged from Ohio soil into the hated and helpless slavery from which she had fled) - of the impoverished condition of the slave States, and their inevitable bankruptcy if the North should cease to hold them up. (This speech we expect to give in a fuller report hereafter.)
The question then came up on the adoption of the resolutions before the Convention.
Charles C. Burleigh offered the following as an amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Pillsbury:
That these and similar declarations should be ac-
[[end column]]

[[second column]]
cepted by abolitionists as a sufficient warning that the Republican party is not an anti-slavery party, nor worthy of the support and co-operation of those whose object is the utter overthrow of slavery in all parts of the land.
Upon this amendment a debate arose, in which Messrs. Burleigh, S.S. Foster, Garrison, May, Foss, Hull, Pillsbury, and Mrs. Foster took part. The vote being taken, twenty-one voted in favor of the amendment, and twenty-one against it. It was then voted to lay on the table all the resolutions concerning the Republican party.
The remaining resolutions before the Convention were then unanimously adopted; and the Convention adjourned sine die.

[[line across column]]
At the Melodeon, Tuesday Morning, May 26, 1857.
[Phonographically reported by J.M.W. Yerrinton.]

I have not, of course none of us can have, any word to say in criticism of the line of argument pursued by our friend Mr. GARRISON, in regard to the Tract Society; but still, as he intimated at the conclusion of his remarks, I think the medal may be turned, and has another side.
My friend remarked that this report could not have been drawn with greater intensity, with greater sophistry, with greater or more plausible hypocrisy, had it been drawn by Ignatius Loyola himself. Who was Ignatius Loyola? The founder of the Jesuits; the man who tried to win back by guile the Europe which the strong hand of Luther had taken from under the Papacy. Loyola was created by the necessity of Luther. 'Hypocrisy is the homage vice renders to virtue;' and when a strong body feels the necessity of being a hypocrite, it acknowledges that it is half conquered-that it stands in the presence of a for whom it no longer dares to defy. The Tract Society never condescended to equivocate; it never uttered an uncertain note; it never cared whether men said it expurgated books or not-it had the brazen effrontery to deny the fact. It placed its own faultless character in the eyes of the religious public in one scale, and the demonstrations of its guilt in the other, and in the partial judgment of the American people, the proof kicked the beam. So it was, year after year. What makes it now get down upon its knees, and acknowledge that it has expurgated its publications, and promise to do so no more? This Committee was appointed to whitewash the Society. It was made up of the most hunkerish materials. When it was finished, the trembling friends of the Society said-'The volcano is capped for another year; they can make out a case for us; do not fear.' FRELINGHUYSEN stook at its head-a man that never looked the same way with WM. LLOYD GARRISON. Twelve months pass away. The Dred Scott decision astonishes the public; Kansas wins its uneasy hearing from the American people-events, louder than words-events, so rapid that they make eloquence tame and vapid-events, which outrun the lips even of CHEEVER, which seem to be touched, if man's lips ever were, by a coal from that altar that lent fire to the Hebrew prophet (loud applause); and this Committee, expected to defend, has to say what is, in fact, accusation. In the first place, the Society never before acknowledged slavery to be a moral evil. 'Who can doubt,' says the Committee, 'that with such influences as faith, hope and charity, in alliance with that chastened patience that loves to wait for the fruit until the harvest season, this and all other moral evil shall yield to the promised [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] cations? 'Whatever considerations in [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] have seemed to recommend to the Publishing Committee the course pursued in its revision of certain works,' &c. Who ever said they revised works, but the abolitionists? Who ever admitted it? No Orthodox church member. This Committee acknowledges it was done. They go further, and say, the reasons which seemed to recommend this course, not which did recommend it. You must not expect the strongest body in the land to get down on its knees and say, 'Great is the American Anti-Slavery Society!' They will being with lisping, paltering; they will begin with jesuistry; they will being by trying to hide the sin which the very effort reveals.
Again they say, 'The Society cannot with propriety allow itself to be made the special organ of any one system of religious or moral reform, such as temperance, peace, anti-popery, anti-slavery, &c.' I should like to hear the Tract Society say, in the presence of South Carolina, Anti-Popery and Anti-Slavery in the same breath, and see how long their popularity would last! The American Tract Society is trying to wriggle-all Orthodoxy has a tendency to wriggle-into a decent position. (Laughter and applause.) But in the very effort, we must acknowledge the great triumph which public opinion has gained. We must acknowledge that they at last see something to fear. Why, Pennsylvania last fall summoned half the South to stump the State for Buchanan. When they had tried it six or eight weeks, they banished every Southerner from their circle, called in Northern men, covered their banners with the motto, 'Free Kansas,' and by that guile saved the State. Is it no acknowledgment of the strength of Northern opinion, when the devil puts on the angel?-when he says, 'I cannot conquer as devil, therefore I will conquer in a white coat'? O! no; I acknowledge, with Mr. Garrison, that this report betrays no virtue in the heart of the American Tract Society, but it betrays dread. I never expected that public opinion would make the slaveholders or their apologists Christians, but I thought it might make them still more evidently cowards, I think they will retreat before a public opinion which they will never be converted by; I have no hope of anything more. I think the Tract Society has done what Senator Toombs said he did on the Senate floor before somebody's pistol, 'progressed backwards,' (laughter;) and I think that pistol before which they 'progressed backwards' was the public opinion of last fall and winter, and the dread excited by the reckless, shameless audacity of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision. I think the fact, like the case of Pennsylvania, to which I have referred, shows us also the strength of the North. It shows up that leading men, observing intellects, are beginning to see which way the current sets, and are trimming their sails for the wind.
Now, I think what we have got to do with public opinion is to save it from being misled by just such hypocrisy as this. While we acknowledge that this course of leading religious and political men of hhe day is the natural outgrowth of the Anti-Slavery enterprise, and therefore grateful to us as a testimony of our strength and a sign of encouragement, we are just as much to remember that Ignatius Loyola was the most dangerous foe that Luther ever made; that he did snatch back half Europe; that he did set firmly on its seven hills the trembling throne of the Pope; and that the fact that to-day Catholicism survives in Europe is due tot hat policy which disarmed Protestantism, not daring to meet it. So I think, in the politics and religion of the day, that which approaches nearest to us, in the half-inspired lips even of BEECHER and CHEEVER, we out to regard as the most dangerous enemy, the most dangerous opponent, to the Anti-Slavery cause. (Applause.) I know this may be deemed, the New York papers say it is, very cold and ungracious criticism; and that Reverend and impudent joker of jokes, Rev. George W. Bethune, says that all New England got such a chill on Plymouth Rock, that it had not got over it yet. I advise him to buy a primary school history, and find out, if he never once read, where all the benevolent, social, religious, literary, educational, and all other
[[end column]]

[[third column]]
beneficent enterprises of the land came from, if not out from that cold heart of Plymouth Rock. (Loud applause.) He came to Massachusetts, he said, and felt a chill. Well, if he did, he came to the great laboratory where American intellect and American heart have begun everything good these thirty-one States have ever produced. (Applause.) Fro not only out of New England blood, betwixt Plymouth Rock and the Mississippi, but out of New England, as a locality, has started every philanthropic effort that has opened the eyes of the blind, taught the dumb to speak, gave the idiot mind, annihilated pain, ministered to the reason, melted the fetter, printed, taught, comforted, raised, or began any other benefit to these twenty millions of American people, and their four millions of victims. But cold and ungracious as this criticism seems, it is still necessary for any one who loves the cause of the slave. God does not give us any thing, he sells us every thing; we buy every thing with a price. The price at which we buy the capacity of being serviceable to the slave in this land of ours is to cut off, on both sides, every tie that binds us to kindred, to friends, and, fixing a single eye on the South Carolina hovel, be true to that, no matter what loved name, no matter what apparently eminent service, our lips and our hearts may be brought to criticise and rebuke. I say, from such a pulpit as Beecher's, from such lips as Cheever's, from the forge of the Republican party, come up to-day the greatest danger to the Anti-Slavery movement; and the reason is this-we have no instrumentality, no tool, but public opinion. All the great material interests of society are against us; all the organizations of the nation are against us. Government, religion, wealth, fashion, literature, the press, every thing, is arrayed against the Anti-Slavery movement. We struggle only with the consciences of the masses behind us - nothing more. In order that public opinion should ever govern, it must be relentless. It is a hard thing for ideas to make head against institutions. It is not true that majorities govern; they never govern. The opinions of a few energetic, decided men, in influential positions, who know what they want, have always governed. The millions have never governed; they have only made themselves felt in some critical hour when, the whole world fluid, society disjointed, the fleets scattered on the ocean, for a moment, the dead weight of the opinion of the masses comes in as the blow that crystallizes society again into shape. It is only at such a time that the masses are felt. In ordinary times they are kept down.
Now, I do not know how sanguine and hopeful other minds may be, but to me, the Anti-Slavery struggle, as far as government is concerned, up to this time, has been a failure. The government is against us, in every form, in every particular. It has never made an effort that has not succeeded; it has never put down its foot that it has not been able to keep it down. Take the words that suggest its triumphs - Florida, Texas, Missouri, Fugitive Slave Bill, Kansas, everything - art they not victories on their side? An to-day, private letters tell us, that this very month a Constitution is framed in Oregon that will add her to the list of slave States. As far as government is concerned, slavery has won the battle. If the government is to decide this question, the slave has no hope. So far as the American Government is concerned, it is a despotism. What do we want against it? We want something better than the resolves of the Tract Society; we want something better than the inspired energy of Cheever; we want something better than the hopes of the Republican party. It seems to me we want just this. We cannot make crises - God makes them - offers them to our hands to use. We cannot control events; they will flow on in His Providence; He gives them to us to work with. But one thing we can, to a certain extent, control, and this is opinion - [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] the anvil upon which lays down a [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] Court American heart, we want an energy and fixedness of purpose in that heart which shall shape it into a tool that will pierce the very heart of the Union. (Cheers.) We want a decision, an intelligent, relentless decision, that knows its purpose, and is determined to fulfil it. An intelligent decision! The lack to-day is, men run about and do not know what they want. The Supreme Court affirms the Dred Scott decision. The Tribune says that is not law; they had no case before them; they have said so and so, but is has no authority; the case did not justify them in making the decision. Besides, if it did, haven't we got McLean and Curtis for us and against them - the lea[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]ing and respectability of the land on our side? True - all true; and yet, what matters it? Respectability and learning do not govern the country. Franklin Pierce governed it, and he never came within ear-shot of either. (Roars of laughter and applause.) The Supreme Court have intimated to every subordinate judicatory what they mean to decide, and on future occasions, whenever the point comes before any Judge in a State or District Court, he will decide accordingly, because he knows, if he does not, the [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]ision will be reversed when it goes up. That is [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] way the Supreme Court has always governed. They do not wait - they cannot afford to wait - until the point comes up; they must intimate the deci[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] beforehand, in order to shape public sentiment [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] he recognition and support of the decision whe[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] the point does come up. That is the purpose of the Dred Scott decision - all the more dangerous because the public mind is lulled by the idea, that, after all, is not law, and we have got learning and respectabili[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]against it. It is law, inasmuch as all the Judges wi[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]hape their course by it - that is enough. It is law, [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] far as the action of the government is concerned. [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]en the decision in the Lemmon case is given, as it [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]bably will be, against us, and in favor of the slaveh[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]er, allowing him to bring his slaves to the free [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]tes, keep them here as long as he will, and then [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]urn with them to the South, - when this decision [[unreadable due to fold in paper]], the whole question, as far as the courts are con[[unreadable due to fold in paper]], is settled.
In 1789, the Government was launched with [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] assertion of the statute of 1787, the whole terr[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]yfree. Wythe, Washington, Jefferson, Rutledge, [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] all the lights of the Revolution, were on that [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] Public opinion, the world over, set in that direc[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] The Union was launched, the Constitution wa[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]amed. Sam Adams lived, John Hancock labored. [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] great men of the day, Hopkins, Edwards, John [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] Elbridge Gerry, and other men, permeated so [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] with the influence of their Anti-Slavery determi[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]n. So the vessel of State was launched. At that[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]he moment, the devil hovered over Charleston, a[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]opped a few cotton seeds into the soil. Presto! s[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]years, and the seeds of cotton have annihilated [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]e, and Lee, and Rutledge, and Jay, the Const[[unreadable due to fold in paper]], the Revolution, and everything else, and we [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]othing but a cotton-bag to-day. (Loud applause[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] generation rolled away, to 1819. Another str[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] came on the territories, and our fathers, thoug[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]boring hard and earnestly, were frightened from truggle by the cry of 'Disunion,' yielded up half came home, and hung their heads in shame at [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]ctory of the South - half for slavery, half for fre[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] Another generation rolled away. The W[[unreadable due to fold in paper]], the Clays, the Calhouns, the Whig party, the[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]arian clergy, the Dr. Bethunes, the Tract Soc[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]Nehemiah Adams, - these men and organization[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]d and labored. Unlike their father, they did n[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]cotton-seeds, they dropped ideas into the n[[unreadable due to fold in paper]] soil, and there came another struggle in 1852[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]whole territory for slavery! That is the hist[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]the Union. Beginning thus, the end we have[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]d is, a total victory of the organization and gov[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]nt in favor of slavery.
Now, what do we want? I want a preju[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]ainst slavery and pro-slavery governments in [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] I do not want a sentiment; I do not want a[[unreadable due to fold in paper]]tion; I do not want an intellectual conviction. [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]mind does not act from intellectual conviction. [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]ther
[[end column]]

[[fourth column]]
who sees her child on the edge of a precipice does not top to think, 'It is a hundred feet high, and unless leap and seize him, he will be dashed to pieces.' She leaps! The man who sees his brother in a moment of danger, with a pistol pointed at his breast, does not stop to argue - 'Powder was invented five centuries ago, and unless I leap between the pistol and his breast, he must die.' He leaps, by instinct, by a characteristic intellectual conviction, that was planted long ago, and has become character, and is in his blood and bones. I want a hatred of slavery that is in intellect, in the heart, and in the brain. I want such a prejudice as the Catholic has against the Protestant, and the Protestant has against the Catholic, which was not reasoned up, and cannot be reasoned down, and makes the one fly at the other's throat the moment he sees him. (Applause.) Something that had got into the blood, that makes part of the bones; that, if Dr. Jackson were to analyze it, he would find it, in the ultimate analysis, as all that was left of Protestant or Catholic. Thank God! I wish a Yankee could be subjected to analysis in a crucible of chemistry so accurate, that they should find nothing left of him but curses for Carolina. (Loud applause.)
What I mean is this, - that when an issue is proposed, or when a question comes before the American people, they shall be ready to say to themselves- - 'We don't care whether they will succeed or not; but we have formed one purpose - it is that we will tear down slavery, we will abolish it; if the Union goes to pieces, let it go; and if the Church goes to pieces, let it go! We form but one purpose in life, for the present. The work of this generation is the abolition of slavery. We weight every thing else against it, and every thing else kicks the beam.' I want that purpose distinctly formed and announced; that purpose, that mood of mind, is the victory. What I find fault with in the Tract Society, and in the Republican party, is not that they have their own method. I am tolerant enough to allow every man his own method. If Dr. Cheever thinks the battle is to be fought in Kansas, in Heaven's name, let him go and fight it! (Applause.) If the Tract Society thinks it is to be fought on the basis of these Resolutions, let them fight it there - God aid them! If Henry Wilson thinks that slavery is to be abolished by abusing us upon the floor of the Senate, God increase ten-fold his power of abuse, and let him pour it on our devoted heads! I do not care what method a man takes. What I ask of him is, that he shall tell the world that underneath it lies the determined purpose, that at all hazards, at every risk, at any cost, no matter what the danger, he will abolish slavery, and let the South take warning! (Loud applause.)
Why has the South always conquered us? Because she writes one single work of her catalogue of requests, that is - 'Slavery!' It is the first, it is the second, it is the third; turn the leaf, and it is - 'Slavery!' All through the book it is - 'Slavery!' The North writes - 'Kansas' - 'Tariff' - 'Internal Improvements' - 'Railroads' - 'Robert C. Winthrop' - 'Edward Everett' - and many other insignificant quantities, to the end. (Laughter and applause.) What is the consequence? The party that has but one object, knows what it wants, and is willing to sacrifice every thing for it, conquers; - of course it must! As long as Henry Wilson, with the port of a hero, lets it be known that there is one spot his father, our pioneer, did not dip into the Styx of Anti-Slavery, and that is, his love for the Union, just so long, the arrow of the South will find his heel, and prove him open to the temptation of office, and the ambition for political power. I want him to say - 'Cover me all over with arrows; there is nothing I value but the service I can render to the cause of Justice and Humanity; foul my name with every odious charge of hostility to my country and its institutions - I will cover it all over, in the verdict of History with one grasp of the slave's hand, if I can but [[unreadable due to fold in paper]]
This is the history of moral struggles in all times. Why, the Pope excommunicated Luther. Papal excommunication, up to that time, had shaken the world like an earthquake, but Luther took the parchment and tossed it into the flames, and excommunicated the Pope; and from that time 'Success' was written on the banner of the daring Saxon reformer. It is this willingness to sacrifice every thing that turns the dwarf into a giant. 'Beware of the man driven to the last ditch - beware despair,' says the proverb, for the man, you know, who is willing to risk his own life, is master of every other. When Massachusetts is willing to risk every thing in order to break the fetters of the slave, then her million of men, and her handkerchief-patch of territory, start up into omnipotence, and the weight of the world. Suppose, when Warren, and Putnam, and Prescott were on Bunker Hill, and 'Old Put' gave that order, 'Don't wast your powder, boys, wait till you see the whites of their eyes,' - suppose, instead of that, somebody had come to him and said, 'The British have fired Charlestown, and the shingles on the Congregational church are all in a flame,' and he had said to his men, 'Stop! Let's put out the fire on that church' - should we ever have conquered? When Wellington stood upon the field of Waterloo, he put his 'Old Guard' upon a spot of ground, and the French cuirassiers, armed in steel from neck to heel, and mounted on the best steeds of France, rode at them like a whirlwind, and turned back fewer than they came. They stood there like a granite wall, hurling back every impetuous charge - and why? Because Wellington had said to them - 'That spot of ground taken, and all England is not safe from the foe'; and with hearts stronger than British steel, they kept it, as our own rock-bound coast beats back the ocean in a storm. (Applause.) Now, this is the kind of resolution I want for the purpose of the North. I do not know, nobody can prophecy, what it will be necessary to sacrifice in order to secure the abolition of slavery; but then we know, that in the struggle betwixt two mighty and determined parties, that party which is determined to sacrifice every thing to success, that party that has no looking back, that means to write its history in the ditch, that means to leave nothing alive unless it conquer - that party will conquer. I want this purpose announced on the part of anti-slavery men. If I could have the twelve hundred thousand men that voted for Fremont, if I could have those few hundred pulpits that redeem the Sodom and Gomorrah of the thirty thousand Bethunes and Nehemiah Adamses, (applause) - if I could have them say, 'We are not technically Garrisonians, but we have laid life and reputation on the altar of justice. We have made up this purpose: Let the Union go; let the Church go; let commerce go; let grass grow on the wharves; let another generation be wasted, as our fathers wasted one, in the struggle for ideas, we care not: God willing, we will write out, as the history of this generation, that, at the sacrifice of every present interest, they melted every fetter beneath the flag of the empire!' (applause) - if I could have them say this, I should be sure of the victory. But, as long as we do not announce this, as long as the North falters, as long as it says 'Kansas,' and watches that struggle, announcing nothing beyond, just so long the South will tempt, day after day, one class after another, buy up politicians, and eat out the virtue and the strength of Northern opinion. If a man begins to form a virtuous resolution, it melts away in the temptation of time-serving politics and a qualifying religion. The gallantry and bravery of an absolute purpose is what converts multitudes of men. He that rides forward and takes the lead, forms the purpose of the millions that lag behind.
Now, therefore, at such a moment as this, the fault that I find with the Republican party, and with the pulpit - eloquent, able, yes, in some senses, determined, as it is, - is, that they do not announce anything like a purpose sufficient to aggregate the American people into one mass, capable of struggling and 
[[end column]]

[[fifth column]]
grappling with an energetic power like that of slavery. We are grumbling, and men blame us for grumbling. We are not to blame. We never yet found fault with any man's method. We never yet said to any man, 'Toe the mark!' We never yet said to any man, 'Give up your own manner of working, and adopt ours.' But this, certainly, by way of advice and criticism, every intelligent student of this question is bound to say, and justified in saying - Your temporary issue is very good. Waste a certain amount of Anti-Slavery enthusiasm. But wile you go off to side issues, you are wasting time. Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, could have saved this experiment of self-government twenty years ago. The South had not hardened into despotism twenty years ago. She was not certain of victory twenty years ago. Had they said to their compatriots, 'It is necessary to meet the issue to-day, and let these Southerners know that we will sacrifice nothing to their demands,' they could have stayed the plague where it was. To-day, we stand with the triumph of the Slave Power written on the forehead of the government itself; and that is the reason why men ought to recognize the necessity of the hour, which is revolutionary. It is useless to disguise it; it is useless to doubt, to cajole men with equivocal words, with half measures. Dr. Cheever has written the bravest sermon, perhaps, ever delivered in this country, on the Dred Scott case. He certainly criticises it remorselessly, but as far as I read it, he does not tell her hearers that there is but one way of opposing it, and that is, by being ready for revolution. There is no other. What is the use of your talk? There is the law. The Supreme Court, the final interpreter of the Constitution, has made it all, and the North says what the Supreme Court has decided to be law, it bows to. 'What are you going to do, Mr. Wilson? What are you going to do, Mr. Cheever, Mr. Beecher? Do you mean to submit?' 'No!' every voice answers. 'Do you mean to rebel?' 'No!' (Laughter.) Well, where is the middle course? There is no course but to say to the popular mind - for it is on the basis of the people, at last, that the heavy machinery of the Anti-Slavery movement rests - it is to say to that people, and say it to-day, 'You must be ready for revolution. You must be ready to look the law in the face and say, "We will not submit to it!" ' And when you have produced that readiness in the public mind, then you are ready for the first attempt to carry that decision of the Supreme Court into effect. But you must begin to preach to-day. You must preach from sentiment into conviction, and from conviction into character, and from character into prejudice, and from prejudice into instinct.
But I will not detain you longer. I came to occupy this place because the friend who was announced to occupy it had not reached the city; but as I have before me the welcome sight of his person, I will yield the platform to him, and hope that Mr. HIGGINSON will give us the speech we have taken the liberty to advertise for this morning. (Loud applause).

[[heavy double line across column]]
The Liberator.
[[short decorative line]]
[[short decorative line]]
BOSTON, JUNE 5, 1857.
[[double line across column]]
Last week was the customary Anniversary Week in Boston, and perhaps the most thronged and the most interesting one of the whole series. The meetings of the New England Anti-Slavery Convention (six in number) were numerously attended by the best portion of the people, in an intellectual, moral and philanthropic point of view, and fully sustained its high reputation for talent and radical character. The experiment of making the opening session as attractive as possible, in order to insure a prompt attend- [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] dom from all parts of New England: and, notwithstanding the unusual attractions elsewhere, all the other session presented a cheering spectacle. A very brief synopsis of the proceedings occupies five columns of our present number, which, together with one of the most admirable speechos made by Mr. PHILLIPS, is as much as we can fine room for this week. We call special attention to the resolutions that were discussed and adopted, as indicative of the uncompromising spirit and determined purpose of the Convention. Though the series relating to the Republican party was laid upon the table, it was not because there was not entire unity of sentiment in regard to its pro-slavery position under the Constitution, but it was owing simply to a difference of views as to the phraseology which was used to characterize it.
Next to the Convention, in point of interest, was the meeting held in the Music Hall on Tuesday evening, at which three or four thousand persons were present, to hear a discourse by the Rev. GEORGE B. CHEEVER, of New York, on 'The Wrongs of Kansas.' It excited great enthusiasm, and was delivered with remarkable force of expression and action. We hope to see it in print; though we should have much preferred to have had the subject of the discourse, 'The Guilt of the American Church.'
On Wednesday afternoon, a 'Christian (?) Anti-Slavery meeting' was held in Park Street Church, (which was thronged to overflowing by an enthusiastic audience,) and addressed by Rev. Mr. Stone, Prof. Stowe, Rev. Dr. Tyng of Philadelphia, and Rev. Dr. Cheever - the most radical sentiments uttered on the occasion being the most warmly applauded, showing a marked change in public sentiment on the slavery question, and presenting a significant sign of the times.
The subject of slavery was also paramount in the discussions of the 'Universalist Reform Association,' and elicited conflicting views; but a very large majority adopted a Report of a radical character, we are told, covering the ground of 'No Union with Slaveholders.'
At the Universalist Festival held in Faneuil Hall, a most eloquent speech was made by Rev. E.H. CHAPIN, in the course of which he said that, to attempt to suppress Anti-Slavery agitation by Congressional acts and parchment decrees, is as wise as it would be to try to snuff out Vesuvius with a pair of snuffers!
Of all the daily papers, only the Republican (!) Traveller was guilty of ridiculing and misrepresenting the Anti-Slavery Convention; and this, too, most wantonly and basely. Specimens of its scandalous language and behaviour occupy the 'Refuge of Oppression' this week, and almost disgrace even that department. Mrs. Foster wore no Bloomer, though such a dress is a mere matter of taste and convenience. The attack upon Mr. Foss is exceedingly malevolent. He is charged iwth saying in his speech at New York, 'I hate Jesus Christ'!! This is a falsehood of the first magnitude. No such sentiment or expression ever came from his lips. But we have no room to extend our notice of the Traveller this week. May it subscription list feel the pressure of its own scurrility.
[[short decorative line]]
In consequent of the scurrilous treatment of the New England Anti-Slavery Convention by the Traveller, the following letter was sent to the editor of that paper. It contains a merited rebuke, and sets an example worthy of general imitation.
BOSTON, May 29, 1857.
To the Editor of the Traveller:
SIR - For some twenty years past, the doings of the annual meetings of the American Anti-Slavery Society have almost uniformly been noticed in the New York Herald by low and scurrilous editorials - ridiculing the dress, address and speeches of its leading members.
In the Traveller, you have noticed the doings of the friends of that Society at the Melodeon very much after the same manner of the New York Herald of former years.
[[end column]]

[[sixth column]]
Had you inserted any amount of manly criticism, upon the resolutions or speeches made that the New England Convention, I should have made no complaint.
The Traveller, I had supposed, claims to represent the Political Anti-Slavery party in New England. I was therefore not a little surprised at its treatment of the New England Anti-Slavery Convention. 
Heretofore, I have been a subscriber to the Telegraph and to the Commonwealth; but I can remember nothing of low ridicule to us, in either of them.
You have developed an unlooked-for spirit of enmity and misrepresentation towards the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, which renders it quite inconsistent for me to continue to take the Traveller. I have, therefore, to request you to strike my name from the list of its subscribers.
Respectfully, FRANCIS JACKSON.
[[short decorative line]]
SOUTH ABINGTON, May 31, 1857.
FRIEND GARRISON:- The late assault on the true friends of freedom, by the Boston Traveller, is not only painful, but exceedingly mean and malicious. How wicked and libellous its language concerning Mr. Foss! What an exhibition of depravity on the part of its editor! From a paper that will abuse and misrepresent the friends of humanity, as the Traveller has done the past week, nothing can be hoped.
Just look into yesterday's paper. The editor, in speaking of the high prices of slaves in Missouri, and the selling of women and children, very truly says:-
'There is something horrible in these facts; men and women's sales by auction being quoted in the prices current of the land of freedom! In what respect is the country where such things are permitted better than Sahara, where shipwrecked Christians are bought and sold at high rates? Men are horrified when they read of the sale of a women by the Mahometan Arabs of the desert; but these Arabs never proclaimed to the world their conviction that all men are created free and equal, nor have they denounced one branch of the slave-trade as priracy, while carrying on the other with the utmost briskness. The Arab slave-trader is frank and consistent, and sees the finger of Providence in a wreck, while the American merchant (!) of the same class rants about liberty, pockets the dollars, and supports the Democracy, both from principle and interest. They are somewhat divided in this world, but they will not be in the next."
Ah, yes! these sales are truly heart-rending. Arabs are not so vile and devilish. True - every word of it. And who is guilty of these atrocities? The editor of the Traveller knows that they are perpetrated by this nation - by its politicians, church-members, deacons and professors - the North maintaining political and Christian union with the South. And because you and your friends, Mr. Garrison, are outspoken in these matters, and act according to your professions, there come the abuse, the misrepresentation and slander, of the press, the ministry, and the church. Only let the press, the church and ministry treat slavery and its apologists, as they treat other sins of a much less magnitude, and the work is done, and this agitation ceases. Yours, truly, B.
[[short decorative line]]
It is either cool assurance or self-stultification to say, that to affirm the U.S. Constitution to be a pro-slavery instrument is to impeach the character of those who framed it; and, therefore, that they never made such an instrument. Surely, it is as wrong to attribute virtue where it does not belong, as it is to detract from true merit. Our revolutionary fathers all lived and died, recognizing the pro-slavery character of the Constitution; and we have not the folly to affirm that they were better than they claimed to be - that they were in heart and practice, what they never professed to be, even in theory, uncompromising abolitionists - that they were the consistent champions of impartial liberty. They were transgressors of the law of God; they ate sour grapes, and their children's teeth have been set on edge thereby; they connived at what they deemed, and what was then comparatively, a small evil, in order to reach a most desirable end. Some of them were sentimentally opposed to slavery [[unreadable due to fold in paper]] extinction; but, as a body, they made no moral issue with the crime of holding slaves. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Marshall, Henry, lived and died slaveholders - not in contempt or defiance of the Constitution, but under its fostering protection. When, then, refuse to take the nation at its word? Why, when it acknowledges every thing to be true that we allege against the Constitution, and glories in its shame and guilt, persist in saying that it is utterly self-deceived, and would stand by the downtrodden and oppressed were it not for demagogues, office-seekers, and political partisans? - But we will not dwell upon the most ridiculous crotchet every presented to an intelligent people. We have a more summary method of procedure. Taking the Constitution as it sin, as it was designed to be by those who framed and adopted it, as it has ever been accepted by the American people without distinction of party, and as it is interpreted and enforced by all the courts, we call upon the people of the North to repent of their iniquity, and to refuse to walk in fellowship and union with those who traffick in human flesh, whose victims have multiplied to millions, and whose avowed purpose is to extend and eternize slavery, be the consequences what they may.
[[short decorative line]]
MATTHEW R. HULL, ESQ. Among the speakers at the meetings of the New England Anti-Slavery Convention, in this city, last week, was MATTHEW R. HULL, ESQ., of Indiana. Mr. H. is a native of Virginia, but early in life, by his espousal of the cause of the oppressed, was compelled to leave that State, and has ever since been a resident at the West, where he is extensively and favorable known as a bold and stirring advocate of the slave; having been the editor of a fearless journal, a few years ago, published in Cambridge, Ohio, entitled the 'Clarion of Freedom,' - and since then, an Anti-Slavery lecturer. This is his first visit to Massachusetts, and it is his wish and design to visit as many places as practicable, for the purpose of testifying of the things he has seen in regard to slavery, and stimulating to fresh exertions for its overthrow. We hope he may receive many invitations to lecture, and be aided and encourage[[unreadable due to tear in paper]] mission. The East has hitherto sent it spea[[unreadable due to tear in paper]] the West, and it is but reciprocal to have the rule reversed. If Mr. Hull lacks somewhat in culture and finish, he makes amends in the directness of his blows, the energy of his will, the first of his zeal, and the impetuosity of his declamation. He is tall and commanding in his person, and has a voice equal to any hall or assembly. He is at present at Worcester, where letters may be directed to his address. Some warm commendations of him as a lecturer, by the press, may be found in another column.
[[short decorative line]]
GOVERNOR 'VETO' GARDNER. Notwithstanding the notorious Judge Loring has scornfully trampled upon the provisions of the 'Personal Liberty Bill' ever since it became a law of the State - notwithstanding the Legislature, in behalf of the people of the Commonwealth, has twice called for his removal from the office he dishonors, by an overwhelming majority - he is, it seems, still to be allowed to disregard the popular voice, and to put Massachusetts beneath his feet, by the aid of Gov. Gardner, who comes to his rescue with another 'Veto' upon the action of the Legislature. If this inflated demagogue and mean usurper will but allow himself to be again put in nomination for the gubernatorial chair, the people will place their VETO upon him in an unmistakable manner. Gov. G. has vetoed some three or four acts of the Legislature - among them, the Kansas appropriation bill, the Hoosac tunnel bill, and the bill in aid of the institution for idiots. What need of popular representation while he is Governor?
[[short decorative line]]
[[image: hand with index finger pointing to text]] The lists of Donations, Pledges, and Contributions for Expenses at the recent New England Anti-Slavery Convention are crowded out this week, together with many interesting articles.

Transcription Notes:
Transcribed per the "Basic Transcription Instructions" ie: no formatting for bold or italicized words.