NORTHAMPTON, July 14, 1843.
MY DEAR FRIEND—Before coming to this place, I had heard such encomiums bestowed on the beauty of its position and appearance, as to excite high-wrought expectations and a lively curiosity in my breast, in regard to it. These have been abundantly realized; so that I, too, am prepared to join the throng of admirers, and to concede to Northampton the palm for romantic loveliness and the most charming scenery over every other place that I have yet visited in our flourishing Commonwealth. I have long claimed for Newburyport, my own beloved native place, an unrivalled location, and attractions of the most bewitching character; but, on the whole, Nature has showered her gifts with a more prodigal hand on Northampton. Each of these places has features peculiar to itself, which place it beyond comparison. Here I miss the Merrimack river, rolling majestically in its broadest dimensions towards the Atlantic, and also the sight of that great ocean in the distance; but ample compensation is made in the proximity of the Connecticut river, and in view of the sublime range of hills which surrounds this place on every side. Ride in whatever direction you choose, if you have any taste for the sublime or beautiful, you will be filled with delight, and constantly induced to exclaim, in the devout spirit of the royal singer of Israel,—'O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches...Thou greatly enrichest it with the river of God, which is full of water; thou waterest the ridges thereof abundantly; thou settlest the furrows thereof; thou makest it soft with showers; thou blessest the springing thereof. Thou crownest the year with thy goodness; and thy paths drop fatness.' At first, the atmosphere seemed to be so laden with perfume as to be almost oppressive, so great was the contrast with the rank smells of our crowded city. The pride of this place, as furnishing the finest sites for dwellings, is Round Hill, which is indeed a gem of exceeding beauty, and which reminds me of English scenery in connexion with princely opulence. The highest elevations are Mount Tom and Mount Holyoke; of which the latter is the popular resort, though the altitude of the former is somewhat greater, and the view from which, (in the opinion of a friend who has been something of a traveller on both sides of the Atlantic,) is surpassingly magnificent. I intend visiting them before my return; for though 'the eye is never satisfied with seeing,' it is the medium through which an immense amount of satisfaction is conveyed to the mind. I will then give you my 'impressions.' Having seen the Welch and Scottish mountains, and stood on the summits of the Green mountains of Vermont and the White mountains of New-Hampshire, these do not strongly affect my imagination, as their height, I believe, does not exceed one hundred feet. Yet in appearance they approach to the sublime, and form a striking contrast with the intervales and meadows in their vicinage.
This is the residence of SYLVESTER GRAHAM, who has encountered his share of the world's obloquy for attempting to reform it from some of its beastly habits, but who has displayed a martyr's spirit and front in giving utterance to his convictions of truth, as it relates to the bodily as well as spiritual redemption of mankind. Though not a convert to all his views, I admire his firmness, his courage, and his manifest desire to bless mankind by showing them how, in his opinion, they best can 'glorify God in their bodies and spirits, which are his.' Comparatively few have been found disposed to adopt his dietetic theory, in all its minutiae; but tens of thousands of persons have been happily affected by his lectures and writings, and saved from the direful effects of a vitiated appetite; though, of this great multitude, few, I am apprehensive, are disposed to acknowledge their indebtedness to him. Shame on them for their lack of gratitude and magnanimity! But this is the fate of every reformer, in his day and generation. Time and posterity will take care of his memory.
Our able and vigorous anti slavery coadjutor, D.L. CHILD, is still here, but expects to leave for New York (via Boston) in all next week, to assume the editorial management of the Standard. Success has not crowned his efforts in the sugar-beet cultivation, but the has probably done all that any one could have done, in his circumstances, and deserved something more than success. He has toiled early and late, in season and out of season, not 'like a slave,' but like a freeman and 'with a will,' and far more severely than a human being ought to toil. He has exhibited immense energy and resolution, and, especially for one 'bred to the law,' and fond of literary pursuits, astonishing industry. The location of the land which he has tilled is very pleasant, and he has made some substantial improvements on it. I regret, for the sake of humanity, as well as for his own sake, that his experiment has failed; for an additional blow would be given to slavery, if free sugar could supplant that which is raised by slave labor—as it will, unquestionably, at a day not far distant. The Standard, under his care, cannot fail to be an ably conducted journal. He has great qualities of mind, and has been identified with the anti-slavery cause from an early period. Standing aloof, as he does, from every religious sect and political party, (though of religion and politics he has his own views,) I confide in him to pursue an impartial course, as editor of the Standard,—to give credit to whom credit may be due,—to regard the success of our cause as paramount to all questions of national policy,—and to give no quarter either to spiritual or political wickedness in high places. It is to be hoped that Mrs. CHILD will be a liberal contributor to the Standard, especially to its literary department, and that the distinguishing elements of their character will be blended together in the management of the paper.
The town of Northampton (by which term I now mean the houses, stores, &c.) wears an air of dilapidation, and will not compare in architectural taste and beauty with many other places in the State, though it has a few handsome buildings. Aside from its delightful location, it presents no features either of an impressive or interesting character. The spirit of enterprise appears to be exiled from it, and it has the misfortune to be under the control of a few wealthy men, who, having more than a sufficiency of this world's goods, have long since retired from business, and seemingly wish not to be disturbed in their repose even by the hum of prosperity. A rail-road is talked of between this place and Springfield, and some steps have been taken towards its commencement; but how soon it will be completed, is extremely uncertain.
Inviting as is Northampton to all tourists and sojourners from our great cities during the summer season, I am told that the hotels are yet vacant, and that the prospect is, that they will continue to remain so. Let it be made accessible by a rail-road, and no doubt multitudes would be induced to visit the place, who now 'pass by on the other side.'
My present location is about three miles from the centre of the town, in a spot quite rural and...that I can report nothing of their civil hospitality. Besides my unpopularity as an abolitionist in this region, religious bigotry reigns with despotic sway over the minds of the people, and inflames their prejudices against me on account of my contending for that liberty wherewith Christ makes his followers free. It is melancholy to see those, whom God has made to serve him, so priest-ridden, and bewitched by carnal observances, and misled by sectarian creeds. Thought I find 'none so poor' (with scarcely an exception,) as to give me a friendly welcome to the town, yet I have no complaint to make, but feel happy in the assurance that I am not slighted for any evil that I have done, but for my fidelity in exposing the religious and political impostures of the times. With the amiable Cowper, I can rejoicingly say—
'Tis my happiness below,
Not to live without the cross,
But a Saviour's power to know,
Sanctifying every loss.'
There are a few choice anti-slavery spirits here, but these reside chiefly in the 'Community.' Some days prior to the fourth of July, we resolved to celebrate that day by an anti-slavery meeting in the town; and accordingly deputed a committee (Dr. Hudson and James Boyle) to apply for the town hall, for that purpose. The person who has charge of the hall was seen by them, and agreed to let us have it. Notices of the meeting were sent to the different clergymen, to be read from their pulpits; but none complied with the request, excepting the Baptist and Unitarian. Some fifty handbills were printed, and posted in various parts of the town, informing the people of our intentions, and inviting them to attend; but these were torn down by the lawless spirit of pro-slavery almost immediately, so that comparatively few persons were notified of the meeting. The morning of the 'glorious fourth' came, and a small band of us assembled at the town hall, but found the doors closed against us, and no one to tell us for what cause! The friends of impartial liberty were thus turned into the street, rudely and dishonorably, with this alternative—either to hold their meeting in the open air, or to shake off the dust from their feet on the town, and go elsewhere. Nothing daunted, they immediately organized in front of the hall, under two finely over-shadowing elm trees, by calling that unblenching friend of human rights, Prof. WILLIAM ADAM, to the chair, and appointing DAVID LEE CHILD secretary. I then addressed the assembly at some length, after reading a portion of the first chapter of Isaiah, making my remarks as applicable to the day and the occasion as it was in my power, and exposing the awful guilt and hypocrisy of the American people in pretending to be worshippers at the shrine of Freedom, and to be praising God for their deliverance from a foreign yoke, while they were keeping in abject bondage a population larger than that of all New-England! The words that I uttered were those of 'truth and soberness'—and though they were calculated to make the ears of the wicked to tingle, and the hearts of the hypocritical to writhe in agony, yet they were such as the oppressed in all ages and in all climes have loved to hear, such as became a freeman, such as exhibited slavery in its true colors, and such as left the whole country without excuse for its abominable deeds. It was the first time that I ever mounted literally a stump as a rostrum from which to address the people, and I found much more freedom of spirit on it than I had ever found in a pulpit. James Boyle followed me in a speech of great cogency and power, in which he went into an examination of the religious aspects of our cause, and demonstrated that, for the continuance of slavery in our land, the American church and clergy are pre-eminently guilty, and deserve to be abandoned by all who fear God or regard man. He made some very pointed allusions to the pro-slavery position of the clergy in Northampton, and their subserviency to public opinion. 'You will find them all ready enough,' he said, 'to countenance the temperance picknick, to be held this afternoon, because the popular gale sets strongly in that quarter; but not to attend a meeting like this, or to advocate a cause so unpopular as ours.' It was the intention of Dr. Hudson and D.L. Child to be among the speakers on the occasion, but they both felt unwilling to offer any remarks, lest (as they said) they should weaken, rather than deepen the impressions that had been made on the minds of the audience. The broadest invitation was repeatedly given to all who were present, to participate in the proceedings, and especially to deny (if they could) the soundness of any of the positions that had been assumed, or the arguments that had been offered, or the allegations that had been made; but no one ventured to appear in defence either of Church or State. An elderly gentleman, named Taylor, (not a resident of the town, I believe,) stepped forward, and said that he was as much of an abolitionist as any body, and hated slavery as much as Mr. Garrison did; that I had spoken in 'unmeasured terms' of slavery, but he had no fault to find on that score; but that I had not told the people what they could do to abolish the system. He thought we had nothing to do with it; it was a part of the compact, and incorporated into the Constitution; and it was our duty to support it until that Constitution should be amended, though he was decidedly opposed to all political action on the subject! After premising that I knew not how to speak in measured terms of a system so unclean and impious as is slavery, and that they who have an object to effect are seldom found lamenting that they know not what to do, and that the grief of abolitionists is, that so much is to be and can be done, and that there are so few to do the work, I proceeded to show in what manner and on what grounds the people of the North were justly chargeable with upholding slavery, and, consequently, how they might extricate themselves from their present guilty relations. But, if I satisfied others on that point, I did not convince Mr. Taylor, who shook his head, and reiterated his declaration, that, slavery being sanctioned by the Constitution, we were bound to sustain it as law-abiding citizens. He argued that, so long as it was in the statute book, the law of the land was of paramount authority to the law of God. I admired his honesty in avowing this monstrous doctrine—a doctrine which is practically enforced as orthodox by the great body of our religious and political leaders, though in the abstract conceded to be heretical. He was quite certain, moreover, that the abolitionists had retarded the abolition of slavery many years—an assertion which Messrs. DcDuffie, Calhoun, Clay & Co. would rejoice to see demonstrated as a fact, and which indicates either profound ignorance or consummate effrontery, by whom soever made. This was easily disposed of, and the meeting was then dissolved.
Our audience was probably twice as numerous as it would have been in the hall, from the novelty of the gathering in the open air. Among the listeners, I am told, was the Rev. William Allen, D.D. formerly President of Bowdoin College. I wish he had taken the stump, and defined his position on this momentous question. The weather was delightful, and the proceedings throughout were perfectly orderly; not the slightest disrespect being shown, in a single instance.
There are three newspapers published here—two whig, and one democratic. The Courier and Gazette (both whig) took no notice of the meeting,—whether from motives of policy, or in the spirit of contempt, I don not know, but in giving, as they did,...served in the town, their silence in regard to a meeting held under such peculiar circumstance, in so public a manner, and with such a noble object in view, is certainly not creditable to their humanity or courtesy.
In the Democrat,—which has for its motto, as if purposely to illustrate its rottenness, 'Uncompromising hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,'—appeared an editorial sketch of the meeting, which was chiefly confined to a personal attack upon myself, and to a broad caricature of what was said and done on the occasion, expressed in the language and spirit of the lowest blackguardism. I send you a copy of the paper, containing the article, which I wish you to place in the receptacle provided for such ebullitions in the columns of the Liberator. It furnishes additional evidence of the fact which has long since been demonstrated to the world, that there is nothing under heaven so devoid of principle, so callous to shame, so reprobate in spirit, so profligate in practice, so impudent in pretension, so hypocritical in conduct, so heartless in feeling, or so villanous in design, as the existing DEMOCRACY of the United States, falsely so called.
Who can with patience for a moment see
The medley mass of pride and misery,
Of whips and charters, manacles and rights,
Of slaving blacks and democratic whites,
And all the piebald policy that reigns,
In free confusion, o'er Columbia's plains?
To think that man, thou just and gentle God,
Should stand before thee with a tyrant's rod,
O'er creatures like himself, with souls from thee,
Yet dare to boast of perfect liberty!!'
Alluding to me, the editor of the Democrat politely says—'He began with a lie in his mouth, by saying that he was refused admittance into the town hall.' The facts respecting our being excluded from the hall are precisely such as I have already mentioned. The plea now made, in order to get rid of the odium which must ever attach to such unworthy conduct, is, that the hall had been previously engaged to the ladies engaged in the Temperance celebration on that day. But it avails nothing—for, first, the hall was not occupied during the forenoon, if at any other period in the day, either by the ladies or by others, but remained empty and locked throughout our meeting; secondly, it was a piece of deception to give us the assurance that we should occupy the hall, if it had been already promised to others; and, thirdly, whether such an agreement had been made in behalf of the ladies, or not, no one presented himself to enlighten us on this point, or to prevent any misapprehension that might arise under the anomalous circumstances of the case, or to correct any of our statement. 'Finding that no one contradicted him in his falsehood,' continues the editor—I give you his name, 'Rinaldo R. Taylor'—'he made the most of it by a long harangue against the town, (a false assertion,) and thanked heaven that he was allowed to speak in the open air— (that is true.) 'He said that $5000 had been offered for his poor head by some lynching characters at the South.' Those lynching characters were the Senate and House of Representatives of Georgia, backed up in legal form by the Executive of that State. This atrocious attempt, by the offer of a large bribe, on the part of a sovereign State, to secure the abduction and subsequent murder of a citizen of Massachusetts guiltless of any and every crime, and simply for advocating universal liberty and equality, is treated by this 'democratic' traducer as a capital joke, but which, in the matter of dollars and cents, he thinks was carried a little too far—for, 'judging from the effect of his preaching here, we should say that it was a very extravagant offer.' Ha! ha! ha! What can be more droll or witty? Now, it may be safely affirmed that the man who can thus treat an offer so murderous, needs nothing but the opportunity and the courage to perpetuate any crime within the scope of human transgression. With his own hands he tears off the mask of his profession, and reveals himself in his true character. But the editor adds—'Indeed it is our firm belief, that if these lynchers were to pay Wm. L. Garrison, editor of the Boston Liberator, and David L. Child, editor of the New-York Standard, the $5000 to keep their heads on their shoulders, and employ them in delivering lectures about the country, it would be a better speculation (for slavery, of course,) than to chop off their heads.' Slang like this is the popular 'democratic' currency. But, mark the argument! D.L. Child and W.L. Garrison will do more to perpetuate slavery, by 'delivering lectures about the country,' than the chopping off of their heads would do to secure the same end; therefore, let them live! But, should the 'lynchers' be, after all, the more sagacious in this matter, why then the heads of these fanatical abolitionists ought to be chopped off, by a just regard for our 'constitutions and laws,' and as a good 'specution'!
I am next charged with having used 'disgusting language, not only against departed patriots, both clerical and laymen, but against the constitutions and laws framed by them,' &c. Why did not this patriotic democrat expose the injustice of my remarks on the spot? Why did he skulk from manly discussion, and by silence give his consent to the accuracy of all that was advanced by the speakers? Doubtless, on that occasion, he felt that discretion was the better part of valor, as did a certain redoubtable here of old, whose lies, like his own, were 'gross as a mountain, open, palpable.' Why, in giving an account of the meeting, does he suppress the fact, that all persons who were present, whether friendly or hostile to the anti-slavery movement, were invited to give utterance to their sentiments; and that, though charges of a grave character were urged against both Church and State, and repeated solicitations made to have them corrected if they were not true, no one came forward—no, not even to screen the clergy of the place from condemnation, or to convict me of 'lying,' in regard to the town hall? He knows that when our opponents were called on to say in what manner we had disturbed the truth—
'There was silence, deep as death,
And the boldest held his breath
For a time'—
until he could utter his ribaldry through the medium of the 'Northampton Democrat.'
Again—'The clergy came in for the greatest share of abuse, and were told to extend the solemnization of the marriage vow to the horses in the stables, the cattle in the yards, and the pigs in the pens.' This the critic calls 'disgusting balderdash,' but, in the true spirit of knavery, he does not state in what connexion this language was used; that it was simply an illustration—the argumentum ad hominem—to show the folly of those who, while they maintain that slaves are justly the chattels personal of their masters, affect to regard the suppression of the marriage institution among them as a great evil! As if property stood in virtuous need of the marriage vow!
But I must close. Let the article in the Democrat appear in the next number of the Liberator, without abridgment, and send a copy to its courteous and veracious editor.
Yours, for free discussion,
WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.
