AMESBURY, 18th 12th mo. 1840.
To the Editor of the Standard:
Some one has been kind enough to forward a number of the Standard, containing the commencement of a review of a letter of mine, in which I am officially informed that I am no longer an abolitionist—and in which I am unceremoniously turned over to those wicked 'new organizationists,' who, according to the editor of the Standard, are less susceptible of anti-slavery impressions, than such pro-slavery mobs as hunted for the life of George Thompson, murdered Lovejoy, and burned Pennsylvania Hall! I am likened to a star shooting madly from its sphere,—launching like Carazan of the Eastern story, into the abyss of infinitude—
'----- A comet shorn,
Out into utter darkness borne.'
And a mock lamentation is set up over me, which would be pathetic, did it not partake so largely, under all the circumstances of the case, of the ludicrous.
Now if the editor of the Standard means by all this, simply that he and myself disagree on some points in reference to anti-slavery movements, and if believing, as a matter of course, that his views are correct and mine wrong, he chooses to express in this way, his dissent from my conclusions, and to expose their folly and fallacy, I have nothing to say. Let him argue down or laugh down my heresies, if he can. He may rest assured that I can do justice to a sound argument, even if it overthrows a favorite doctrine; and relish good natured wit and humor, even when exercised at my expense, consoling myself, like Falstaff, with the reflection, that if I have not wit myself, I am 'the cause of wit in others.' Even if brother Rogers should so far shut up the bowels of his compassion, as to quote my own poetry against me, and, as in the case of poor Cinna, the poet in Shakspeare's Julius Ceasar, 'condemn me for my bad verses,' however I might writhe under the infliction, I don't know as I should complain.
But, if Nathaniel P. Rogers means (what his language somewhat strongly implies,) to impeach my character as an honest man—to assail my moral integrity—to brand me with the foul suspicion of treachery and hypocrisy; as one wilfully recreant to the cause of emancipation—I have only to say, that his recent voyage 'in search of a World's Convention,' has wrought in his head and heart 'a sea change' which would have astonished the tenants of Prospero's island—transforming the generous and high-minded Christian gentleman into a false 'accuser of his brethren,'—a Titus Oates swearing away more than the life of his friend.
I am told, in unqualified terms, that I shall never be able to do anything more for that cause to which I have devoted the morning of my life—on whose altar I have laid all that I possessed. Indeed, it may be so. He who, in His 'dealings with the children of men,' has seen fit to visit me with lingering pain and illness, knows whether more labor will be required at my hands in that cause, and, if so, will give me strength to perform it. I will not believe that the editor of the Standard intended to reproach me with an inability, which no one can deplore so deeply as myself.
I have neither health nor disposition to enter into personal controversy with abolitionists. Whatever others may do, I cannot forget the days that have passed—our common struggles against prejudice and persecution—I cannot forget the disinterested devotion and the sacrifices of those with whom I have been associated—and widely as I may differ with them on some points—greatly as I may believe some of them to err in judgment—I shall be slow to relinquish my faith in their moral integrity; and shall still conceive it to be possible that they may be as honest in what I believe to be their error, as I am in what I conscientiously believe to be the right.
To one sentiment in the editor's comments I fully respond, viz: that the South cares very little for abstract resolutions. A wholesomer truth could not well be uttered. It has been the burthen of my testimony for a long time. It has led me to question the practicability of abolishing the slave laws by mere resolutions—and to believe that a discussion, which ends only in discussion, will prove to the poor slave like another feast of the Barmacides—an invitation to the starving to feed upon air. It has led me to doubt the potency of 'moral suasion' against slavery when coupled with its practical support at the ballot-box. It has led me to say with WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON at Edinburgh, that 'I know of no instance in which the oppression of tyranny has been put down by moral suasion; and unless some other influence is brought to bear upon the colossal evil, I fear little will be done to abolish slavery.' It has led me to respect, if I cannot fully imitate, those among us who 'touch not, taste not,' the products of slave labor;—to hail with satisfaction the cotton culture of India,—to honor the practical abolitionism of Birney, Brisbane, and others,—the efforts of Vigilance Committees and of all who aid the fugitive from oppression—of Wattles, Wilson, and their female co-adjutors in the blessed task of instructing and elevating the oppressed colored man. Finally, it has led me to follow the example set by N.P. ROGERS, two years ago, viz: to nominate anti-slavery candidates where none such are in the field, and to invite all who love humanity to rally to their support.
Truly thy friend,
JOHN G. WHITTIER.
