William Lloyd Garrison

In my last post I spoke of society's refusal to recognize the lone rebel for his conscience, prefering to engage in long meaningless sessions speculating over his "psychological disorders," John Brown's case being the prime example.
The following essay, written my freshman year of college touches upon similar questions, including a cursory visit of John Brown's case.


Justice vs. Peace:
An Age-Old Dilemma Through the Eyes of William Lloyd Garrison

Joseph Lehman

Protest In America
Professor Connolly
24 February 2003

The question over which should be held in a higher regard, individual justice or community peace has been debated for a long history. By all regards, human ideology has always been that people naturally believe in the best qualities of mankind. People are born and raised believing the one noble cause is in fairness and equality for all, and that right will win in the end. They are instilled with a sense that the world is pitted in a battle between right and wrong, good and evil. Then oftentimes it is the case that as people grow older and are more accustomed to the way the world operates, they may develop a more cynical outlook on life. Coming to the realization that a just perfect world does not exist, they may ultimately decide the best thing to do is to make compromises, accepting certain evils as a part of life, but keeping them out of focus in order to preserve the social order. This is community peace. During the era of the abolition movement William Lloyd Garrison tackled this issue. If the choice were to be made through Garrison’s perspective then it would be justice over peace based on many key points.

The common argument in favor of community peace over individual justice (or individual conscience) is that it is better to operate under a system where everyone coexists in tranquility even if it is unjust, than to endure a wave of chaos and violence in pursuit of justice. In other words, people should accept the status quo even if they hold their nose doing it, because the system is ordered. A general fear among whites in the mid-19th century was that if slaves were to be freed, then they might take arms against their former masters. Abolition was an incendiary issue, one that divided citizenry. It was believed that if enacted it would divide the union. Garrison’s position was explicit: An ordered society that is unjust is not worth preserving. He made this perfectly clear in his statement: "Let the pillars thereof fall––let the superstructure crumble into dust––if it must be upheld by robbery and oppression."[1] In fact, Garrison argues the opposite of the popular belief. In his view the stability of the union would not be upheld through the continuance of the current system of slavery, but instead he believed that the immorality of enslavement would only unravel the union.[2]

Garrison lends considerable credence to his argument for individual conscience by pointing out that in revolutionary times, the attitude of the American people was that they would live in war fighting the British than in tranquility under their rule. The fact that he phrases the attitude as "deeming it more glorious to die instantly as freemen, than desirable to live one hour as slaves"[3] catches slavery supporters in their own words. Garrison further exposes the fallacy of those who argue for domestic tranquility by pointing out that a person who would criticize the practice of slave ownership would be called "a fool, a fanatic, or a madman."[4] but if he were to express any support for the former rule under the British he would be chastised as "a tory, and a traitor to his country."[5] Obviously any concerns for domestic tranquility is absent in the face of an argument pertaining to the American Revolution.

Morality is fundamental in Garrison’s argument. He primarily invokes religion as a basis. Obviously a devout Christian, Garrison hammers down that despite any feelings about unjust tranquility being preferable to chaotic justice, the word of God is sacrosanct in its assertion that it is against his teachings for man to enslave man. As Garrison says it: "The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it, is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah."[6] Much of his rhetoric is filled with biblical quotes or vague references such as calling slavery "a national sin."[7] Garrison largely criticizes what he sees as a perversion of Christian gospel in how the United States may send missionaries out to other continents across the world in order to spread Christianity, but simultaneously ignores the injustice of slavery at home.[8] It is a further argument on Garrison’s part that God commands justice over peace when he says: "…that neither duty nor honesty requires us to defraud ourselves that we may enrich others."[9]

In his scathing indictment of the constitution Garrison proclaims: "Should disunion follow, the fault will not be yours. You must perform your duty, faithfully, fearlessly and promptly, and leave the consequences to God."[10] In other words, it is human duty to maintain justice fulfilled, and it is God whatever the repercussions may be. The constitution is the recipient of Garrison’s most harsh criticism. He saw it as a direct usurper of God’s divine law. By his view, a group of men, (the frame workers of the constitution) had no right to create a document that would establish rights among American people that should be afforded to men by God only.[11] If anything the constitution only gives a legal license to slave owners he charges. It leaves Americans in a moral quagmire where they can hide their own atrocities against slaves behind a veneer of freedom and equality. Henceforth Garrison’s declaration that the constitution is "dripping with human blood."[12]

Proponents of domestic tranquility would be quick to point out the inevitable conflict between states’ rights, and federal rights, that would most likely ensue. Such a rift would be a most dire form of the chaos and violence they were convinced would follow the abolition of slavery. Furthermore, the South would be subjected to the administrative superiority of the North. Garrison dismisses these assertions as "crude, preposterous, dishonorable, unjust."[13] By his standards the right to administration of national issues such as slavery belongs in the hands of the people of the higher morality. That people would be the abolitionist-minded people of the North. As to the South’s self-proclaimed right to govern its own affairs, Garrison counters that it does not deserve to wield such power because: "it gives the South an unjust ascendancy over other portions of territory, and a power which may be perverted on every occasion…"[14]
Garrison best attacks the constitution and argues for individual conscience simultaneously when he writes the line:

If we are always to remain shackled by unjust constitutional provisions, when the emergency that imposed them has long since passed away; if we must share in the guilt and danger of destroying the bodies and souls of men…[15]

Garrison’s use of the word "souls" indicates that he argues that even with domestic tranquility, without justice, people would be damned in the afterlife. This is an effective display of what Garrison would like people to think is the larger picture beyond the issue. If one were to believe that a "spiritual connection" counts, then Garrison could convincingly argue that domestic tranquility is meaningless if humanity were to pay for it with the selling of their souls. He also points out that while people talk of constitutional barriers as an excuse not to abolish slavery, they would most likely have no regard at all for constitutional barriers if the slaves were instead white.[16] The more hypocritical he makes the pro-slavery/domestic tranquility argument out to be, the less credibility it has and the more Garrison’s does.

Garrison ultimately solidifies his position in his defense of John Brown. In all respects John Brown’s odyssey is a prime example of a man disregarding the violent cost of defending a just cause, and instead following his individual conscience in fighting for what he believed is right. Garrison spoke of John Brown:

I thank God when men who believe in the right and duty of wielding carnal weapons are so far advanced that they will take these weapons out of the scale of despotism, and throw them into the scale of freedom.[17]

Garrison consistently underscores at his Tremont Temple speech: "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."[18] In his repeated use of this line, Garrison reminds his listeners that God meant for man to follow his own conscience, just as John Brown had. Garrison clearly saw John Brown as a man who followed the word of God in sacrificing his life for the oppressed. Garrison is unapologetic for the violence that surrounded John Brown’s failed raid at Harper’s Ferry. His distinction is that for the oppressed to raise their arms against their oppressors, such violence is justified, without question. To live in domestic tranquility without justice would in effect be living a lie. He is basically saying there is no peace without justice when he accuses the state of Virginia where John Brown was executed as having been: "Given over to believe a lie that she may be damned."[19] That there is no peace without justice is the breadth of Garrison’s argument.

Ultimately, the argument that Garrison makes, that an unjust world would not be worth living in, even if it were peaceful, is the cornerstone for many issues tackling the same question today. A similar issue involving the conflict between individual conscience and domestic tranquility at the present concerns the recent provisions proposed by Attorney General John Ashcroft that would curtail certain individual civil liberties of American citizens under the constitution, and grant the government free reign to use more intrusive methods of counter-terrorist investigation. "Justice" in this case would be civil liberties, and "peace" would be homeland security. Because of the general fear in the public in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, many people are more willing to sacrifice their individual freedoms for the safety of their society, not realizing the gravity of what they are giving up. This goes back to the previous mention of how people can make compromises to preserve social order. It is anyone’s guess when people will understand the cost of their compromises.

Notes

1. William E. Cain, ed., William Lloyd Garrison And the Fight Against Slavery. (Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 89
2. Cain, 89
3. Cain, 90
4. Cain, 75
5. Cain, 75
6. Cain, 91
7. Cain, 69
8. Cain, 63
9. Cain, 64
10. Cain, 10
11. Cain, 87-88
12. Cain, 89
13. Cain, 65
14. Cain, 66
15. Cain, 66
16. Cain, 67
17. Cain, 157
18. Cain, 157
19. Cain, 158

Bibliography

William E. Cain, ed., William Lloyd Garrison And the Fight Against Slavery. (Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin’s Press, 1995)