secession – Lynn Brown Writer

newspaper freedom headline

Three fourths of the subscribers were black.

But the publisher of The Liberator cast a much greater shadow by also writing pamphlets and speaking at events: extremist abolitionist events. On his last trip to Europe in 1867, William Lloyd Garrison was hailed as “the preeminent agitator of the century.”

What makes an agitator?

Garrison was born in Massachusetts with its history of Puritanical piety and a mother who exemplified it. After some false starts, he found his niche as a “printer’s devil” on a newspaper. He contributed anonymous articles. Seeing his words and views in print was a heady experience.

He also absorbed his master’s philosophy of journalism: Newspapers “ought to be made the vehicle, and a most effective one, too, for disseminating literary, moral, and religious instruction.”

In 1828, Garrison connected with Benjamin Lundy. We talked about him earlier: the man who began more than 100 abolitionist societies, north and south. Garrison envisioned himself as the Lundy of the future.

Although I have not found that Garrison was a Quaker, he did consider himself a pacifist. I leave to you whether you agree with him.

Taking an editorial position at another newspaper, Garrison reworked its look and radicalized its message. He attacked anyone whom he deemed to be on the wrong side of abolition. He ripped apart arguments defending slavery as benevolence. But he most vehemently attacked complacency in the north, whether they espoused gradualism or colonization.

Garrison’s job evaporated after six months when he was jailed for slandering a merchant involved in the domestic slave trade.

The Liberator

This newspaper was first produced in Washington D.C., probably to be closer to the national political scene. However, it did not work out and Garrison returned to New England. There he found “comtempt more bitter, opposition more active, detraction more relentless, prejudice more stubborn, and apathy more frozen, than among slave owners themselves.”

The Liberator’s first issue, dated January 1, 1831, contained Garrison’s purpose statement. “I determined, at every hazard, to lift up the standard of emancipation in the eyes of the nation, within sight of Bunker Hill and in the birth place of liberty…Let southern oppressors tremble-let their secret abettors tremble-let all the enemies of the persecuted blacks tremble…I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest-I will not equivocate-I will not excuse-I will not retreat a single inch-AND I WILL BE HEARD.”

Effective Speaker

On July 4, 1854 at the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society’s Independence Day picnic, Garrison set fire to a copy of the Constitution. He called it “a covenant with death…and an agreement with hell.”

At this point, he believed in immediate, absolute, and unpaid emancipation, the secession of the North on moral grounds, and violent uprisings in the South.

Results

We get an interesting look at black life in Boston.
The public was challenged to think through its views.
Readers were inspired to action personally and through abolition societies.
The paper became the voice of radical abolitionism.
Blacks were encouraged to submit articles, letters to the editor, and other works. These were enthusiastically printed in the paper.
Using the tradition of newspaper exchange, by which editors sent complimentary copies of their latest numbers to each other, Garrison reprinted articles he liked, giving them more exposure especially to Black Americans. He reprinted articles he disagreed with, adding ferocious comments and arguments.
We have Garrison’s comments on the news of the day from a radical abolitionist view.
Locally, The Liberator assisted the Underground Railroad by reporting on fugitive slave cases and assistance organizations. The building also housed donations, clothing, information, referrals to job opportunities, and sometimes fugitive slaves.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-liberator.htm
https://www.theliberatorfiles.com/garrison-preeminent-agitator-of-the-century
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/january/february/feature/the-agitator

Trade: Deal / War

This is one of many lies by omission. True historians admit that there are many candidates for the title, depending on what is meant by “began the Civil War.”

Here are the biggest three: Northerners often blamed it on the secession of South Carolina, arguing that without the secession, the re-supply of Fort Sumter would not have been an issue.

The Lincoln Administration pushed the CSA firing on Fort Sumter as the beginning of the war.

But the South has a longer memory. It point to the beginning of abuse of the Constitution by what it called the Treaty of Abominations.

Realize that in 1828, the south controlled the majority of imports and exports because they grew crops valued by the world: tobacco and, first and foremost, cotton. The north struggled with imports and exports, especially after the law against the slave trade. Their lands were not optimal for growing those prize crops.

Another factor is the enormous influence of New Englanders with their wealth and their connections socially, industrially, and politically.

So what’s in the 1828 Treaty of Abominations, and why did it upset southerners?

It’s actually called the Treaty of 1828. It was the South that called it the Treaty of Abominations. The new country had imposed tariffs previously to pay down the national debt of the Revolutionary War. But there were three important differences in this treaty:

1. There was no stated common purpose for the tariff.

2. The amount of this tariff went as high as 50% to protect New England’s industries.

3. The tariff did not benefit all of the states. The federal government represented all of the states. Its policies should have been good for all. But this treaty was good for the New England and Mid-Atlantic states at the expense of the Southern economy.

The South had direct economic ties to Great Britain. Tobacco and cotton were extremely popular products. However, as the prices went up with the Tariff of 1828, demand dropped.

Also, the south was trying to increase mechanization. Machines were bought from Britain because New England could not compete in free trade. It was easier for the South to trade tobacco and cotton directly with Britain for machinery and other manufactured goods.

With the tariff, the prices were so high that the South could not purchase the machines it needed, extending the need for slave labor as an economic necessity beyond expectations.

The result of the Treaty of 1828 was an explosion across the South. Although the percentages of the tariffs were lowered in the next tariff act, one following it reintroduced high rates.

Results included South Carolina’s first stab at secession. (She was not the first to do so. Massachusetts and other states had also explored this option for various reasons. No one had been upset about those threats.)

The doctrine of Nullification, propounded by Vice President Calhoun, lit the explosion. The Nullification Doctrine stated that if the federal government could annul state laws that infringed on constitutionally named responsibilities, then states could nullify federal laws that applied to areas not ceded to the federal government by the Constitution.

South Carolina nullified the 1828 treaty and the following one. In 1833, the treaty with lowered tariff rates was passed and also the Force Act empowering the President to collect tariffs by force, if necessary. South Carolina removed the nullification acts on the earlier treaties, since the new rates were now acceptable, then nullified the Force Act.

There is a theory that all wars begin with money, or in a wider sense wealth including land. In the Southern point of view, this was true of the Civil War.