Tobass 1

Michael TobassCapstoneFall 2015

The Influence of Christian Fundamentalism on the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in pre-Civil War America from 1830 to 1850

Abstract

During the first half of the nineteenth century, the United States found itself engaged in a

sectional crisis that would eventually lead to the Civil War. In the decades leading up to the

Civil War, professing Christians used their voices to both support and oppose slavery in the

United States. Although Southern Christian opposition is often cited as a black spot in the

history of American Christianity, those who were most opposed to slavery were those with the

strongest religious rhetoric and were often then considered the ‘radical fundamentalists’. For this

reason, this paper explores the connection between faith and the abolitionists, specifically the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society from the 1830s to the 1850s. This paper will look to expand

upon what previous scholars have already noted, including John R. McKivigan’s documentation

of the faith of the abolitionist societies as a whole, and will examine the faith of the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society to see how Biblical Protestant Christianity informed the

faith of these revolutionary anti-slavery leaders, years before it was socially acceptable to do so.

In addition, this paper seeks to demonstrate how fundamental Evangelical Christianity unified

and motivated immediate abolitionists, such as the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery, to a degree that

no other faith in America at the time did.

Tobass 2

In the decades leading up to America’s Civil War, although the North was mostly

without slaves, not all of its residents believed in abolition on moral grounds. For more than

economic, practical, or even humanitarian concerns, the abolitionists in the Massachusetts Anti-

Slavery Society objected to slavery because its members viewed it as a national sin and an

affront against God. When exploring the writings of the various leaders within the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society during the 1830s and 1840s, their outspoken and strong

religious beliefs highlight how their faith informed their moral codes which rejected the

institution of slavery. Using Biblical rhetoric and illustrations to portray slavery as a vile

institution, the abolitionists within the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society vehemently opposed

slavery on religious grounds while the majority of the rest of the northern population continued

to rely on pillars of apathy, and at the most, protest the expansion of slavery, but not advocate for

its complete undoing. Although a small group of radicals, the northern abolitionists, exemplified

by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, helped forced the issue of slavery unto a nation in

which so many citizens sought to defend slavery with their lives, and many others remained

apathetic. Informed by their faith which states that all men and women are created in the eyes of

God, the abolitionist sparked a debate that would remain at the forefront of US politics and

society for the decades leading up to the Civil War.

One such leader that was at the forefront of not only the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society, but the entire abolitionist movement as a whole was William Lloyd Garrison. Although

much has been written on Garrison and his anti-slavery publications in The Liberator, his

writings and beliefs must be analyzed and understood in order to understand the interaction

between Christian fundamentalism and the anti-slavery movement on a larger level. Because of

this, Garrison’s influence cannot be ignored. Garrison was born in Newburyport, Massachusetts

Tobass 3

on December 10, 1805.1 As a young man, Garrison worked as a journalist, where his the great

influence that he would come to hold around the country would begin. As he grew older, his

hatred for slavery grew, as his detest for the institution became more and more evident. In his

early poem entitled “Africa”, the young writer penned, “The wild and mingling groans of

writhing millions, calling for vengeance on my guilty land.”2 Although Garrison was strongly

opposed to slavery, even from a very young age, Garrison was not always what we now

understand to be an abolitionist. Although the individual society will be looked at in far more

depth later in this paper, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery society reflected the ideals of

immediate abolitionist. As its name suggests, immediate abolitionists adhered to a narrow

approach to abolition, as they only advocated for the abolition of all American slaves and all at

once rather than a gradualist process which was very popular in the pre-Civil War north.

Therefore, not only was the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society unique when compared to other

anti-slavery groups in its early radical opposition to slavery, as will be explored more later, but

also in its insistence on immediate abolition and rejection of any gradual means. At the forefront

of this campaign of immediacy was none other than Garrison. Garrison though, did not always

hold these same views which united the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. As a young

journalist, Garrison noted, “The emancipation of all the slaves of his generation is most assuredly

out of the question,”3 discounting the notion of an immediate abolition of slavery. He even went

on to claim, “…Years may elapse, before the completion of the achievement; generations of

blacks may go down to the grave, manacled and lacerated without hope for their children.”4 It

seems that Garrison’s major shift in ideology during his life was most likely due to his

commitment to his faith and his aversion to perceived sin that led him to believe that gradual 1 Archibald H. Grimke, William Lloyd Garrison: The Abolitionist, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1891, 11.2 IBID., 463 IBID., 704 IBID., 70

Tobass 4

emancipation could not be justified. As he aged, it is likely that the more that he viewed his faith

and became a dedicated follower, the more Garrison’s passions intensified for immediate rather

than gradual abolition. As Garrison biographer, former slave, and nephew of the famous Grimke

sisters Sarah and Angelina, Archibald Grimke explained Garrison’s change of heart by surmising

his shifting theology towards abolition.

The more he thought the less did gradualism seem defensible on moral grounds. John Wesley had said that slavery was the “sum of all villainies”; it was indeed the sin of sins, and as such ought to be abandoned not gradually but immediately. Slave-holding was a sin and slave-holders were sinners. The sin and the sinner should both be denounced as such ought to be denounced as such, and the latter called into instant repentance, and the duty of making immediate restitution of the stolen liberties of their slaves.5

Grimke’s description of Garrison’s “conversion” illustrates how faith and adherence to a strict

Christian morality led Garrison not only in his opposition to slavery, but in his strict and

unwavering immediate approach to abolition.

Although it is clear that Garrison and his fellow abolitionists viewed slavery as a sin

against a holy God, the question becomes how did these abolitionists from New England arrive

at a starkly different view of slavery than many of their Christian counter-parts in the South?

Like their Southern contemporaries, the abolitionists also used the Bible and Scripture, but for

them, it was used as a tool to condemn it as a sinful and wicked enterprise. Garrison scholar

John L. Thomas noted that Garrison “…hated slavery because it denied God to black and white

men alike.”6 Due to his faith in God and his fundamentalist Christian faith, Garrison believed

that God was available to all men and women, and does not discriminate based on skin color as

men did at the time. As the New Testament outlines in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, “There is

neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one

in Christ Jesus.”7 Here, Paul directly states that for those that those faith does not rest upon race

5 IBID., 706 John L. Thomas, The Liberator: William Lloyd Garrison, Little Brown and Company, Toronto, 1963, 3.7 Gal. 3:28 NIV

Tobass 5

or social class, and that accessibility to God is not determined by these factors. Instead, Garrison

perceived a God that did not show favoritism based on race. In another of Paul’s letters in the

New Testament, this time to the Romans, Paul explains, “…but glory, honor and peace for

everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show

favoritism.”8 Garrison, being a student of Scripture, understood this verse to man that God does

not make judgements based on external features like ethnicity or skin color, which the entire

premise of New world raced-based slavery was based on. Writing in a time when Jewish

Christians saw themselves as greater and set apart from Gentile Christians, Paul’s words against

discrimination in the early Christian church would be echoed by abolitionists like Garrison who

believed that discriminating against entire ethnic groups was radically opposed to the way in

which they viewed God through the Scriptures. Therefore, rather than using broad culturally

sensitive Scriptures to condone slavery, the Northern abolitionists, such as William Lloyd

Garrison, looked to the character of god found throughout the Bible to condemn slavery as sin.

Garrison and the other members of the Massachusetts Society therefore all believed there

was a religious impetus to oppose slavery and advocate for its destruction. Garrison and his

followers were not rarely shy about using vivid imagery in detailing their opposition to slavery,

and explaining their motivations as a mission from God. As John L. Thomas summarized the

mindset of the abolitionists like Garrison, “He only knew that he and his followers were

Christian soldiers doing God’s work in the world.”9 In his Commencement of the Liberator,

Garrison acknowledges that his radical view on slavery was not the popular one, even within the

Northern States, but still proclaims he will not be silenced by apathy or calls for moderation.

When speaking about his refusal to back down against seemingly insurmountable societal

8 Rom. 2:10-119 John L. Thomas, The Liberator: William Lloyd Garrison, Little Brown and Company, Toronto, 1963, 5.

Tobass 6

differences in belief, Garrison exclaimed his position: “I desire to thank God, that he enables me

to disregard ‘the fear of man which bringeth a snare,’ and to speak his truth in its simplicity and

power.”10 Garrison’s use of quoting Proverbs cannot merely be taken as a tool to excite and

convince his audience, but must be understood more broadly as one of the causes that spurred

Garrison into action. Since he was speaking in a time when very few would ascribe to his

seemingly radical views of the day, Garrison acknowledged that he was in the minority. With

that being said, he was comforted and spurred on by his faith to continue to speak out and to not

fear the responses he would receive from those around him. Not only were the abolitionists

informed by their faith to oppose slavery for its inherent evils through relinquished personhood

and beatings from slave masters, but also due to the deprivation of liberties to knowledge and

more importantly, religion. Garrison eludes to this in the Declaration of Sentiments, when he

writes, “Our fathers were never slaves – never bought and plead – never shut out from the light

of knowledge and religion…”11 By including their deprivation of knowledge and religion,

Garrison indicates that abolition of slavery was not only an objective from God because it was

inherently sinful for holding slaves against their will, but also for not allowing them to have the

freedom to worship God as well.

William Lloyd Garrison was an influential leader within the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society, and reflected the values that the society extolled and promoted. Believing they were on

a mission for God, and soldiers for His sake as stated earlier by Thomas, the abolitionists

believed they would be victorious in their cause, as seen through the life of Garrison. Speaking

at a time northern apathy in regards to slavery, Garrison sought to spark the action in all of his

listeners. Since Garrison believed his objectives were ultimately godly, he believed that even if

10 William Lloyd Garrison, Declaration of Sentiments of the American Anti-Slavery Convention, originally published in 1852 by R. F. Wallcut, Reprinted by Negro Universities Press, New York, 1968, 66.11 IBID., 67

Tobass 7

he was temporally defeated, the truths he was fighting for were eternal. As he exclaimed, “Our

trust for victory is solely in God. We may be personally defeated, but our principles never.

Truth, Justice, Reason, Humanity, must and will gloriously triumph.”12 The abolitionists, as

embodied by Garrison, were strengthened and empowered by the belief that their cause was a

holy venture, and because of that, they had to act, even if all odds were against them.

In many ways, William Lloyd Garrison represents the northern and specifically

abolitionists in speech and conduct. Most notably, Garrison’s use of his Protestant faith to direct

his views is emblematic of the greater abolitionist movement as a whole. The way in which faith

impacted the abolitionists can be seen when examining rhetoric from different abolitionists

among the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society. One way in which this is evident is through the

Massachusetts’s Anti-Slavery Society’s response to events of the day, especially those that

directly related to the issue of slavery. In response to the US Supreme Court case of Prigg v.

Pennsylvania, which ruled that federal law superseded state law and secured slaveholders

everywhere the right to reclaim escaped slaves, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society

maintained, “It is the business of abolitionists to endeavor, by peaceable means, to avert the

necessity of this fearful remedy of intolerable grievances. Let us labor earnestly in this our

godlike vocation.”13 Although this case upheld the Fugitive salve Act of 1793, and secured the

power of the federal government to forcibly return runaway slaves to where they had escaped

from, it also gave states the power to make laws that barred them from being able to incarcerate

or get involved with slaves on a state level, and only on a federal level. Thus, in many ways, the

case weakened the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 by only allowing for the federal government to

12 IBID., 7113Eleventh Annual Report Presented to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, January 25, 1843 Westport, Connecticut: Negro University Press, 1970

Tobass 8

enforce it, while allowing state governments to pass laws to bypass it. As Justice Story, who

wrote the opinion of the Court stated,

As to the authority so conferred upon state magistrates [to deal with runaway slaves], while a difference of opinion has existed, and may exist still on the point, in different states, whether state magistrates are bound to act under it; none is entertained by this Court that state magistrates may, if they choose, exercise that authority, unless prohibited by state legislation.14

The opinion, and Story’s words at the end, “unless prohibited by state legislation”, implied that

states could pass laws to circumvent the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, and because of this, and can

be seen as an anti-slavery success. With that being said, the Massachusetts abolitionists knew

that the case did not actually help in their quest in permanently ending slavery, and did secure the

federal government’s power in forcing runaway slaves to return home. Furthermore, even

though it appeared to be a supposed success, the fact remained that the evil of slavery not only

continued to exist, but was also confirmed by the United States Supreme Court. It is seemingly

for this reason that the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society referred to the decision as a “fearful

remedy”. Almost as if they knew that a much stronger Fugitive Slave Law would be passed in

1850 through the Compromise of 1850, the Massachusetts abolitionists were extremely weary of

the ruling, and maintained that they had to continue to persevere in denouncing slavery a moral

stain on the nation. 15 This “compromise”, which ultimately made the fugitive slave laws

stronger than they had ever been, confirmed the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society’s notion

that unless the government of the United States immediately abolished slavery in all of the states,

then small successes were not successes at all, and realized they had to continue in their “godlike

vocation”, until slavery was completely eradicated. As seen, like Garrison, the Massachusetts

Anti-Slavery Society as a whole viewed their crusade against slavery as a mission ordained by

14 Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842).15 “A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875: Statutes at Large, 31st Congress, 1st Session”, The Library of Congress, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=489, pg. 462.

Tobass 9

and pleasing to God. The Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society not only objected to slavery with

strong fundamental Protestant rhetoric, but also rejected other “solutions” to the issue of slavery

of the day. Two in specific were ideas of gradual emancipation and colonization of blacks.

Because the abolitionists were informed by their faith and believed that the institution of slavery

was an affront against God, they sought to focus energy on denouncing strategies that they

believed would allow the sin to continue to plague our nation.

In the 1830s, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society was tasked with objecting and

refuting the popular notion of colonization that was promoted by the American Colonization

Society at the time. The ACS was an influential organization that supported bringing slaves to

Africa. Although sentiments of anti-slavery existed within the group within the organization, as

the organization was opposed to slavery, the solution they offered was very different than the

northern abolitionist solution of immediate abolition for all slaves. In a mocking critique of the

aims of the American Colonization Society, the 1833 Annual Report of the Massachusetts Anti-

Slavery Society stated, “In other words, when God shall please to make their complexion like

ours, then we shall be able to cease from our hatred, contumely and oppression-and not till

then.”16 As seen, the abolitionists cited God and used logic derived from their Protestant faith to

deride the ACS for not treating blacks as equals, and thus not seeing them as equal in the eyes of

God. Also in their report, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society listed numbered grievances

again the American Colonization Society, many of which containing very strong biblical

rhetoric. In one section, the report exclaimed, “They dare call the creatures of the Most High

their property, and pertinaciously persist in their deeds of violence and robbery.”17 The

indictment also exclaimed, “…it denies the power of the gospel to overcome prejudice”18. As 16 Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, Presented Jan 9, 1833, Vol. 1-10 (1833-1842), Westport: Negro University Press, 1970, First Annual Meeting, 23.17 IBID., 30.18 IBID., 24.

Tobass 10

seen here, the abolitionist stressed the concept of equality among races, and did so due to their

belief in a fundamental, and at the time, radical view within Protestant Christianity. As seen, the

faith of these abolitionists forced them to view slaves and all people as created in the image of

God. This prevented them from being able to discriminate between races, which was a very

extreme and rare position of the day. Although the ACS promoted emancipation of slaves, it

also sought to colonize the slaves in Africa. Consistent with their use of Protestant ideals and

biblical ethos, the abolitionists squarely rejected this position, as they believed that the slaves

could be free and live as equals in the United States without having to be forced to relocate to a

home in Africa which they never even knew.

The Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society also ardently objected to any notions of gradual

emancipation. During the 1840s, many anti-slavery proponents began to endorse a gradual

emancipation position, which argued for the abolition of slavery over time rather than all at once.

The abolitionists of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society fiercely opposed this strategy for

several reasons, all of which stemming back to their faith and view that slavery was a moral and

national sin. In a more interesting statement made by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in

1833, the Society explained, “…immediate abolition would save the lives of the planters,

enhance the value of their lands, promote their temporal and eternal interests, and secure for

them the benignant smiles of Heaven.”19 Here, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society explains

how immediate abolition would actually benefit the slaveholders. Although at first hand, the

statement is hard to grasp, it is very telling of the views of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery when

viewed from an Evangelical Protestant lens. Because the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society

abolitionists viewed slaveholding as both and individual and national sin, the abolitionists

believed that by abolishing the right to own slaves, planters would no longer be able to be able to

19 IBID., 25.

Tobass 11

be guilty of the sin of slaveholding, thus saving them spiritually by forcing them to stop in their

sin. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society abolitionists also argue that

immediate abolition would allow force the slaveholders to learn new techniques of planting

without slave labor, and so would also be beneficial to the planters. They contrast this with

gradual emancipation, as firstly, they believe that gradual emancipation would only allow the

individual sins of slaveholding to fester, even if slavery was being eroded over time. The

abolitionists of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society also objected to gradual emancipation

because they objected to notions, even when their opponents argued that it was a more practical

solution. In 1844, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society again decried gradual emancipation

by rejecting all allegiances to anti-slavery supporter, Congressman, and former President John

Quincy Adams. In the 1844 Annual Report, the Society declared, “…we feel imperiously bound

publicly to protest against the course of John Quincy Adams… Because he asserted, that

immediate abolition is ‘utterly impractical, and a moral and physical impossibility.’”20 As seen,

the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society rejected even prominent anti-slavery leaders who did not

espouse views of immediate abolition. Because these abolitionists viewed slavery as a moral

evil, any notions of gradual emancipation would only prolong this evil. In an earlier indictment

of Adams earlier in the report, Massachusetts Anti-Slavery show their opposition to Adams by

declaring, “And it does certainly and somewhat strangely, if not ludicrously, to hear Mr. Adams

condemning measures of the abolitionists as having a tendency to retard emancipation…”21

Here, the immediate abolitionists portray Adams in a hypocritical light, as they show that he

believes that immediate abolition slows down and weakens the anti-slavery movement when they

believe their movement is the one that has actually began the question over the abolition of

20 Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, Vol. 11-17 (1843-1849), Westport: Negro University Press, 1970, Twelfth Annual Meeting, 91.21 IBID., 13.

Tobass 12

slavery. The immediate abolitionists of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society further argued

that the only true and moral conclusion to the issue of slavery was an immediate approach to

abolition, and that gradual notions of abolition did not view the slavery as a sin against slaves.

As the author report continues,

Great as the services have been rendered to his country in these latter and evil days, they have been services for the white man, the vindication of the insulted rights of freemen, and the protection of his own constituents; he has never placed himself by the side of outraged slave, and demanded instant justice for his world of wrongs. Justice to ourselves, as well as to Mr. Adams, demands that web assent, however reluctantly, to his disclaimer of being an abolitionist in the truest and noblest meaning of the word.22

As seen, the immediate abolitionists of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society believe that

immediate abolition is the only true and noble form of abolition that exists. The Massachusetts

Anti-Slavery Society viewed any other types of abolition or anti-slavery effort simply as

prolonging sin, and therefore, an unthinkable proposition. A notable part of this quotation is that

it displays the abolitionist view towards the slave. Although a sin against God, the abolitionists

also viewed slavery as a sin against those who were held captive under it, keeping with the

biblical themes of loving one’s neighbor as self, and fighting on behalf of the oppressed.

Although seemingly a basic reason for fighting against slavery, the slaves themselves were often

left entirely lout of the arguments. By advocating on behalf of these slaves, whom even most

anti-slavery proponents did not view equal to whites, the Massachusetts abolitionists provided a

unique and radical perspective years before its time. For these Massachusetts abolitionists, the

only way to truly care for the countless slaves being sinned against was the quest for immediate

abolition. Aside from this, other forms of abolition would simply seek to form sinful agreements

with the slaveholders to pave the way for an eventual abolition, with no clear end in sight.

Rather, based on their Protestant understanding of their world, the abolitionists viewed American

slavery as a sin. Like individual sins, which the Bible claims people must turn away from, the

22 IBID.,14.

Tobass 13

abolitionists of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society believed the only way to turn away from

this national sin was to turn from it, and so purge slavery from all of the land.

Another major component of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society platform was to

denounce any Christian pro-slavery arguments, and furthermore, to argue that slaveholders could

not be true Christians. In 1835, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society pronounced a radical

judgement on professing Southern Christians who owned slaves by asserting,

Those who commit the most aggravated injustice and fraud, in withholding from other men the liberty which is their most precious birthright, in compelling them to labor, yet giving them no wages, in buying and selling their brethren,-men stamped like themselves with the image of their Creator,-ought not to be permitted to dream that they are free from guilt, merely because they treat the subjects of their oppression with comparative kindness,-because they are not engaged in the internal slave trade, because they have not separated husband from wife, and the infant from its mother in their sales, because they have never hunted a runaway slave with bloodhounds, or whipped a negro to death. We are bound as fellow Christians, to present the standard of duty to southern planters in so clear a light that they cannot fail to see.23

In this indictment on Christians in the South who owned slaves, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society made clear that the activities and actions of professing slave-trading believers in the

South were anything but Christ-like. In their indictment, presented through the words of

Garrison, the abolitionists explained why slave-trading was a sin, and explained that even if these

slave traders did not help to commit atrocities, including aiding in the internal slave trade or

ripping families apart, (which Lloyd-Garrison subtly implies that they inevitably did) they were

still guilty for not providing the men and women with freedoms or a wage for their work, thus

acting as oppressors of fellow men. Addressing a popular justification head-on, the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society showed that even if the slaves were treated with relative

compassion and good will, the slave holders were still not free of guilt because they were in fact

buying, selling, and claiming property over those who were also created in the image of God.

For this reason, no slave holder was free of guilt in the eyes of the Massachusetts abolitionists,

even those embodied by Master William Ford as described in the famous biographical account of 23 Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, Presented Jan 9, 1833, Vol. 1-10 (1833-1842), Westport: Negro University Press, 1970, Third Annual Meeting, 17.

Tobass 14

slave Solomon Northup in Twelve Years a Slave.24 In his account, although being described by

Northup as one of the most caring and compassionate men he had ever met, men like Ford, who

was also a Southern Baptist preacher, were not excluded from the condemnation of the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, as they believed that simply holding men as slaves was a

sin for denying men basic God-given freedoms and rights.

The seemingly radical abolitionists rejected notions of a Christianity sympathetic to the

practices of slaveholding and slavery due to their core uniting belief in fundamental Christianity,

with one of the most vital tenants being love. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul wrote to

the Christians in the Church in Corinth, “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But

the greatest of these is love.”25 For the Massachusetts abolitionists, owning a slave inherently

opposed the aim of loving others, as the abolitionists thought one could not adequately love men

and women if they were oppressed and subjugated to forced labor. The abolitionists viewed their

duty to love their fellow man as more than just a duty to feed the hungry and clothe the poor, but

a call for the complete destruction of an institution they believed was antithetical to the teachings

of Jesus Christ. As the decades passed, the abolitionists from Massachusetts remained true to

their belief that the institution of slavery as they knew it was an abomination because it was

contrary to the notions of love that were taught by Jesus. By 1855, the Massachusetts Anti-

Slavery Society declared,

…That to affirm the Bible sanctions Slavery, is practically to deny its divine authority; and is moreover, to represent it as grossly inconsistent with its own fundamental principles of justice, its own great commandments of love supreme to God, and love to our neighbour as ourselves; and to affirm that the Constitution and laws of the land sanction Slavery, is to affirm that they contravene the supreme law binding on all men and nations, and are, therefore, utterly null and void.26

24 Solomon Northup, 12 Years a Slave, (Auburn, NY: Derby and Miller, 1853).25 1 Cor. 13:13 NIV26 Proceedings of the Massachusetts anti-slavery society at the annual meetings held in 1854, 1855 & 1856 : with the treasurer's reports and general agent's annual statements, Boston: Office of Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, 1856, 13.

Tobass 15

The statement, penned by the Society’s Charles C. Burleigh of the Business Committee,

suggested that believing the Bible condoned North American race-based slavery was the

equivalent to denying the Bible as a holy book for Christians. Through this statement, the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society made clear that they believed it was impossible to be a true

practicing Christian and believe that owning slaves was permissible or morally acceptable. As

Garrison asserted 20 years earlier, there are “no collisions in the teachings of Jesus Christ,”

making it clear that the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery always maintained the inconceivability of

being both a Christian and a slave master, or even one who believed that slavery was not a sin.27

Because the abolitionists only made up a small percentage of the population of the North, let

alone the entire country, the abolitionists boldly implied that a large majority of the country was

not in fact living along the lines of pure Christianity which so much of the nation professed at the

time. For this reason, although a small group, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society’s rhetoric

was extremely powerful, and was able to be heard by Americans both near and far. Pushing

harder than any others in the US to destroy slavery on the grounds of religion and morality, faith

unified these abolitionists to decry slavery and denounce the Christian faith of those that they

deemed committed actions or held beliefs that were contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

As seen, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery-Society was united by a radical evangelical

Christian faith. For decades, this persistence in believing in fundamental Christian ideals

brought together New Englanders such as Garrison, to fight for the freedom of the slaves in the

South. Although there were many Southern Christians who did not believe that slave holding or

trading was a sin, it cannot be denied that the abolitionists in the north were motivated and

unified by their faith. Although there were men and women of other faiths that opposed slavery,

27 Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, Presented Jan 9, 1833, Vol. 1-10 (1833-1842), Westport: Negro University Press, 1970, Eighth Annual Meeting, xxxiii..

Tobass 16

the anti-slavery movement was unified by Evangelical Christianity like no other. For example,

although there were certainly Jewish abolitionists, during the Antebellum Era, Judaism was not a

uniting force in organizing anti-slavery societies and building opposition to the institution of

slavery. Before going any further, it must be understood that there were many Jews at the time

just before the dawn of the Civil War that did fight for anti-slavery and did oppose slavery – just

as there were many that owned slaves and did not oppose slaveholding as a practice. With that

being said, Judaism and religious rhetoric was not really a motivating and unifying factor for the

Jewish abolitionists. In the 1853 report of the American and Foreign Anti-Slave Society, the

author notes,

…Jews of the United States have never taken any steps whatever with regard to the Slavery question. As citizens, they deem it their policy ‘to have every one choose whichever side he may deem best to promote his own interests and the welfare of his country’… It cannot be said that the Jews have formed any denominational opinion on the subject of American slavery…

The objects of so much mean prejudice and unrighteous oppression as the Jews have been for ages, surely they, it would seem, more than any other denomination, ought to be the enemies of CASTE, and the friends of UNIVERSAL FREEDOM28

As seen here, even by 1853, the American & Foregin Anti-Slavery Society did not find any

denominational bonds that united Jewish abolitionsits. Instead, the author presents Jews as a

whole as taking the side of the issue that was the most personally expedient. Furthermore, the

writer points out what he believes to be an inconsoistisy in the Jewish position as wa whole, as

he believes a group that has historically been denied freedoms should, for that reason, be

powerfully on the side of slaves, the most oppreesed at the time.

With all of this being explicated, the role of Christianity cannot be overstepped here and the role

of Judaism undercut, but rather both being evaluated as their roles in unifying memebers of the

faith. Once again, it is without question that there were prominent Jewish abolitionists and there

were an overwhelmginly large number of apathetic and pro-slavery Christians. With this being

28 The Thirteenth Annual Report of the American & Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, Presented at New York, May 11, 1853, (New York, 1853), pp. 114-115.

Tobass 17

said, as the author of the the report on American and Foreign Anti-Slave Society, Judaism as a

whole cannot be viewed as a force that unifyed aboltintiosts in their cause. And altohugh the

Massachussetts Anti-Slavery Society only made up a very small percentage of the U.S.

population at the tiem, and that they were a fringe and radical group for their time, what remains

is that Christianity and Christianfundemtalist rhetoric united and propelled these aboltintisits in

their war agaisnt slavery.

Abolitionists, such as those of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, were bounded

together unlike any other group, through there at the time, radical Christian ideals. By the early

1850s, as abolitionism gained popularity and momentum, new groups began to form also with

the aims of ending slavery. During this time, the Jewish abolitionists mentioned earlier were

actually increasingly gaining in numbers. Prior to this, Jews in the U.S. had largely stayed out of

the debate on slavery, both those in the North and the South. By the early 1850s though, Jewish

congregations continued to grow in the United States. Many of these Jewish congregants found

themselves within the anti-slave ranks. Although the number of Jewish abolitionists increased in

the early part of this decade, the root cause and motivation for abolishing slavery was based in a

political sympathy rather than religious ideology as it was for the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society. Jayme Sokolow notes, “While most native abolitionists were motivated by evangelical

Protestantism and American democratic ideals, the Jewish abolitionists’ decision to participate in

in anti-slavery activities was primarily a function of their European political and religious

experiences.”29 As Sokolow explains, the influx of Jewish abolitionists was caused by the influx

of Jews into the country at that time. Just before the Civil War, there was a mass migration of

Jews from all over Eastern Europe, greatly increasing the Jewish population in the US. Unlike

29 Jayme Sokolow, “Revolution and Reform: The Antebellum Jewish Abolitionists”, ed. John R. McKivigan (Indianapolis: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999), 60.

Tobass 18

many of the Jews already living in the US, the migrant Jews were far more likely to find

themselves engaged in political activism, especially in terms of abolition. As Sokolow explains,

“…with one exception, all the Jewish abolitionists were Reform Jewish emigres.”30 Sokolow

continues by explaining that the Jewish migrants were far more likely than the more native Jews

to get become politically involved in the issue of slavery because of their political activism that

they carried with them from Europe. Because many of the Jews that came to the U.S. played

parts in revolutions that was tearing apart their home countries apart, they were more

sympathetic to the cause of abolition and equality. As he states, “Throughout these struggles, the

general principle of equality, rather than the peculiar situation of the Jews, was consistently

invoked by protagonists of emancipation. This was the attitude that the emigres who became

abolitionists would take in America.”31 As Sokolow highlights, the Jewish migrant abolitionists

of the 1850s were linked together by notions of equality that was shaped by their experiences in

Europe rather than a common religious goal or motivation. For these reasons, although creating

a migrant Jewish abolitionist culture by the 1850s, these European Jewish abolitionists were

linked together largely by ties to a previous homeland ravaged by revolutions. Unlike the

Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, the Jews were not primarily motivated by their faith, but

rather were informed by past political endeavors in Europe that ultimately led them to be

sympathetic to the anti-slavery cause.

All in all, Biblical Evangelical faith was the unifying force in leading the Massachusetts

Anti-Slavery to oppose slavery. Unlike all other groups, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society

bemoaned slavery not simply for moral or even empathetic reasons, but for religious

motivations. Believing discriminating against an entire race created in the image of God, all

30 IBID., 60.31 IBID., 60.

Tobass 19

while neglecting these slaves’ freedoms, love, and an opportunity to access God on their own,

the abolitionists detested the institution of slavery completely on religious grounds. When

reading through any of the reports or literature written by the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society, it is rarer to go several pages without seeing references to God and sin when advocating

for the immediate abolition of slavery. Summing their position perfectly, the Society stated in

1855, “

…this Society has steadfastly pursued its way, laying the axe at the root of slavery, and exposing and rebuking the time-serving partizans, the sycophantic and servile editors, the hireling priests, who give their pens and voices to the advocacy or palliation of Heaven-defying sin of slaveholding, and who invent every conceivable apology for commission of crimes on which God, in nature and Revelation, has set to express seal of abhorrence and condemnation. The work of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, and of its associate Societies, can never be popular work. When the truths it teaches shall be accepted by the people in reality, and its principles wrought into living statutes and actual measures, its object will have been gained, its occupation will be gone, and it will have no longer a work and office to perform. Until that time, it must continue to do the thankless, yet necessary work, of showing the people their transgressions and their sins – of branding the respectable and wealthy criminals of the land with their just characters, and of facing the oppressor in high places with the plain and wholesome declaration, THOU ART THE MAN. The command of God, the voice of whatever in us is noble and divine, calls us to this work as our duty.32

Through this statement, the position of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society is made

undeniably clear. Beginning their unwavering indictment, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery

Society maintained that its one and only mission was to pave the way for the total destruction of

the institution of slavery. As seen in their commentary of events in their day, such as the

decision in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, as well as statements made by former president John Quincy

Adams, “successes” or even ideals of gradual or practical abolition were not enough, as the

Massachusetts abolitionists believed it only allowed the sin plaguing the nation to fester. The

statement then indicts journalists and those in a positon of influence who defended slavery,

especially when defending through a Christian lens. Because the Massachusetts Evangelical

abolitionists believed it was impossible to be a slaveholder and a Christian, as well as a Christian

32 Proceedings of the Massachusetts anti-slavery society at the annual meetings held in 1854, 1855 & 1856 : with the treasurer's reports and general agent's annual statements, Boston: Office of Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, 1856, 48.

Tobass 20

defending slavery from a biblical standpoint, the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society was

purposely relentless in their rhetoric against groups and individuals who espoused these views.

Slaveholding, which put simply, was a sin against a holy God, could never be justified, least of

all with the same Scriptures that the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery were informed and unified,

unified, and motivated by.

What may be most telling about the above quotation though, is their admittance that their

work was not commonly accepted. Although existing in the North, which held largely anti-

slavery beliefs, none compared with the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in their dedication to

eliminating slavery entirely and immediately. For this reason, these abolitionists were very

much “radicals” of their day doing work “that can never be popular.”

Today, these very same abolitionists are often hailed as great motivators that began the

tidal wave of abolition that would occur after the conclusion of the Civil War. The immediate

abolition slavery, a notion that seemed impossible, and to many, utterly impractical in 1830, was

fully realized not even forty years later. Although the abolitionists are often credited with

pushing much of the population, especially the population in the North, towards more aggressive

forms of anti-slavery, their efforts cannot be underestimated or undervalued. In this forty year

span, these abolitionists aggressively fanned the small spark of anti-slavery in the 1830s into a

fire that consumed much of the North. Although counter-factuals do not paint perfect pictures of

what could have been, without the work and rhetoric that the small but loud Massachusetts Anti-

Slavery Society utilized, leaders that would come later, such as John C. Fremont, the first

Republican presidential candidate, and later Abraham Lincoln, may never have come to oppose

slavery. Although even by the Civil War were the motivations and efforts of the Massachusetts

Anti-Slavery Society un-paralleled, it is extremely likely that their extreme rhetoric in their day

Tobass 21

helped to pull many Americans from apathy to anti-slavery. Ultimately, the Massachusetts Anti-

Slavery Society realized it’s dreamed of immediate abolition of slavery. Although it took a

bloody civil war that ended the lives of thousands, many of these abolitionists lived to see their

dream and their duty realized. Believing themselves to be on a mission from God, and doing

what they believed the Bible called for them to do, the abolitionists lived to see a country where,

“the truths it [the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society teaches shall be accepted by the people in

reality, and its principles wrought into living statutes and actual measures.”

Tobass 22

Works Cited

“A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875: Statutes at Large, 31st Congress, 1st Session”. The Library of Congress. Accessed 8 December, 2015.

Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the New England Anti-Slavery Society. Vol. 1-10 (1833-1842). Westport: Negro University Press, 1970.

Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the New England Anti-Slavery Society. Vol. 11-17 (1843-1849). Westport: Negro University Press, 1970.

Garrison, William Lloyd. Declaration of Sentiments of the American Anti-Slavery Convention. Originally published by R. F. Wallcut, 1852. Reprinted New York: Negro Universities

Press, 1968.

Grimke, Archibald H. William Lloyd Garrison: The Abolitionist. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1891.

Northup, Solomon. 12 Years a Slave. New York: Derby and Miller, 1853.

Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842).

Proceedings of the Massachusetts anti-slavery society at the annual meetings held in 1854, 1855 & 1856 : with the treasurer's reports and general agent's annual statements. Boston: Office of Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, 1856.

Sokolow, Jayme. “Revolution and Reform: The Antebellum Jewish Abolitionists”. Edited by John R. McKivigan. Indianapolis: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1999.

The Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.®

Thomas, John L. The Liberator: William Lloyd Garrison. Toronto: Little Brown and Company, 1963.