The Abolitionist Society
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill
I submit that few people see the danger that the world is in today. If you were to walk up to people on the street and assert that the government they are living under has enslaved them, and, in addition to that, is moving in a direction that will result in mass killings, what kind of reaction do you think you'd get? Do you think it would be kind of like the reaction most people would have had in Germany in 1933? Or the people in Russia in 1900? Let's not forget that war makes for an excellent diversion when you undertake a Great Pogrom. War and mass killings have always been blood brothers.
In pre civil war times there were Abolitionist societies scattered about in the free states where slavery didn't exist. Of course, there were none in the slaves states because they were against the law in the slave states. Remember, you could have gotten 10-20 years in prison in Maryland just for printing anti-slavery material back then. The Abolitionist societies back then had some pretty prominent people in them. Benjamin Franklin, in his latter years, joined the Abolitionist Society. The first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Jay, was a member. William Channing best described the movement, when he said: "The word Abolitionist, in its true meaning, comprehends every man who feels himself bound to exert his influence for removing slavery."1 Back then, there was no doubt that slavery existed. After all, when slave property is sold openly on the market and regulated as commerce, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Anyone denying its existence would be looked at as a lunatic. But today, thanks to the advances in science and technology, we live in far greater comfort than folks did back in pre civil war times. This has given people an illusion of freedom, because, in they eyes of the law, we are slaves. Our labor does not belong to us. So, the first objective of an Abolitionist today would be to prove the existence of an institution of slavery that is being hidden from the people. The goal of today's Abolitionists should simply be to stop the unconstitutional abuses of labor that exist today and get government at the federal and state levels to respect the fact neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall be imposed upon any person; and exceptions to this rule be made clear by constitutional amendment, not by using legal fictions. If the country you live in doesn't have a fundamental law like the 13th amendment, fight for one like it. Is that too much to ask political rulers? Obviously so, and I can guarantee you that you will be met with opposition by the labor cannibals and their supporters. I believe that this is the only hope for restoring people's liberties, and I admit that it may be too late to stop things. We may very well be fighting when there is no chance for victory this time.
The information in this book should help show anyone that we are not free, but in a condition of servitude. But, as I learned when I ran for congress in 2000, most folks, as long as they feel safe and secure, will remain conservative and continue to support the system. It's the path of least resistance. All states today deny people the right to free labor. That means that all of the states are slave states this time, and people have been programmed since birth to accept the system and believe that they are free. Shortly after his re-election in 1864, Abraham Lincoln said:
"The strife of the election is but human nature practically applied to the fruits of the case. What has occurred in this case must ever recur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shall have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy to learn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be avenged...... Gold is good in its place, but living, brave, patriotic men are better than gold."2
The media and the press, if the Abolitionist Society forms again, will probably just ignore it. If it does start getting a lot of public support and is viewed by the labor cannibals as a threat to their great labor feast, they will try to destroy it in the public eye. It's all happened before. Referring to the press of his day, Channing knew that the slaveholders, who, after all, were the government and the leading men of the South, had a big influence on the press in his day.
"I wished to suggest to the slave-holders that the excitement now prevalent among themselves is incomparably more perilous, more fitted to stir up insurrection, than all the efforts of the Abolitionists, allowing these to be ever so corrupt. I also wished to remind the men of principle and influence in that part of the country, of the necessity of laying a check on lawless procedures, in regard to the citizens of the North. We have heard of large subscriptions (bounties, that is) at the South for the apprehension of some of the Abolitionists in the Free States, and for the transportation of them to parts of the country where they would meet their fate, which, it is said, they deserve. Undoubtedly, the respectable portion of the slave-holding communities are not answerable for these measures. But does not policy, as well as principle, require such men steadily to discountenance them? At present, the Free States have stronger sympathies with the South than ever before. But can it be that they will suffer their citizens to be stolen, exposed to violence, and murdered by other States? Would not such an outrage rouse them to feel and act as one man? Would it not identify the Abolitionist with our most sacred rights? One kid-napped, murdered Abolitionist would do more for the violent destruction of slavery than a thousand societies. His name would be sainted. The day of his death would be set apart for solemn, heart-stirring commemoration. His blood would cry through the land with a thrilling voice, would pierce every dwelling, and find a repose in every heart. Do men, under the light of the present day, need to be told, that enthusiasm is not a flame to be quenched with blood? On this point, good and wise men, and friends at the country at the North and South, can hold but one opinion; and if the press, which, I grieve to say, has kept an ominous silence amidst the violations of law and rights, would but speak plainly and strongly, the danger would be past."3
Channing wrote this in 1835. In 1837, an Abolitionist named Elijah Parish Lovejoy, was murdered by the slave power in Alton, Illinois. In a speech he gave on November 8, 1937 at Colby College, Maine, Herbert Hoover said:
"On this day 100 years ago Elijah Parish Lovejoy, a graduate of this college, was killed while defending free speech and free press in the United States. A long procession of men over centuries before him had suffered and died to establish that bulwark of human liberty. His was the case of a minority fighting for a principle and of being crucified by a majority. Indignation over the murder of Lovejoy, led by the ringing eloquence of Wendel Phillips, has echoed down a whole century. Elijah Lovejoy was the last to make that supreme sacrifice on this continent. Since his martyrdom no man has openly challenged free speech and free press in America..... Untruth once triumphant could not tolerate debate and free criticism. Then free speech and free press were suppressed. Truth alone can stand the guns of criticism..... The durability of free speech and free press rests on the simple concept that it search for the truth and it tell the truth. It is only through free expression and free adventure in doubt that we explore the unknown physical world for the truth. It is only by the anvil of debate that we hammer out the flaws of untruth from social and economic ideas and mould them into shapes that are helpful to men. Progress is indeed the degree to which we discover truth - and here free press and free speech become the most powerful of human forces..... The last 20 years have amply demonstrated that free speech and free press cannot survive if they are used deliberately to cultivate untruth or half truth. There are vast differences between mistake and deliberate planting of untruth..... War sanctifies murder, so it sanctifies the lesser immoralities. Lies are a legitimate weapon of war. They are a high part of war strategy. As Irwin says, propaganda became the next thing to blank lies. It is now a sinister word meaning half-truth or any other distortion of truth. It moves by tainting of news, by making synthetic news and opinions of canards. It promotes the emotions of hate, fear and dissension..... The great quality of this improved poison seems that it must be artistically done. One of the characteristic features is the ad hominem argument. If you don't like an argument on currency or the budget or labor relations or what not, you put out slimy and if possible anonymous propaganda reflecting upon your opponent's grandmother or the fact that his cousin is employed in Wall Street or is a communist or a reactionary. You switch the premise and set up straw men and then attack them with fierce courage....... We must incessantly expose intellectual dishonesty and the purpose that lies behind it. The antidote for untruth is truth. This antidote works with discouraging slowness at times, but unless we maintain faith in our medicine civilization will despair.... And I may conclude by quoting for your continued resolution the last words of Elijah Lovejoy, who said, As long as I am an American citizen I shall hold myself free to speak, to write and publish whatever I please on any subject, holding myself amenable to the laws of my country for the same.'"4
On November 7, 1837, pro-slavery men congregated and approached Gilman's warehouse, in Alton, Illinois, where Lovejoy had hidden his printing press. Pro-slavery men had already destroyed Lovejoy's printing press three times before. Shots were then fired by the pro-slavery men, and musket balls whizzed through the windows of the warehouse, narrowly missing the defenders inside. Lovejoy and his men returned fire. Several people in the crowd were hit, and one was killed. "Burn them out!", someone shouted. Leaders of the mob called for a ladder, which was put up on the side of the warehouse. A boy with a torch was sent up to set fire to the wooden roof. Lovejoy and one of his supporters, Royal Weller, volunteered to stop the boy. The two men crept outside, hiding in the shadows of the building. Surprising the pro-slavery men, Lovejoy and Weller rushed to the ladder, pushed it over and quickly retreated inside. Once again a ladder was put in place. As Lovejoy and Weller made another attempt to overturn the ladder, they were spotted. Lovejoy was shot with a shotgun loaded with slugs and was hit five times; Weller was also wounded. Suffering the same fate of its predecessors, the new printing press was destroyed - it was carried to a window and thrown out onto the river bank. The printing press was then broken into pieces that were scattered all over in the river. So if you think that power over labor is a good thing, think again. Power over labor seems to bring out the worst in people. Do you think today is any different? As long as the masters get the labor they want from you, they'll appear nice and friendly. But what if an increasingly large body of people start demanding that free labor be restored without delay. You know, William Lloyd Garrison style. Imagine, if you will, an Abolitionist of the 21st century standing before congress and saying: "You never had a right to our labor from the beginning, so you deserve no respite! Restore our liberty!" How do you think that would go over? Perhaps Channing could answer that one for us too.
"The master is kind to them because they are his own, not because they are fellow creatures. The true, grand foundation of love is wanting. How kind are men to dogs and horses, which they have long owned! The slave is treated kindly, because he is a slave, and has the spirit of a slave. Once let the spirit of a man wake in him, once let him know his rights, and show his knowledge in words, looks, and bearing, and immediately he falls under suspicion and dislike, and a severity, designed to break him down, is substituted for kindness."5
Just like Alexander Solzhenitsyn gave us some insight to help us face imprisonment and death, William Channing and other anti-slavery people from back in pre civil war times can give us some insight on what to expect from the labor cannibals and their supporters today. He saw the hatred and persecution in both the North and South against the Abolitionists, and this prompted him to speak out in their defense, even though he was not a member of the society. "The persecutions, which the Abolitionists have suffered and still suffer, awaken only my grief and indignation, and incline me to defend them to the full extent which truth and justice will admit. To the persecuted of whatever name my sympathies are pledged, and especially to those who are persecuted in a cause substantially good..... Of the Abolitionists I know very few; but I am bound to say of these, that I honor them for their strength of principle, their sympathy with their fellow creatures, and their active goodness."6 Channing could also see that it was not the Abolitionists that were inciting violence against the South, it's just that their message didn't set very well with the pro-slavery people back then. The violence was on the pro-slavery side. One incident that Channing pointed out was "the sending of pamphlets by the Abolitionists into the Slave-holding States. In doing so, they acted with great inconsideration; but they must have been insane, had they intended to stir up a servile war; for the pamphlets were sent, not by stealth, but by the public mail; and not to the slaves, but to the masters; to men in public life, to men of the greatest influence and distinction. Strange incendiaries these!"7 Remember the Maryland law of 1831 that made it a felony to write and distribute anti-slavery materials? Channing wrote this in 1835. I wonder what prompted the slaveholders to write such laws? Could it possibly have been the result of the activity that Channing just described? It only stands to reason that the slaveholders thought they had the right to open people's mail and look in it so that the anti-slavery elements could be weeded out of their system. Today the opening of people's mail is to try and root out terrorism. But is that the real reason? Or is it just a smoke screen? What do you think? After all, terrorism is nothing new. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1812, asked him: "What think you of terrorism, Mr. Jefferson?"8 Why did we wait almost 200 years later to start opening people's mail to combat terrorism? Those darn politicians sure can be slow sometimes.
Channing saw the tone of Abolitionist writings. "The tone of their newspapers, as far as I have seen them, has often been fierce, bitter, exasperating."9 One of the most influential anti- slavery men was William Lloyd Garrison, who founded the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833. The anti-slavery magazine that he started was called The Liberator, in 1831. As Professor Grimes of Michigan State University put it in 1960: "Garrison brought to the abolitionist movement a crusading zeal that brooked no compromise on moral principles and coupled righteousness with vindictiveness."10 Here's what Garrison said in the first issue of The Liberator:
"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.... I am in earnest. I will not equivocate - I will not excuse - I will not retreat one single inch - And I will be heard...."11
Once again, it has become necessary to reassert the right of people to the product of their own labor. In the Declaration of Sentiments of 1833 which Garrison championed, we read: "The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body - the products of his own labor - to the protection of law - and to the common advantages of society."12 Garrison believed that slavery was a retreat to barbarism. For example, when we look at the institutions of cannibalistic slavery of the Nazis and the Communists under Stalin, I'd have to agree. What about you? Garrison didn't think the slaveholders deserved any compensation at all for their slaves and that they should be set free immediately. He believed that there was no moral foundation to one man owning the rights to the labor of another man, therefore the slaveholders didn't deserve one red cent. As we've already seen, the slaveholders didn't like that idea; and I can guarantee you the labor cannibals of today don't want to give up their one trillion plus dollars per year either.
Three years after Frederick Douglass escaped slavery, he described his first experience with Garrison in the summer of 1841. The event was an anti-slavery convention in Nantucket, Massachusetts, which Douglass attended. He had no intention of taking part in the convention, but a prominent abolitionist named Mr. William C. Coffin had overheard Douglass talking to colored friends and knew he was a slave. He found Douglass in the crowd and invited him to say a few words to the convention.
"Thus sought out, and thus invited, I was induced to express the feelings inspired by the occasion, and the fresh recollection of the scenes through which I had passed as a slave. It was with then utmost difficulty that I could stand erect, or that I could command and articulate two words without hesitation or stammering. I trembled in every limb. I am not sure that my embarrassment was not the most effective part of my speech, if speech it could be called. At any rate, this is about the only part of my performance that I now distinctly remember. The audience sympathized with me at once, and from having been remarkably quiet, became much excited. Mr. Garrison followed me, taking me as his text, and now, whether I had made an eloquent plea in behalf of freedom, or not, his was one, never to be forgotten. Those who had heard him oftenest, and had know him longest, were astonished at his masterly effort. For the time he possessed that almost fabulous inspiration, often referred to but seldom attained, in which a public meeting is transformed, as it were, into a single individuality, the orator swaying a thousand heads and hearts at once, and by the simple majesty of his all-controlling thought, converting his hearers into the express image of his own soul. That night there were at least a thousand Garrisonians in Nantucket!"13
Mr John A. Collins, who was the general agent of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, was able to convince Douglass to join the society and travel in the society's work. "Mr Collins used to say when introducing me to an audience, I was a graduate from the peculiar institution, with my diploma written on my back.'.... My whole heart went with the holy cause, and my most fervent prayer to the Almighty Disposer of the hearts of men, was continually offered for its early triumph. In this enthusiastic spirit I dropped into the ranks of freedom's friends and went forth to battle."14 Rochester and Buffalo, N.Y. proved to be kind to Douglass, and people in increasing numbers would come to listen to him. But Indiana was not so kind at first. Being an Abolitionist can get you beaten or killed. The pro-slavery people can get pretty mean when you are viewed as a threat to their power.
"From Ohio we divided our forces and went to Indiana. At our first meeting we were mobbed, and some of us got our good clothes spoiled by evil-smelling eggs. This was at Richmond..... At Pendleton this mobocratic spirit was even more pronounced. It was found impossible to obtain a building in which to hold our convention, and our friends, Dr. Fussell and others, erected a platform in the woods, where quite a large audience assembled. Mr. Bradburn, Mr. White, and myself were in attendance. As soon as we began to speak a mob of about sixty of the roughest characters I looked upon ordered us, through its leaders, to be silent,' threatening us, if we were not, with violence. We attempted to dissuade them, but they had not come to parley but to fight, and were well armed. They tore down the platform on which we stood, assaulted Mr. White and knocking out several of his teeth, dealt a heavy blow on William A. White, striking him in the back part of the head, badly cutting his scalp and felling him to the ground. Undertaking to fight my way through the crowd with a stick which I caught up in the mêlée, I attracted the fury of the mob, which laid me prostrate on the ground under a torrent of blows. Leaving me thus, with my right hand broken, and in a state of unconsciousness, the mobocrats hastily mounted their horses and rode to Andersonville, where most of them resided. I was soon raised up and revived by Neal Hardy, a kind-hearted member of the Society of Friends, and carried by him in his wagon about three miles in the country to his home, where I was tenderly nursed and bandaged by good Mrs. Hardy till I was again on my feet, but as the bones broken were not properly set my hand has never recovered its natural strength and dexterity. We lingered long in Indiana, and the good effects of our labors there are felt at this day. I have lately visited Pendleton, now one of the best republican towns in the State, and looked again upon the spot where I was beaten down, and have again taken by the hand some of the witnesses of that scene, amongst whom was the kind, good lady - Mrs. Hardy - who, so like the good Samaritan of old, bound up my wounds, and cared for me so kindly. A complete history of these hundred conventions would fill a volume far larger than this one in which this simple reference is to find place."15
Another anti-slavery man who had his printing press destroyed several times by pro- slavery mobs was James. G. Birney. He had organized the Kentucky Anti-Slavery Society in 1835 and was unable to find a publisher for an anti-slavery paper in Danville. So he moved to Cincinnati and started publishing The Philanthropist. The first issue came out on January 1, 1836. Channing saw that his printing press had been destroyed twice in July of that same year and was alarmed at the violence pro-slavery mobs were doing to anti-slavery people that were peaceably exercising their right to free speech and press; and Mr. Birney was not an advocate of violence. In addition to having his printing press broken up several times, he was repeatedly threatened by the slave power. But the paper continued on and it eventually became the National Era in 1847 when it was relocated to Washington D.C.. Channing wrote a letter to Mr. Birney entitled The Abolitionist in 1836 which appeared in The Philanthropist. The Abolitionist was also published as a pamphlet that was distributed in the West. The entire letter can be read in the Appendix. But of all the writings I've read defending free speech and free press, this one struck me as the most profound.
"Of all powers, the last to be entrusted to the multitude of men is that of determining what questions shall be discussed. The greatest truths are often the most unpopular and exasperating; and were they to be denied discussion, till the many should be ready to accept them, they would never establish themselves in the general mind. The progress of society depends on nothing more than on the exposure of time-sanctioned abuses, which cannot be touched without offending the multitudes, than on the promulgation of principles, which are in advance of public sentiment and practice and which are consequently at war with the habits, prejudices, and immediate interests of large classes of the community. Of consequence, the multitude, if once allowed to dictate or proscribe subjects of discussion, would strike society with spiritual blindness and death. The world is to be carried forward by truth, which at first offends, which wins its way by degrees, which the many hate, and would rejoice to crush. The right of free discussion is, therefore, to be guarded by the friends of mankind with peculiar jealousy. It is at once the most sacred and most endangered of all our rights. He who would rob his neighbor of it should have a mark set on him as the worst enemy of freedom."16
I've done a lot of research and I believe my conclusions are correct and are rooted in the truth. I am not relying on the arguments of other people. I choose to think for myself. It is a grave error to let other people think for you, for when you do this you allow yourself to be programmed into being a slave who thinks that they are free. The programming has been very artistically done, hasn't it? Channing also took sole responsibility for what he wrote.
"I should rejoice to be convinced, that slavery is a less debasing influence than I have affirmed. How welcome would be brighter views of life and of mankind! Still, we must see things as they are, and not turn away from the most painful truth. I have only to add, that I alone am responsible for what I have now written. I represent no society, no body of men, no part of the country. I have written by no one's instigation, and with no one's encouragement, but solely from my own convictions. If cause of offense is given, the blame ought to fall on me alone."17
Restoring liberty will be very difficult now that America has been undergoing a path of increasing servitude now for over 70 years. If the people do not rise up soon to restore their liberty, then it only stands to reason that servitude will continue to increase with time until something very evil happens. It's the nature of the beast.
1. The Works of William Channing, Vol. II, pg. 123
2. The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. X, pp. 263-64
3. The Works of William Channing, Vol. II, pp. 147-48
4. Addresses on the American Road, by Herbert Hoover, pp. 276-80
5. The Works of William Channing, Vol. V, pg. 45
6. Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 123-24
7. Ibid., pg. 125
8. John Adams, by David McCullough, Simon & Shuster, N.Y., 2001, pg. 607
9. The Works of William Channing, Vol. II, pg. 126
10. American Political Thought, by Alan P. Grimes, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., N.Y., 1960, pg. 224
12. Ibid., pg. 225
13. The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass, pp. 244-45
14. Ibid., pg. 245-46
15. Ibid., pp. 261-63
16. The Complete Works of Channing, Vol. II, pg. 161
17. Ibid., pg. 149