World"?

William Lloyd Garrison, Esq.!

Who pronounced the Union an "unholy Alliance"?

William Lloyd Garrison, Esq.!

Who has pronounced the Union "to be null and void from the beginning"?

William Lloyd Garrison, Esq.!

Who has asserted, "that the Signers of the Union had no lawful power to bind themselves, or their posterity for one hour—for one moment"?

William Lloyd Garrison, Esq.!

Finally, who in the same country and year announced that the American Union "was not valid when it was made, and is not valid now?"

William Lloyd Garrison, Esq.![18:A]

Again, who, on Tuesday, May 14th, 1838, in "Pennsylvania Hall," Philadelphia, Pa., in the presence of nearly two thousand persons, announced that "he hated, from the bottom of his heart, prudence, caution, and judiciousness?"

William Lloyd Garrison, Esq.!

What can be thought of a system which has such a person for its head, its chief champion—its Apostle? Was this gentleman in earnest when he used this language last week; or was he only "in fun"(!) (to use the expression by which one of his friends attempted to excuse him) or was he out of his senses? The last excuse is the only justifiable one—for if in earnest, the public need not be surprised at the Utopian scheme (abolitionism) of which he is the principal promoter.—If on the contrary, he was only "in fun," it proves what an adept he is in assuming to weep over the evils of slavery, while he was actually quizzing his audience! But peradventure he meant only colonization caution and prudence! Well did Dr. Reese say of him, in his letters to the Hon.

William Jay, (page 7) that "just so far as he (Mr. Garrison) was believed in Great Britain, the (American) Society and Nation, would be viewed with abhorrence!" This is the gentleman sent to this city of brotherly love, who during the last week insulted not only the public at large, but the tried, and disinterested, friends of the slave! He opened his mouth with a tirade of abuse against that unremunerated friend and advocate of the oppressed African, David Paul Brown, Esq., whose judgment and talents would adorn the cabinet of any nation under heaven.—He could not spare even this gentleman, whose person and property have so frequently been threatened by the populace, for the part he has so often taken in gratuitously defending the man of colour. And all this because forsooth Mr. Brown, not having the fear of William Lloyd Garrison before his eyes, but being tempted and seduced by a love for his country, ventured to say, "if the question was, whether the Union, or slavery, should be preserved, he would say the Union." For this unpardonable expression of love and attachment for his country, Mr. Garrison said that either Mr. Brown, or his speech (I did not distinctly hear which he said) ought to be tied to a millstone and cast into the depths of the sea! He next assailed Elliott Cresson, Esq., who has by his talents, property and zeal, done more service to the African, than the whole Abolition Society has, or ever will, do.—Lastly, he could not let pass the humble Author, whose nothingness, as yet, in the cause of the poor man of colour, ought to have sheltered him from notice; but even the professed intention of exposing the designs of Abolitionists appears quite sufficient to stir up the ire of this gentleman; hence he denounced me, "as a foreign

adventurer!" In this instance he has truly proved the truth of his declaration, "that he hates caution and prudence," for verily if ever I can get the opportunity of meeting him on a platform before the public, he may ever after go to the South with perfect impunity. His friends say, the Southerners have offered five thousand dollars for his head. If this be like the numerous other misstatements respecting the South, little confidence is to be placed in it; but if it be true, and that the above event ever takes place, I guarantee they will no longer offer one dollar for it, except they have a particular fancy for purchasing empty skulls, as I shall demonstrate there is little or nothing in his. This is the only retaliation I shall seek for his urbanity towards me; and in this, it will be perceived, I will be returning only good for evil.

Let not Abolitionists at large mistake me—I do not intend to accuse them, directly or indirectly, of impure motives—quite the reverse—I do really believe all the Abolitionists, with very few exceptions, are the best, and the most moral, and philanthropic men, in America; and are actuated by the purest motives of doing good to all—relieving the oppressed, and crushing tyranny. But at the same time, I do confess I perceive strong symptoms of other motives actuating some—we know not the heart of man—God only knows that—therefore, we can only judge of men's views by their acts and deeds. I do not accuse even the gentleman whose name has occurred so often in the preceding pages—he may be one of the best, and sincerest men on earth, for aught I know, and I hope he is; but then he must, if that be the case, be labouring under monomania: and in that case, he certainly is not the most judicious person to lead—to

advise—or to govern a political party composed of thousands! One fatal step—one fatal word, of such a man, may plunge thousands into ruin! He is, or he is not, a fanatic—even he himself tells us, "he hates caution, prudence, and judiciousness." Therefore, if we are to believe himself, and far be it from me to doubt his word on this occasion, he is not a cautious man, nor is he a prudent man, nor is he a judicious man! Who, therefore, can for the future adhere to the principles of such a person, if he were almost an angel from heaven?

Is he a fanatic? I hope so, for his own sake: but then, he is equally disqualified from advising, planning, guiding, or advocating, any doctrine, let the doctrine be ever so good!

But if he be not a fanatic—then, his principles, his declarations, his doctrines, are most suspicious! unless peradventure, he is a simpleton, while some crafty, designing persons, are behind the curtain, urging him forward in his imprudent, and mad, career!

Men are generally actuated by motives—self rules more or less in us all—the person who says, he has least of self, will generally be found to possess most of it. "As in water, face answereth unto face, so doth the heart of man to man." When pure charity, or philanthropy, actuates men, they are never driven by it to malicious acts, to falsehoods, to misrepresentation, or to hatred, for this evident reason, because charity and philanthropy come from God, hence cannot give rise to malice, hatred, or misrepresentation, for these proceed from Satan and from Satanic motives, such as pride, ambition, love of money, revenge, &c. As well might it be expected that a pure fountain could send forth impure streams, as that charity

or philanthropy could produce malice or false testimony. The more I hear men boasting of their philanthropy, while