Daniel O'Connell and American Anti-Slavery

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd

Daniel O'Connell and American Anti-SlaveryAuthor(s): Douglas C. RiachSource: Irish Historical Studies, Vol. 20, No. 77 (Mar., 1976), pp. 3-25Published by: Irish Historical Studies Publications LtdStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30005547 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 07:48

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIrish Historical Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.77.40 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 07:48:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ihsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30005547?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


IRISH HISTORICAL STUDIES

VOL. XX No. 77 MARCH 1976

Daniel O'Connell and American

anti-slavery In August 1875, at the O'Connell centenary celebrations in

Boston, three famous American abolitionists recalled the importance of O'Connell's role in the American anti-slavery movement.

John Greenleaf Whittier saw no reason to change the high opinion of O'Connell's anti-slavery services that he had formed many years earlier;1 William Lloyd Garrison commented on the aid and inspir- ation he had always received from O'Connell; and Wendell Phillips noted how the Irishman's actions as an agitator had influenced the abolitionists' own concept of moral reform. Parallel celebrations in Dublin also mentioned this aspect of O'Connell's career, but perhaps it is fitting that his anti-slavery commitment should receive greatest stress in Boston, which was not only an important Irish-American centre, but also the city with the closest links with British anti- slavery."

The three Boston tributes all mentioned the consistency of O'Connell's stand on the slavery issue. This was not, however, a view they had always maintained. It is true that the abolitionists in the post-civil war period did tend to recall their earlier careers in terms suggesting that anti-slavery was a unified crusade consistently maintained against a moral evil; but this was a distortion, if an understandable one. Indeed the two concepts, principle and expediency, seen as polar opposites on an ethical scale, were precisely the

'J. G. Whittier, Sketch of Daniel O'Connell (N.P., N.D.), reprinted from Pennsylvania Freeman, 25 Apr. 1839.

2 O'Connell centenary record, 1875 (Dublin, 1878), pp 6, 7, 399, 547-59-

3



4 DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY

terms by which abolitionists of the day evaluated O'Connell's anti- slavery record. If slavery was a sin to be immediately abolished, then any signs of temporising or hesitation were to be taken as evidence of sin also. The reaction of the abolitionists to the way O'Connell resolved the conflicts between principle and expediency provides insights not only into him and them, but also into the struggle to free the American slave. What makes this balance even more important is that O'Connell saw (and if he omitted to see, it was quickly pointed out to him), that he had much to gain, but also much to lose, from adhering consistently to his condemnation of American slavery.

There were various Irish anti-slavery traditions that O'Connell felt he could appeal to. He once referred to St Patrick, for example, as the first Irish abolitionist, and frequently alluded to the council of Armagh which in 1 I77 had prohibited Irish trade in English slaves.8 O'Connell was also on many occasions to boast that no slave ships had left or entered an Irish port, though it seems clear that Irish merchants were heavily involved in the eighteenth-century triangular trade, with its horrible implications for captive Africans.4 One of the stories most often told by and about O'Connell was that, on first entering the house of commons, he refused the aid of the West India interest there, who suggested that, if he abstained from

attacking colonial slavery, they would assist him in matters relating to Ireland. Indeed, if the union brought any benefits, claimed O'Connell, these were that the abolitionist sentiments of the new Irish members, irrespective of party, had been decisive in the abolition of the slave trade in 1807, colonial slavery in 1833, and

finally apprenticeship in 1838.5 However, the Irish voting record was not so clear-cut as O'Connell declared. In April 1838, the British

Emancipator published a long list of Irish members who opposed a crucial motion for the termination of apprenticeship. Not all were O'Connellites, of course, yet this was an early example of the kind of

3Report of Loyal National Repeal Association (hereafter cited as L.N.R.A.) meeting, Io May 1843, in Freeman's Journal, II May 1843.

4 Thoughts on the discontent of the people last year respecting the sugar duties (Dublin, I781), pp 29, 41-4; Elizabeth Donnan, Documents illustrative of the slave trade to America (4 vols, New York, 1965), ii, 258; introduction to S. S. Millin, Sidelights on Belfast history (Belfast, I932).

5W. L. Burn, Emancipation and apprenticeship in the British West Indies (London, 1937), P. 234; F. J. Klinberg, The anti-slavery movement in England (New Haven, 1926), pp I22-3.



DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY 5

dilemma O'Connell could face. He was unwilling to disrupt the Lichfield House compact by opposing the whig government, and his solution was that all members must vote according to their consciences. It was an uneasy moment in the relationship between O'Connell and the extra-parliamentary party, but one that soon passed in the euphoric defeat of apprenticeship later in the same year.

O'Connell first displayed an interest in anti-slavery in 1824, after the English abolitionist, James Cropper, had visited Ireland to point out how Ireland could provide the textiles that could be traded for East Indian sugar, thus solving, or so Cropper claimed, the twin problems of Irish poverty and West Indian slavery.6 O'Connell came to play a major role in the campaign against West Indian slavery. His speeches were the delight of the abolitionists in Exeter Hall, while his intervention in important parliamentary debates and his prodding of more moderate reformers seem to have been of crucial importance.

Yet from as early as 1829, and throughout the I83os, he continued to assail the hypocrisy of Americans who boasted of liberty while countenancing the existence of southern slavery. In 1832 he

championed the cause of the young American, William Lloyd Garrison, who had come to Britain to expose not only the impractic- ability but also the racist bias of any attempt to colonise American slaves in Africa. In 1835, he was made an honorary corresponding secretary of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, while three years later he was challenged to a duel by the American ambassador, Andrew

Stevenson, who had been accused by O'Connell of being a slave- breeder. In America O'Connell was lauded by the abolitionists and denounced in the south.' His criticisms of American slavery in the

I83os were influential in persuading British abolitionists to focus their activities on America after 1838, and were warmly welcomed by anti-slavery groups in the United States, who were delighted to have such an internationally famous ally.8 His vituperative language, while

occasionally affronting their patriotism, was of great value to them in their campaign to arouse American public opinion.

6Kenneth Charlton, 'The state of Ireland in the i820s: James Cropper's plan' in I.H.S., xvii, no. 67 (Mar. 1971), pp 320-9; Cropper's proposals were incorporated as resolutions of the Society of the Friends of Ireland, which was established by O'Connell.

'Minutes of the executive committee of the American anti-slavery society, i, I8 Oct. 1838 (Boston Public Library, MS B.8.2.i, p. 98).

8 Henry Richard, Memoirs of Joseph Sturge (London, 1865), pp 175-6.



6 DANIEL OCONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY

British involvement in the American slavery question can best be seen in the context of a growing transatlantic economy with spreading mercantile, intellectual and transportation links, and in an age where notions of immediatism, universalism, improvement and perfectibility were current. These concepts, if owing much to an evangelical impulse, could also, when directed in a humanitarian movement to free the slave, appeal to a utilitarian such as O'Connell. It was at the I840 anti-slavery convention in London, moreover, that the

specifically transatlantic dimensions of this reform movement were to receive their clearest expression. At the convention, O'Connell was one of the main attractions for the visiting American abolitionists, several of whom met him when they visited Dublin later in the year.9 It was also perhaps while he was attending the convention that O'Connell became convinced that he had a unique role to play in the abolition of American slavery: namely, if the Irish-Americans were hostile to the anti-slavery movement, then he should do his utmost to persuade them otherwise.'" Several reasons have been given to explain Irish-American antipathy to the abolition movement: that

they feared the status and labour competition of the freed slaves; that they suspected abolition as being a British-inspired plot to disrupt the American union; and that they reacted adversely to the alleged anti-catholicism of the abolitionists." It was not hard to provide evidence for this latter charge. A prominent member of the Free Church of Scotland, for example, was accused of arguing against abolition on the ground that American slaveholders, if deprived of their domestic slaves, would only endanger their souls by being forced to employ Irish-American Roman Catholic help."2 Similarly, pamphlets were written encouraging abolitionists to be consistent, inasmuch as they should also try to free the Irish from their enslavement to

' W. L. Garrison to Helen Garrison, 29 June I840 (Boston Public Library, MS A. i.x., p. 82); Proceedings of the anti-slavery convention (London, 1841), pp 11-13-

10 O'Connell was influenced by a report of a speech by Dr R. R. Madden which appeared in the Dublin Weekly Register, i Feb. 1840, and which urged the Irish people and clergy to try to change the opinions of the Irish-Americans on the slavery issue.

" O. Dudley Edwards, 'The American image of Ireland: a study of its early phases' in Perspectives in American history, iv (1970), pp 265-8-

12Isaac Nelson, Slavery supported by the American churches, and countenanced by recent proceedings in the Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1847), P. I3.




Rome."" O'Connell, one suspects, took a certain amount of pleasure in appealing to such prejudices: for example, at the 1840 convention, female delegates from America had been refused permission to sit with the male delegates, and O'Connell later gave as one reason for his criticism of this exclusion the fact that women had always played a prominent role in his church."4 In general, however, O'Connell was to treat very seriously the Irish-Americans' reputation for being hostile to abolitionism, and the claims made by the American abolitionists such as Elizur Wright that he alone had the stature and

authority to influence his countrymen in America. O'Connell's commitment to anti-slavery in 1840 seemed to have the

support not only of the repeal press, but also of the abolitionist forces in Dublin and America. In the months following the world convention, the American Anti-Slavery Society, under the leadership of William Lloyd Garrison, were delighted to claim O'Connell as an ally: for example, they took O'Connell's criticism of the exclusion of the female delegates as being evidence of his support for their

particular conception of anti-slavery agitation." In June 1840, when he attended a meeting of the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and for the Civilization of Africa, the organisers, perhaps mindful of their guests who included Sir Robert Peel, were accused of drowning out O'Connell's speech at the end by having the organist start to play. Irish newspapers favourable to O'Connell were led to

compare the sincerity of his anti-slavery with the iniquitous hypocrisy of English tories who had placed politics above the hallowed cause of abolition.'" Their defence of O'Connell on this occasion was later followed up when they gave extensive coverage to his speeches at the

anti-slavery convention later in the same month." This response was

" Hugh McNeile, Anti-slavery and anti-popery: a letter addressed to Edward Cropper Esq. and Thomas Berry Horsfall (London, 1838), pp 17-18. In general, however, most visiting American abolitionists seemed anxious not to appear as anti-catholic. Richard Allen, the Dublin quaker, objected to parts of William Howitt's Colonization and christ- ianity on the ground that they might alienate Irish catholics whom Allen was anxious to enlist in the abolition cause.

"4 Sixth annual report of the Glasgow Emancipation Society (Glasgow, 1840), appendix 4. " National AntiSlavery Standard (New York), 3 Sept. 1840. In 1840 the American Anti-Slavery Society had split, the seceding anti-Garrison forces re-forming as the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.

6 Freeman's Journal, 4 June I840; Dublin Evening Mail, 3 June I840o. 17 Freeman's Journal, 18 June I840.




very much in mood with the cordial relations that were soon established between O'Connell and the Hibernian Anti-Slavery Society in Dublin. There was close cooperation between the two over that fine example of moral alternative to British rule that O'Connell could

offer, when he opposed the emigration of Irish people to the West Indies. Both saw this as an attempt to replace the newly-freed slaves with white Irish slaves, and were largely successful in curtailing the venture. Abolitionists and O'Connellites, particularly Tom Steele, sent each other congratulatory tributes,'8 and John O'Connell went on to give what he called his anti-slavery weekly reports in the L.N.R.A. in the winter of 184o-41I.

Yet, despite this buoyant mood of cooperation, it was also clear that any combination of repeal and abolition forces lacked any real cohesion. O'Connell, by his own admission, had been reluctant to

support the claims of the female delegates at the 1840 convention, and

any lasting alliance between him and the American Anti-Slavery Society, which tended to become identified with a radical programme of social reform, seemed unlikely. In I838, O'Connell had been criticised by Irish-Americans for his sweeping denunciations of American slavery, while the Irish repeal press were soon to become even more aware that these anti-slavery speeches would have severe

repercussions on Ireland's relations with the United States."9 And finally, O'Connell's relations with the Hibernian Anti-Slavery Society were also threatened by mutual suspicions. The Dublin quaker abolitionists had worked closely with O'Connell in the campaign against apprenticeship, though not without their qualms about

associating with a man of O'Connell's political views; for his part, O'Connell on occasion complained that the Irish quakers were oblivious to the plight of the bondsmen in Ireland, and that they opposed the repeal movement.20 O'Connell could, on occasion, over-

18 Ibid., 10, 14 Apr. 1841. A small but energetic group of dissenters in Dublin-in particular Richard Allen, James Haughton and Richard Davis Webb-were instrumental in spearheading British support for the Garrison abolitionists.

"e Ibid., 7 Nov. 1840. 20 Ibid., 3 Aug. 1841. Some London quakers in 1826 objected to the

word 'emancipation' in reference to the slaves because it smacked too much of Roman Catholic emancipation. John Grubb to Joseph Grubb, 16 June 1826 (Society of Friends' Historical Library, Dublin, Grubb letters, S.G.D.a, folder io, no. 256).




come the antipathy of Irish quaker abolitionists21 and indeed, quaker practices may well have influenced his own concept of moral reform,22 yet it remained true that he never enjoyed cordial relations with the Dublin abolitionists for any length of time. James Haughton was an enthusiastic advocate of repeal, but Richard D. Webb was a harsn critic who suspected that O'Connell espoused the cause of the slave only in order to establish his own humanitarian credentials, and who accused O'Conneli of confining his moral force stipulations to the Irish situation. Webb felt that the repeal movement would only result in Catholic ascendancy in Ireland. After 1843 he became

increasingly critical of English rule in Ireland, but it remained true that in his letters to America he constantly condemned O'Connell as

being a recalcitrant politician, prone to compromise and demagoguery. From an American point of view, Webb's strictures rather backfired. His comments on O'Connell were so severe that the Americans had to chide him for opposing such a great abolitionist as O'Connell, while, in trying to explain O'Connell away, Webb was forced to discuss those elements in the Irish past which seemed to justify, in the eyes of many American abolitionists, O'Connell's agitation for repeal.2"

The result of these essentially conflicting interests was that the abolitionist forces, not only in Ireland, but more specifically centring round O'Connell and the repeal movement, would find it difficult to form any lasting alliance. Thus the Freeman's Journal was a consis-:nt follower of O'Connell when he supported the movement to abolish slavery in British India-the point being that the paper saw this as another example of British iniquity-but gave O'Connell little support in his attacks on American slavery.24 Similarly, the Dublin abolitionists advocated the disuse of American slave-produced cotton, but in I844 the L.N.R.A. demanded the relaxation of tariffs to allow the freer entry of that cotton into Ireland."25 Two factors

21 Joseph Hernon, Celts, Catholics and Copperheads (Ohio State U.P., I968), p. 79-

22 The Freeman's Journal, 7 Feb. I844, cited quaker practices as a precedent for O'Connell's arbitration courts.

23 R. D. Webb to Edmund Quincy, I6 Aug. I843, 2 Feb. I844 (Boston Public Library, Webb-Quincy correspondence).

24 Freeman's Journal, 23 Mar. 1841; Nation, 25 Dec. i847. 25 Report of the parliamentary committee of the Loyal National

Repeal Association, founded upon Dr Kane's treatise (Dublin, 1844), p. 36. Haughton also condemned the use of tobacco on the ground that it was a noxious weed and slave-produce. John O'Connell, in contrast, argued that, given repeal, Ireland could grow her own tobacco and thus would no longer be dependent on Virginian slave-produce.



IO DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY

were to exacerbate this situation. Firstly, any criticism of American

slavery would annoy Americans and possibly jeopardise contributions to the repeal rent. Secondly, slavery had great repercussions on

diplomatic relations between England and the United States: would Ireland, through O'Connell, fail to exploit such tensions, or, even worse, side with England ? Even issues such as O'Connell's criticisms of American involvement in the slave trade, or his refusal to accept the American protestations that the British were responsible for first

introducing slavery into the American colonies, could provoke critical reactions in Ireland and America.26 In short, his room for manoeuvre on the slavery question was remarkably circumscribed: on the one hand he faced critics who feared that his attacks on American slavery were not in Ireland's best interests, while on the other were those abolitionists who saw his slightest hesitation or equivocation as proof of his apostasy.

An early outstanding example of the pitfalls of O'Connell's position was provided by the Irish address, prepared by the Hibernian

Anti-Slavery Society, which stressed the links between Ireland and America, and urged the Irish-Americans by '... all their memories' of Ireland, to 'cling by the abolitionists'. It was signed by some 6o,ooo Irishmen, their names headed by the signatures of Father Mathew and O'Connell; the latter's repeal agents had helped to collect many of the signatures. If Richard Davis Webb was perhaps over-cynical in wondering how many Irishmen knew exactly what

they had signed, the American abolitionists were delighted, and

presented the address at a meeting in Boston's Faneuil Hall in

January I842, where a resolution was passed expressing support for O'Connell's repeal movement." The reaction of the Irish-Americans, however, was rather different. Bishop Hughes of New York, for

example, declared that, if the O'Connell signature was not a forgery, then he, Hughes, denounced the address as foreign interference in American affairs. Nor was the retort of one abolitionist to Hughes

21 O'Connell proposed a mixed tribunal of Americans and British to solve the right-of-search question, while the Freeman's Journal, less mindful of the slaves, asserted that the American refusal to allow their ships to be searched was 'worthy of the children of the Stars and Stripes '.

27 National Anti-Slavery Standard, 17 Feb. 1842. In May 1842, Garrison in the Liberator had declared his opposition to the Irish union. While O'Connell's abolitionism also delighted more moderate American abolitionists, his speeches were given most publicity by the American Anti-Slavery Society, which had contacts with O'Connell through its allies in Dublin.



DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY I I

entirely designed to arouse Irish-American sympathy: James G. Birney declared that either Hughes was not a repealer, in which case he had no right to interfere in Irish-Amencan affairs, or he was a repealer, in which case he was thereby interfering in British affairs.28 Garrison, however, had hailed the address as the means of breaking up a 'stupendous conspiracy ', which he claimed existed between 'the leading Irish demagogues, the leading pseudo-Democrats, and the Southern slaveholders'. He felt that the south was supporting Irish repeal only in order to secure Irish-American votes for the Democratic party, and, if possible, to buy off Irish anti-slavery testimonies. There was little evidence, however, as Garrison himself indicated to the Irish abolitionists, that the Irish address had fulfilled his expect- ations. The Boston Pilot praised Irish-Americans for rejecting it, asserting that this displayed their loyalty to American institutions, and wondered why O'Connell advocated moral force in Ireland while giving encouragement to abolitionists in America who were seeking to foment bloody slave revolts. The Pilot concluded with a statement that the Boston abolitionists were hypocritically supporting repeal in a vain attempt to enlist the aid of the Irish-Americans.29 When the Dublin abolitionists sent extracts from the Irish press in an attempt to show that the Irish people did indeed support the address, the Pilot retorted that Irish-Americans were not pro-slavery, but that they did refuse to join with the abolitionists.80 One of the most common Irish-American objections was their dislike of being addressed as ' a distinct class' of the American community. This was ridiculed by the Dublin Monitor, and indeed on one level was absurd, in that the Irish-Americans had little dislike of being addressed as 'Irishmen' in reference to the Irish repeal movement."8 Their misgivings, however, are an interesting example of how they, as an immigrant grouping, were reluctant to be seen as hostile to American institutions. O'Connell seldom failed to mention that, by condemning slavery, Irish-Americans would reflect credit back on Ireland. But when he said that he would recognise no man as an Irishman who failed to criticise slavery, he may have failed to realise that he was addressing Irish-Americans who were at a formative, and testy, stage of their mission for acceptance in American society.

28 National Anti-Slavery Standard, 24 Mar. 1842. 29 Boston Pilot, 5 Feb. I842. 80 Ibid., 25 June 1842. l National Anti-Slavery Standard, 2 May I842. The American

abolitionists, unlike O'Connell, seem to have been aware of this problem.




The Irish repealers were also soon made aware that the Irish address had not been well received. In May 1842, the Irish press carried reports of the criticism made by the Baltimore Repeal Associ- ation."2 In the same month, O'Connell in the L.N.R.A. received two letters from American Repealers: one, from Denis Corcoran of the Louisiana Repeal Association said that while nativist opposition to the Irish-Americans was northern in origin, documents such as the Irish address could only foment it in the south; the second, from the Albany Repeal Association, questioned the safety of immediate abolition, and accused the abolitionists of fomenting a slave rebellion. O'Connell

responded by decrying Garrison's views on the sabbath, and insisted that he had not entreated the Irish-Americans to join any particular abolition society.3 He was attempting, it is clear, to meet Irish- American objections to the Irish address and at the same time to sever any connections with what was considered to be the most radical of the American abolitionists. This tactic satisfied none of the parties involved. The Garrisonians in Boston, with their Dublin allies, now accused O'Connell of being 'new organized', that is, of giving support to the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.34 And there was much to bear out this accusation, for O'Connell did consider that many of Garrison's ideas about religion and social reform were

unacceptable, and he paid annual subscriptions to the British and

Foreign Anti-Slavery Society in London, which since i84o had allied with the American and Foreign Society."

Throughout 1842 and 1843, O'Connell's relations with the Garrison party grew worse. When John O'Connell and Tom Steele

proposed to go to the United States to collect money, they angered the abolitionists by stating that they would keep silent on the slavery issue." Then, as criticisms of his anti-slavery speeches became more

insistent, O'Connell again declared that he had repudiated Garrison, and on one occasion referred to '... one Mr Lloyd Garrison who on religious subjects appeared to be something of a maniac '." The

32 Freeman's Journal, 14 May 1842. "3 L.N.R.A. meeting, 21, 23 May 1842. 34 E. Quincy to M. W. Chapman, 20 June 1842 (Boston Public

Library, Weston papers, MS A.9.2, xvii, p. 74). 5 O'Connell had clearly more in common with such leading lights in

the London Society as the wealthy Joseph Sturge than he had with Garrison and his supporters in Dublin and Boston.

36 L.N.R.A. meeting, 10 Apr. i843, in Freeman's Journal, II Apr. 1843. Neither, in fact, went.

37 L.N.R.A. meeting, 4, 5 Aug. 1843.



DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY I3

American abolitionists were mortified by such remarks,38 and struggled to find an explanation for O'Connell's conduct. Reluctant to admit publicly that he was indeed 'new organized', they finally claimed that he had never forgiven Garrison who in 1840 had said that the Irish leader had no excuse for not taking the temperance pledge."' O'Connell was later infuriated by a particularly abusive report that appeared in Garrison's Liberator concerning the ridiculous expression that was said to come over O'Connell's face as he crossed himself before dinner. O'Connell in reply said he would urge abolitionists to

'cooperate in the spread of Christian charity with the Irishmen and catholics in America': in effect, the Irish address in reverse. Even Richard Davis Webb and James Haughton were furious at the

offending article, and the latter was obliged to write to O'Connell

denying that Garrison was to blame, and requesting the utmost cooperation between the Irish leader and the Boston radical.4" Garrison and his supporters must have been even more disconcerted when O'Connell announced the receipt of £20 from Gerrit Smith and Lewis Tappan, two American abolitionists who did not support Garrison's American Anti-Slavery Society. Garrison was a most vociferous critic of Tappan in particular, and must have found it

galling to see Tappan being praised by O'Connell in the L.N.R.A."' The American Anti-Slavery Society, which specifically rejected

the use of political action as a means of securing its aims, did have qualms about seeking O'Connell's cooperation, though their own views did not bind them to the fact that others such as the Irish- Americans could by their voting power play an important part in the overthrow of slavery.42 While to some extent O'Connell repre- sented for them

.the possibility that politics and principle were not

s Though some felt that Garrison was in danger of over-reacting to O'Connell's statements.

" National Anti-Slavery Standard, 26 Oct. I843. Garrison had certainly demonstrated even earlier his readiness to upbraid O'Connell when he thought the latter was in the wrong. Speeches delivered at the anti-colonization meeting in Exter Hall (Boston, 1833), p. 21.

40 L.N.R.A. meeting, 24 Oct. I843, in Nation, 28 Oct.; L.N.R.A. meeting, 30 Oct. 1843, in Freeman's Journal, 31 Oct.

4 Smith, however, had previously rebuked O'Connell for his remarks on Garrison's religious views.

42 N. P. Rogers argued that Garrison was being too 'political' in advocating a dissolution of the American union, while Webb, though for different reasons, objected to the 'foolish, high-go-mad' remarks in the Liberator in favour of Irish repeal. R. D. Webb to E. Quincy, I6 Aug. 1843 (Boston Public Library, Webb-Quincy correspondence).




necessarily irreconcilable, their reactions reveal a sad suspicion on their part that any politician must, sooner or later, abandon their cause. Thus Wendell Phillips said that he told those abolitionists who advocated political action in the liberty party that the example of O'Connell revealed 'how little trust can be reposed in the best politicians in the best circumstances--and yet they can't dream of having I/Ioo the part of their timber as sound as O'Connell'."4 Hard pressed to conceal their bitter disappointment at O'Connell, the abolitionists in Dublin and America assumed that southern contributions to the repeal rent were succeeding in stifling O'Connell's anti-slavery sentiments."4 O'Connell's response to the southern money was in fact fairly astute. He took the money on the grounds that those who sent it, mindful of his speeches in favour of abolition, must love Ireland more than they loved slavery. When the money came in, in other words, O'Connell accepted it on the ground that he had no right to deprive Ireland of aid merely because of his anti-slavery principles.4" Indeed there is only one case on record where O'Connell returned money: the sum was £178 14s. 9d and did come from New Orleans, but O'Connell returned it because the accompanying letter contained resolutions in which 'the duty of allegiance to the British crown was set at naught, and a system of force and violence suggested in its place '." James Haughton was quick to tell O'Connell that no body such as the L.N.R.A., dedicated to freedom, could accept money that was tainted with slavery. If there was no proof that the repealers in the southern states who sent it were slaveholders, and some to suggest that the slaveholders valued their black slaves more highly than their Irish labourers, Haughton could point to the resolutions accompanying the southern money, which frequently denounced

48 W. Phillips to R. D. Webb, 12 Aug. 1842 (Boston Public Library, MS A.I.2, xii, pt 2, p. 76).

44 Eleventh annual report of the Massachusett's Anti-Slavery Society (Boston, 1843), p. 27-

45 L.N.R.A. meeting, 13 Apr. 1841, in Freeman's Journal, 14 Apr.; Nation, 8 Apr.

46 L.N.R.A. meeting, 27 May, I June I844. In August 1844, John O'Connell claimed that on two or three occasions the L.N.R.A. had sent back money when it was accompanied by letters that tried to justify slavery, and Phillips said in 1872 that he had seen O'Connell in Concili- ation Hall return a draft for £I,ooo to slaveholders in New Orleans. Daniel O'Connell. A lecture by Wendell Phillips (New York, 1873), p. Ioo. No evidence, however, has been found to corroborate these statements.




O'Connell's abolitionism, as evidence of its tainted source." Wendell Phillips, however, took a different view of the matter: '.. . don't deem me to be blaming O'Connell for not refusing the money. T don't blame him, I almost scorn him for letting his noble lips be clogged with gold so that he only stammers'. Phillips concluded that southern money had prompted the attacks on Garrison, and that O'Connell had proved himself 'the great beggarman '. Phillips had already opposed a suggestion that the American Garrisonians themselves return money sent by Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton (whose aid some abolitionists felt was tainted because Buxton traded in intoxi- cating liquor, that other enslaving force), and, though admiring Haughton's views, found them rather unrealistic. The American abolitionists in general argued that O'Connell could accept money from the south, provided that he maintained his anti-slavery testi- mony. That proviso was a delicate one, and the abolitionists left it to themselves to define.49. However, some years later, O'Connell was to be held up by those same abolitionists as an example to the Free Church of Scotland who also accepted money from the southern states."0 What elevated O'Connell to this position as moral exemplar was the fact that despite all, despite even his criticism of Garrison, he continued to condemn American slavery in a way that routed the Irish repeal movement in the south.

The events which led up to O'Connell's famous Cincinnati address reveal something of the difficulties of his position in this respect. When the Albany and Louisiana Repeal Associations wrote to O'Connell protesting against the Irish address, this prompted not only O'Connell's specific repudiation of Garrison, but also a rejoinder from the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society"5 which was read at an

" Letter from Haughton read at L.N.R.A. meeting, Io May 1842, in Freeman's Journal, I I May.

48 W. Phillips to R. D. Webb, 29 June 1842 (Boston Public Library, MS A.I.2, xii, pt 2, 61).

49 R. D. Webb to E. Quincy, 2 Nov. 1845 (Boston Public Library, Webb-Quincy correspondence).

50 It is probable that the ideological roots of the 'send back the money' campaign directed by the abolitionists against the Free Church of Scotland lay in these earlier discussions as to the propriety of the L.N.R.A. accepting southern money. See the National Anti-Slavery Standard, I3 May 1847, on the disagreements between Irish and Amer- ican abolitionists on the question of the Central Relief Committee of Friends in Ireland accepting southern money during the Irish famine.

" Freeman's Journal, 12 May I843.



I6 DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY

adjourned meeting of the L. N. R. A., with James Haughton in the chair. O'Connell, moving the thanks of the L.N.R.A., welcomed the information that Irish-Americans would not be violating their consti- tutional requirements in seeking the overthrow of slavery; he also accepted the abolitionists' argument that abolitionist agitation did not retard emancipation, since, he said, the same accusation had beer, made by opponents of his agitation for Roman Catholic emancipation.52 O'Connell's speech on this occasion caused consternation in the Philadelphia and Baltimore Repeal Associations, as the Freeman's Journal was quick to point out." Then, in August 1843, O'Connell received a letter from Cincinnati repealers which more or less repeated the arguments that the Pennsylvania abolitionists had already, at least in his view, refuted so well. He accepted an accompanying draft of money (though John O'Connell felt 'almost inclined' to throw it out of his hands), but such was his horror that Irish-Americans should attempt to justify slavery that he proposed a committee which would consider a 'full and suitable reply '."

Even Webb was astonished that O'Connell could have composed 'so long, so minute and so accurate' a document a few days after the Clontarf pioclamation."55 In his address, O'Connell suggested that emancipation would benefit not only the slaves but also their white masters and thereby would satisfy 'the noble Benthamite maxim' by ensuring the greatest happiness of the greatest number. He itemised the various areas in which Irish-Americans could work not only for the freedom of the slave but also for the civil rights of the free Blacks. If among the abolitionists were many 'wicked and calumniating enemies of catholicity and of the Irish', O'Connell argued that the best way to 'disarm' such men was for the Irish- Americans to range themselves on the side of liberty. Recent studies had suggested the physical superiority of the Irish race, and the Irish-Americans, by seeking to free the slaves, would not only reflect further credit on Ireland, but enter their names on the 'brightest pages' of the chapter of benevolence in American history. There were points, of course, that the American Anti-Slavery Society itself

52 L.N.R.A. meeting, io May 1843, in Freeman's Journal, II May; National Anti-Slavery Standard, 13 July.

J' Freeman's Journal, 22 July, I Aug. I843. "4 L.N.R.A. meeting, 28 Aug. 1843, in Nation, 2 Sept. 55 Still, Webb claimed that O'Connell, in the midst of political crisis,

had composed the address only as a diversion to his mind, and to restore himself to the confidence of the American abolitionists.




would find unpalatable, especially O'Connell's insistence that the constitution was not a pro-slavery document. Yet Garrison and his followers welcomed it not only as another means of influencing the Irish-Americans, but as evidence that, despite the events of recent months, O'Connell had not deserted the cause. They held a meeting in Faneuil Hall, where Wendell Phillips, realising that many Irish- Americans were present, and recalling Pope Gregory XVI's apostolic letter condemning slavery and the slave trade, proposed 'three cheers for the abolitionist, Pope Gregory XVI '. Much to the chagrin of the

abolitionists, J. C. Tucker, vice-president of the Boston Repeal Association, reminded the audience that, though such eminences might condemn slavery, Irish-Americans were ruled neither from home nor from Rome." Despite this, the abolitionists distributed copies of the address at the meeting, and it was also sold at the

anti-slavery office in Philadelphia.57 While the Irish repeal press were aware that the Irish address

had to a large extent disrupted the repeal convention in Philadelphia,5" and that O'Connell's speech in reply to the Pennsylvania abolitionists had resulted in the disbanding of the Natchez and Charleston Repeal Associations," the immediate effects of the Cincinnati address on the Irish-American community were perhaps obviated by the widespread sympathy felt for O'Connell during his trial and imprisonment in

1844.60 However, O'Connell, who had already interfered somewhat precipitously in quarrels among Philadelphia repealers about the slavery issue, succeeded also in alienating many of the Irish repeal newspapers by his anti-slavery activities. At the beginning of 1844, the Nation demanded that 'repeal must not be put into conflict with any party in the States. The men of the southern states must not have their institutions interfered with, whether right or wrong .. .'. Some months later, the Dublin Pilot too, was rebuked by O'Connell when it reprinted the letter from the Cincinnati repealers that had

prompted the Cincinnati address." Despite O'Connell's explicit disavowals of Garrison, there were clear indications that the Irish

56 National Anti-Slavery Standard, 18 Nov. 1843. " Twelfth annual report of the Maassachusetts Anti-Slavery Soci,'ty Boston, 1844), pp 23-6. 5" Pilot (Dublin), 23 Mar. 1842. 59 L.N.R.A. meeting, 27 Sept. I843, in Frr:man's Journal, 28 Sept. "0 Fortunately for O'Connell, the second national repeal convention

met in New York before he issued his Cincinnati address. 1 Nation, 13 Jan. 1844. 62 L.N.R.A. meeting, 23, 27 Apr. 1844. B




repeal papers were deeply concerned that O'Connell's repeated anti-slavery utterances were not in Ireland's best interest. What brought this concern into sharper focus was the effect that the slavery issue was having on Anglo-American diplomatic relations, and the

strategic calculation that in England's weakness lay Ireland's oppor- tunities for winning repeal. Some disagreement along these lines had

already been seen among the Irish repealers over the right-of-search issue, but would be much more in evidence over the question of Texas.

When O'Connell opposed the British recognition of Texas in

1839, he was supported not only by the Hibernian Anti-Slavery Society,"6 but also by the Freemans' Journal which suggested that

any recognition by Britain would reveal the arrant hypocrisy of British

anti-slavery sentiment.64 The limitations of the paper's support of

O'Connell, however, soon emerged when O'Connell went on to

oppose the annexation of Texas by America on the ground that this would only strengthen the slave states. The Freeman's Journal was concerned about the slavery aspect, but argued that Texas was likely to be annexed as a territory, with the possibility that slavery might thereby be excluded.6 It dwelt on rumours that England wanted to establish a monarchy in Mexico, and denied that papers such as the London Times were sincerely worried about the implications that annexacion might have for slavery. Discussing the prospects of

England and the U.S.A. going to war over the threatened annexation, the Freemans' Journal commented: 'much as we abhor slavery, and much as our sympathies would therefore be detracted were such a conflict to arrive . . . what have we to fear from convulsions in this world?' From this point of view the answer was, very little: either war would ensue and England would be defeated, or England would grant repeal in order to conciliate Ireland before going to war with America.

An indication that O'Connell's arguments were not being accepted even by newspapers which normally supported him was seen in April I844, when John O'Connell criticised articles in the (Dublin) Pilot and the Freeman's Journal which advocated the American annexation of

" Freeman's Journal, 29 Dec. 1840. 64 Ibid., 7 Nov. 1840.

65 Ibid., I8 May 1844; Pilot (Dublin), 20 May 1844; The Times, 15 May.




Texas."6 Ironically, what brought matters to a head was a speech by O'Connell in which he said that England 'can have... the honour of the British Empire maintained-and the American eagle, in the highest pride of flight, be brought down. Let them but give us the parliament in College Green, and Oregon shall be theirs, and Texas shall be harmless.' In short, O'Connell was also exploiting England's weakness, but he was offering to aid England in a way that could only injure American interests. The response, both in Ireland and in America, was as immediate as it was predictable. At the L.N.R.A. meeting Thomas Davis expressed his dissent from O'Connell's speech,"6 while the Nation said that Ireland would never desert a country which, 'notwithstanding the slavery of the negro . . . is liberty's bulwark and Ireland's dearest ally '." The New York correspondent of the Freeman's Journal reported that, after hearing O'Connell's speech, repeal associations in Norfolk, Portsmouth and New Orleans had

dissolved."69 Nor did O'Connell's overture meet with much support from within repeal circles in Ireland. Moreover, the speech contained an implicit offer of military aid which did little to convince Irish abolitionists that O'Connell was a sincere exponent of moral force.'0 Four months later there was a bitter quarrel in the L.N.R.A. between John O'Connell and Richard Scott, a Dublin solicitor, who argued that the Repeal Association should leave it to the Hibernian Anti-

Slavery Society to criticise American slavery." Scott's arguments

66 L.N.R.A. meeting, so May 1844, in Freeman's Journal, 21 May; article, 'Our own corespondent', in Pilot, 15 May 1844. The American correspondents of the Irish repeal press were frequently hostile to the abolition movement. Thomas Mooney, for example, was American correspondent of the Pilot, 1841-2, and of the Nation, 1842-6, and his comments on abolitionism were repudiated by O'Connell in May 1842.

67 L.N.R.A. meeting, 31 Mar. 1845, in Nation, 5 Apr. 68 Ibid., 12 Apr. 1845. 69 Freeman's Journal, 21 Apr. 1845: Nation, 21 June. The Baltimore

Repeal Association dissolved temporarily. O'Connell claimed in July that the Americans resented his speech only because of its abolition contents. He had also threatened in Apr. 1845 that if America attacked England, American slaves would be incited to revolt by black regiments from the West Indies. Such statements could hardly fail to be badly received in the American south.

'o Letter from Haughton, in Freeman's Journal, II July 1846. 71 L.N.R.A. meeting, 4 Aug. 1845, in Nation, 9 Aug. John O'Connell

did say that England would benefit from the American annexation of Texas, since a strengthened south would be in a position to pass tariff laws favourable to England.




were supported by the Nation, which sought to embarrass the O'Connellites by reminding them that the Catholic Association in 1828 had no scruples about receiving financial aid from the southern states.'" O'Connell was soon to be criticised by other more traditional areas of support. The Dublin Pilot, for example, while not wishing to come out openly against O'Connell, did cite extracts from the Tipperary Free Press and the Waterford Freeman which urged Ireland at least to wait till she had her own freedom before espousing the cause of the American slave.72 The Freeman's Journal, too, continued to support the American annexation of Texas, much though John O'Connell objected."

The question, as the repeal press saw it, was one of priorities rather than of principle: the question of immediate repeal must take precedence, and Ireland must look to her own interests. Thus while O'Connell could, though a free-trader, oppose the lowering of sugar duties on the ground that slavery in Cuba and Brazil would be stimulated, the Freeman's Journal supported any measure that would mean cheaper sugar for Ireland.7" It was genuinely concerned about the slavery aspect of the annexation question, though it took pleasure in what it saw as the defeat of English interests in Texas. Even this position had its tactical limitations. Thus when the Freeman's Journal sought to assuage its guilt on the slavery question by reporting that the northern states might annex Canada to preserve the 'balance' of free and slave states, such an approach infuriated repealers in Canada.7" It was with a certain amount of relief, therefore that it reported that there was no slavery question to blur its identification with American interests in the Oregon question."

The repeal newspapers therefore welcomed each successive crisis between England and America. When war did not break out, they were left in a position to gloat over what they felt had been the

72 C. Gavan Duffy, Young Ireland: a fragment of Irish history, 1840- 1845 (London, 1896), pp I96-20I.

'3 Pilot, 12 Sept. 1845; Tipperary Free Press, 6 Sept. 74 L.N.R.A. meeting, 6 Oct. 1845, in Nation, i I Oct. '" Freeman's Journal, 21 Feb. i845. O'Connell was again consider-

ably embarrassed at the attempts by the whig government to reduce the sugar duties. He opposed such attempts on principle, but he did not wish to see the whigs defeated on the question.

76 Ibid., 20 Apr. 1844, 17 Feb. 1844. 77 Ibid., 31 July I845. The Nation, I3 Dec. I845, felt that America

had 'no just claim' to Oregon, but nevertheless supported American interests there as opposed to those of England.



DANIEL O'CONNELL AND AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY 2 I

triumph of American interests. On occasion their criticisms of English anti-slavery sentiments were based on disappointment that those sentiments had not been strong enough to force England into a war from which Ireland could only benefit.7" O'Connell too, in his 'American eagle' speech, hac sought to exploit Anglo-American tensions. Where the repeal press differed from him, however, was in their insistence that repeal must never be accepted as a concession from England. If O'Connell felt that Ireland should benefit from

England's weakness, his critics did not accept that America, despite the existence of slavery, should thereby suffer: advantage to Ireland must never be sought at the expense of America, although such a calculation might severely curtail any effective commitment to the

anti-slavery cause. Damaging criticisms of O'Connell's abolitionism also came from

other quarters. Thus, much to O'Connell's embarrassment, his friend, Bishop England of Charleston, wrote a series of letters which repudiated O'Connell's condemnation of American slavery and asserted that the entire catholic tradition, including St Patrick, was directed not against slavery, but only the slave trade.7" O'Connell had always maintained that this was not so, though he must have been aware that the Roman Catholic church in Ireland remained silent on the

question of American slavery."8 In August 1845, John O'Connell reacted angrily to an article in Brownson's Quarterly Review which stated that his father advocated abolition only in order to enlist the aid of American abolitionists and to persuade the British government that he was not prepared to secure repeal by encouraging American

aid."8 After the 'American eagle' speech there was little answer to the charge that O'Connell was attempting to convince England of Ireland's loyalty, but John O'Connell did stress that his father had

s Freeman's Journal, 17 Sept. 1842. 79 These were later printed in book form and dedicated to O'Connell.

Letters of the late Bishop England to the Hon. John Forsyth on the subject of domestic slavery (Baltimore, 1844).

80 The great range of attitudes on slavery existing within the catholic church in America is demonstrated in M. H. Rice, American Catholic opinion on the slavery controversy (New York, i944). Dr Cahill was a rare instance of a catholic cleric who was prepared in Ireland to condemn American slavery. Webb, however, always inimical to slavery and catholicism, went out of his way to ridicule the elementary blunders that Cahill had made in his Lecture on slavery (Waterford, 1846).

s This article was later reviewed in the Tablet, vi, no. 276 (16 Aug. 1845), PP 514-15-




acted on principle, 'throwing aside all considerations of mere policy and acting in a manner which could not fail to injure the interests of Ireland as far as these interests are involved in mere planning considerations'. For their part, those abolitionists whom O'Connell had accused of being 'imbued with bitterly anti-catholic feelings', responded by accusing him of trying to consolidate his position in Irish affairs by deftly playing his own sectarian card. Hence proceeded a welter of counter-accusations, a spiral of suspicion and tension, in which the Irish-Americans demonstrated great resentment towards the abolitionists, and in which the latter, in Whittier's telling words, allowed their 'just disapprobation of catholicism' to 'degenerate' into a 'most unwarranted prejudice' against its conscientious followers.82 In this situation, it is hardly surprising that O'Connell reacted with occasional outbursts to the effect that if Ireland were Black she would find a more sympathetic audience in England, and that it was a hypocritical England that could give £20 million to free the West Indian slaves but do so little for Ireland."3

In America, the effect of O'Connell's anti-slavery was largely to break up the repeal movement that had been developing in the south. In Ireland itself, O'Connell's abolitionism had little lasting influence on a country in which so many saw America as a haven for the immigrant, a beacon of republican liberty, a potential ally against England, and as a munificent provider of relief and aid.84 Moreover, the Young Irelanders and others were convinced that the Irish people were as badly treated as the American slaves, and they argued that the immediate task was to liberate Ireland from oppression and want." O'Connell himself admitted that the material conditions of many slaves were better than those of the majority of Irishmen, but this, he claimed, resulted from the desire of slaveholders to extract as much work as possible from the slaves. His critics, arguing against

82 This process is examined in Gilbert Osofsky, 'Abolitionists, Irish immigrants, and the dilemmas of romantic nationalism' in A.H.R., lxxx, no. 4 (Oct. 1975), pp 889-912, but Osofsky in general ignores the Irish pressures on O'Connell, and oversimplifies the reasons for the abolitionists' interests in Ireland.

83 L.N.R.A. meeting, 12 Oct. 1846, in Nation, 17 Oct. 84 Though see the assessment of his influence on Irish anti-slavery

made by the English abolitionist George Stephens, cited in Klinberg, Anti-slavery movement, pp 248-9.

85 Nation, 6 Feb. 1842; J. C. Cobden, The white slaves of England (Cincinnati, 1853), pp 284-369; J. Bronterre O'Brien, The rise, progress and phases of human history (London, 1885), pp 47-53-




what the Nation dismissed as 'transatlantic philanthropy' had, in the last resort, a narrower conception of human liberty than he. However, their attacks were especially damaging when they insisted that O'Connell, in pursuing an abolitionist course, was materially damaging Ireland's interests. The situation offered a striking example of the tendency of the American slavery issue to intrude upon and exacerbate existing tensions and dissensions in Britain itself. In O'Connell's case, his repeated criticisms of American slavery certainly accelerated the deteriorating relations between himself and the Young Irelanders. Few of the latter group actually defended or advocated slavery as an institution,s6 but O'Connell's abolitionism exasperated them and helped confirm their suspicions that his leadership was detrimental to the repeal cause.

O'Connell was not above using his involvement in abolition for his own ends. He often pointed to the existence of slavery in the United States, for example, to affirm his own preference for monarchical institutions, while, at his trial in 1844, he alluded to his repeated attacks on American slavery as proof of his devotion to principle. Yet the abolitionists never entirely repudiated connection with him. Partly this stemmed from their recognition that he had paid a considerable price for his anti-slavery involvements. Partly too, and distinct from their sympathy for him as another exponent of unpopular reform, their personal admiration for O'Connell is important: many of Phillips's shrill outbursts of temper were the product of his reluctance to admit that one of his heroes might have feet of clay. It was also difficult for them to separate their respect for him from their estimation of his usefulness. In their efforts to win over the Irish-Americans, they continued to issue, even during the civil war, pamphlets of his speeches on slavery.87 Indeed, it is perhaps because they saw him as being of such importance to their cause that they were on occasion temeptd to apply double standards to him. Thus James Haughton, though not without his own doubts as to the

8 John Mitchel and Fr Kenyon later afforded notable exceptions, though few of the former's Irish colleagues approved of his defence of slavery when he was in America, nor of his advice that they answer in the affirmative if asked whether they would like an Irish republic with an accompaniment of slave plantations. Even Kenyon rejected Mitchel's proposal that America re-open the slave trade. C. Gavan Duffy, My life in two hemispheres (2 vols, London, 1898), i, 242.

87 The Irish patriot. Daniel O'Connell's legacy to the Irish-Americans (Philadelphia, 1863).




propriety of British abolitionists advocating the disruption of the American union, was anxious that O'Connell should declare himself in favour of such a course. Despite their frequent criticisms of him, the American abolitionists compared him favourably with Louis Kossuth as a European nationalist leader who was not prepared to renounce the slave, and his example certainly moderated the angry response of many in the anti-slavery movement to the Irish- Americans."8 Apart from admiration, or gratitude, or identification, or even the calculations they made as to his usefulness, there was perhaps another way of looking at O'Connell's fluid, complicated relations with the abolitionists. Not only was he the single most important supporter that American anti-slavery had in Europe, but his action and speeches, his very presence, seemed to touch on pro- found aspects of the abolition movement. This had built on the major contradictions and accommodations implicit in all forms of chattel slavery, and by the 1820O was informed by the assumption that slavery was a sin to be immediately abolished. Recent commentators, however, and in particular David Brion Davis, have suggested that a major facet of the appeal of anti-slavery in the industrial age was that it could be seen as legitimising other forms of social order.89 The argument transcends notions of conscious duplicity, yet it might be noted that O'Connell's first links with the Dublin Garrisonians, Allen and Haughton, in the 1830s, came through their mutual public hostility to the trade guilds and trade unions of Dublin. More than this, however, it may arguably be that the abolitionists' fascination with O'Connell and O'Connell's Ireland, with the attendant themes of an oppressed European peasantry, catholicism and immigration, challenged the abolitionists' fundamental beliefs about the nature of social order and human equality. O'Connell then may have served to provide a working metaphor by which the abolitionists could confront and evaluate their own premises, and to provide illustration,

88 Letter to Louis Kossuth concerning freedom and slavery in the United States (Boston, 1852), pp 4-49; Thoughts and recollections of a tour in Ireland, n.d. (Library of Congress, Frederick Douglass papers).

"9 D. B. Davis, The problem of slavery in the age of revolution (London, 1975), PP 249-55, 346-85. Given such concerns, it is understandable why the abolitionists reacted as they did to Mitchel's claim that slavery provided the slave with more security and reward than did the industrial capitalism of the north the white factory worker, and that there was nothing incompatible in supporting both Black slavery and Irish freedom.




for example, through his career, of whether or not moral force abolitionism was essentially cohesive or anarchic in its operation and impact. This perhaps explains why Ireland and O'Connell bulk so large in abolitionist writings, and throws light on such curiosities as that it was the threat of large-scale Irish immigration undermining the structure of society as he knew it that provided the occasion for one of William Lloyd Garrison's last invocations to the memory of his former ally.

DOUGLAS C. RIACH

