In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

5 abolitionists and irish repeal American and irish abolitionists were not pleased with what they saw as O’Connell’s lukewarm response to the anti-abolitionist letters from American repealers. As with the promotion of the Irish Address, it was the Garrisonian abolitionists that gave the most attention to the exchanges on abolitionism among repealers. American repealers, in fact, identified American abolitionism at large with the American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS). After the American repeal organizations rejected the initial publicity on the Irish Address, the Garrisonians entered into a war of words with the American repeal press as they continued to try to draw Irish Americans to their cause. They had hoped to enlist O’Connell further in this task, and his response to the Irish American letters in 1842 disappointed them. Although O’Connell had remained steadfast in his criticisms of slavery after receiving the letters, he also had treated Irish American complaints against the abolitionists as legitimate ones. The transatlantic network of Garrisonian abolitionists thus set out to improve O’Connell’s view of the American Anti-Slavery Society and persuade O’Connell and the Loyal National Repeal Association (LNRA) to become more active on behalf of the cause of antislavery. In both of these endeavors, they had limited success. While the abolitionists were able to correct some of the American repealers’ mischaracterizations of their societies in America, conflict between O’Connell and Garrison over their respective views on religion prevented a true alliance between the two reformers. Likewise, although abolitionist entreaties succeeded in convincing O’Connell to rebut the anti-abolitionist arguments of the American repealers, attempts of the Hibernian Anti-Slavery Society (HASS) to push O’Connell beyond rhetoric in LNRA policy to a more active rejection of American anti-abolitionism failed. Still, the abolitionists’ efforts to draw out O’Connell were largely responsible for his continued verbal 102 american slavery, irish freedom attack on American slavery and for the enhancement of O’Connell’s reputation as Ireland’s greatest antislavery activist. By February 1842, American Garrisonians realized that their desire to use the Irish Address to bring Irish Americans into their movement would be unfulfilled . In letters to members of the HASS, William Lloyd Garrison commented on its rejection. Remarking that the original meeting to present the address in Faneuil Hall “was indescribably enthusiastic,” he went on to describe how spokesmen for the Irish American population then shifted to a general disparagement of the address, and the abolitionists themselves, in the days after its presentation. In particular, he pointed to the hostility of the Irish American press. “How mortified, how indignant, how astonished you will be to hear that the noble Address to your countrymen in America . . . is spurned and denounced by the Irish papers in America,” he wrote. Singling out the Irish Catholic papers in his own city, the Boston Pilot and the Catholic Diary, Garrison described how they “denounce it and the abolitionists in true pro-slavery style,” and he said, “I fear it will keep the great mass of your countrymen here from uniting with us.”1 After the Boston Pilot emerged as one of the leading critics of the address, Garrison’s Liberator responded to the Irish American paper in its own columns. Through the first half of 1842, the two Boston papers would become sparring partners over the rejection of the Irish Address and the issue of Irish American sentiment concerning slavery. After the Pilot’s rejection of the Irish Address, writers for the Liberator attempted to summarize the reasons for this position. They concluded that it was the goal of Irish American leaders to diminish Irish enthusiasm for antislavery, allege that O’Connell did not understand the nature of American abolitionism, malign the abolitionists and characterize them as violent, insinuate that Ireland would be better off by going along with the “current of a corrupt and pro-slavery sentiment,” and secure southern support for the movement for repeal in the United States.2 Despite the Pilot’s rejection of the Irish Address, the Boston abolitionists still hoped to attract Irish American support for their campaign against slavery. In attempting to do this, they relied heavily on the Irish American community’s dedication to Daniel O’Connell. The Garrisonians rejected Irish American attempts to hold O’Connell’s brand of antislavery as separate from their own. The editors at the Liberator reprinted the contents of the Irish Address and numer- [18.117.70.132] Project MUSE (2024-04-26 15...

Share