To the Public

Is Garrison’s argument in favor of abolition and enfranchisement more emotional or intellectual? What do his rhetorical choices tell us about his strategy for furthering the abolitionist cause?

Garrison concedes that there were exceptions in the South to pro-slavery beliefs. Given this fact, does his use of invective strike you as a good strategy for gaining followers?

Why do you think Garrison relies so heavily on emotional appeals in this editorial? To whom do you think those appeals would mostly be directed, and how successful do you think they would be?

Garrison asserts that he will be “as harsh as truth.” Is the truth always harsh? What would it mean to present truth more pleasingly?

Garrison makes comparisons between the American Revolution and the abolitionist cause. Trace this analogy through his essay. How successful do you think it is? Why?

During the French Revolution (1789), the representatives of the French people set forth the following right: “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.” In Garrison’s vision of the world, what kinds of distinctions might be generally good? Do you agree?

Is Garrison correct in rejecting every form of compromise? When and why is inflexibility the best option?

Garrison is certain that history will prove him correct. Does it? Slavery ended in the United States, but do some of the things that concern Garrison still exist?