Henry Highland Garnet and His Call for Resistance to Slavery in 1843

Jeanette E. Sherbondy • May 9, 2023

Henry Highland Garnet (1815-1882) was an abolitionist with a quick wit and satirical sense of humor. Born into slavery in Kent County, Md., Garnet moved to New York and freedom with his family when he was nine.

Garnet’s gift for speaking was evident from a young age. When he was 21 and studying at the Oneida Institute in Whitesboro, N.Y., he dealt cleverly with a disruptive incident. As he was taking part in a colloquy of the junior class, a student named Cills with pro-slavery views sat in the balcony with a large pumpkin. Here's the incident as told by James McCune Smith, a close friend of Garnet and also a student at Oneida Institute:

“At a favorable moment, he aimed [the pumpkin] at Garnet, throwing it with full force from the gallery. Missing its aim, it was dashed to pieces on the stage, many fragments flying in the faces of the ladies below. In the midst of the great excitement that followed, Garnet quietly stepped forward and looking gravely on some of the smashed pieces, quietly said, ‘My good friends, do not be alarmed. It is only a soft pumpkin. Some gentleman has thrown away his head, and lo! his brains are dashed out!’ From that day forward, Cills was called ‘Pumpkin Head.’”

Garnet finished his education by training to be a Presbyterian minister and in 1840 was called to be a pastor of the Liberty Street Presbyterian Church in Troy, N.Y. Three years later, he was ordained. He used his speaking talent in church and in his anti-abolition activism. On May 2, 1840, he addressed the American Anti-Slavery Society, asserting the rights of all Blacks, enslaved or free, to full citizenship rights.

In 1843, 27-year-old Garnet made his first address to the National Negro Convention in Buffalo, N.Y. Titled, “An Address to the Slaves of the United States,” it has become famous. In the text below, the quoted sections are direct from the speech. (The uppercase letters are in the quoted source.)

Rev. Garnet spoke from his status as a free Black man and a Presbyterian minister. He framed his words as a Christian, urging the enslaved to resist.

First he apologized to the enslaved people because the convention had addressed only the concerns of the free Blacks. Slavery, he said, was a “deep gulf” between them and the free. He recalled that the first enslaved people arrived 227 years ago, without their consent, not free to enjoy “this fruitful soil.” Their first dealings were with cruelty, avarice, and lust from the self-described Christian men. Nor did they arrive at a land of freedom.

“But they came with broken hearts, from their beloved native land, and were doomed to unrequited toil and deep degradation. Nor did the evil of their bondage end at their emancipation by death. Succeeding generations inherited their chains, and millions have come from eternity into time, and have returned again to the world of spirits, cursed and ruined by American slavery.”

He noted the “inconsistency of a people holding slaves, who had themselves ‘ferried o’er the wave’ for freedom’s sake.” He listed the voices that had failed to convince enslavers to end slavery: Humanity, Wisdom, the Christian cross, and Jehovah.

Then he reminded the listeners of what had been lost. “Nearly three millions of your fellow citizens are prohibited by law and public opinion (which in this country is stronger than law) from reading the Book of Life. Your intellect has been destroyed as much as possible, and every ray of light they have attempted to shut out from your minds. They are also ruined themselves as they have become weak, sensual, and rapacious. They have cursed you. They have cursed themselves. They have cursed the earth which they have trod.”

He advanced his moral argument: “In every man’s mind, the good seeds of liberty are planted, and he who brings his fellow down so low as to make him contented with a condition of slavery, commits the highest crime against God and man.”

He warned listeners of the enslavers’ goal: “They endeavor to make you as much like brutes as possible. When they have blinded the eyes of your mind, when they have embittered the sweet waters of life then, and not till then, has American slavery done its perfect work.”

Then he argued: “TO SUCH DEGREDATION, IT IS SINFUL IN THE EXTREME FOR YOU TO MAKE VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION. The divine commandments you are in duty bound to reverence and obey. If you do not obey them, you will surely meet with the displeasure of the Almighty.” Even though this is impossible with slavery, Garnet argued, “The forlorn condition in which you are placed does not destroy your moral obligation to God. You are not certain of heaven because you suffer yourselves to remain in a state of slavery, where you cannot obey the commandments of the Sovereign of the universe. If the ignorance of slavery is a passport to heaven, then it is a blessing, and no curse, and you should rather desire its perpetuity than its abolition. God will not receive slavery, nor ignorance, nor any other state of mind, for love and obedience to him. Your condition does not absolve you from your moral obligation. The diabolical injustice by which your liberties are cloven down, NEITHER GOD, NOR ANGELS, OR JUST MEN, COMMAND YOU TO SUFFER FOR A SINGLE MOMENT. THEREFORE IT IS YOUR SOLEMN AND IMPERATIVE DUTY TO USE EVERY MEANS, BOTH MORAL, INTELLECTUAL, AND PHYSICAL THAT PROMISES SUCCESS.“

And he recommended action: “Brethren, the time has come when you must act for yourselves. You can plead your own cause and do the work of emancipation better than any others.” He noted that the rest of the world was moving away from slavery though it was very much alive in the United States. “They buy and sell you as though you were brute beasts.” He urged them to look around and see the pain and torture of others. Then, he suggested, “go to your lordly enslavers and tell them plainly that you are determined to be free. Appeal to their sense of justice, and tell them that they have no more right to oppress you, than you have to enslave them. Entreat them to remove the grievous burdens which they have imposed upon you, and to remunerate you for your labor. Promise them renewed diligence in the cultivation of the soil, if they will render to you an equivalent for your services.”

“Inform them that all you desire is FREEDOM, and that nothing else will suffice. Do this and forever after cease to toil for the heartless tyrants, who give you no other reward but stripes and abuse. If they then commence the work of death, they, and not you, will be responsible for the consequences. You had better all die, die immediately, than live slaves and entail your wretchedness upon your posterity. If you would be free in this generation, here is your only hope. However much you and all of us may desire it, there is not much hope of redemption without the shedding of blood. If you must bleed, let it all come at once. Rather die freemen than live to be slaves.”

His most quoted phrases were: “Brethren, arise, arise! Strike for your lives and liberties. Now is the day and the hour. Let every slave throughout the land do this, and the days of slavery are numbered. You cannot be more oppressed than you have been. You cannot suffer greater cruelties than you have already. Rather die free men than live to be slaves. REMEMBER THAT YOU ARE FOUR MILLIONS!”

“Let your motto be resistance! resistance! RESISTANCE! No oppressed people have ever secured their liberty without resistance. Trust in the living God. Labor for the peace of the human race, and remember that you are FOUR MILLIONS.”

Garnet’s speech failed by a single vote to be endorsed by the Convention. Frederick Douglass did not vote for it because he recoiled at the idea of violence. Later, he agreed with Garnet.

The violence Garnet mentioned in his address was the initial violence the enslaved people endured, from their capture in Africa to the conditions of slavery in America, passed down to their descendants.

I think that Garnet urged peaceful resistance. He never suggested killing or doing violence to the enslavers. Rather, he addressed the issue of the violence the enslaved would likely receive had they the courage to speak peacefully to their enslavers as he urged, and the punishment of death they were likely to receive if they insisted in their labor strike.

He reminded them that it is “sinful to submit voluntarily to slavery.” He posed a choice between moral resistance and likely dying for it against voluntary submission and living with cruel abuse and violence from the enslavers.

Garnet has often been subject to criticisms of his approval of violence, but I find those claims questionable.

Jeanette E. Sherbondy is a retired anthropology professor from Washington College and has lived here since 1986. In retirement she has been active with the Kent County Historical Society and Sumner Hall, one of the organizers of Legacy Day, and helped get highway /historical markers recognizing Henry Highland Garnet. She published an article on her ethnohistorical research of the free Black village, Morgnec.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Congressman Harris Faces Online Criticism Over Epstein Vote, But Local Media Remains Quiet

By Jan Plotczyk • August 20, 2025

Congressman Andy Harris is facing a steady stream of criticism on social media following his vote against releasing the full files related to Jeffrey Epstein in July. The House of Representatives blocked the release of the files on a 211 to 210 vote. Since his vote, commenters on nearly every post from Congressman Harris’s official Facebook page have repeatedly raised the issue, questioning his decision and asking for an explanation. The comments are often similar in wording and appear across different topics, from agriculture updates to health care policy. In addition to individual commenters, local advocacy pages such as Decency for District 1 have been highlighting Harris’s vote since July 31. The page has consistently called for greater transparency, arguing that constituents deserve to know why their representative opposed making the records public. Despite the visible online pushback, no major Eastern Shore news outlet has yet reported on Harris’s vote or the public response to it. Neither local television stations nor regional newspapers have published stories on the controversy, leaving the discussion largely confined to social media platforms. The Epstein files vote has drawn national attention in recent weeks, as lawmakers in both parties have faced questions about whether more information should be released. In a town hall at Chesapeake College, Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen talked about the importance of transparency and the need to release the files; he offered an amendment in the Senate to force the release. Rep. Harris, the Eastern Shore’s lone representative in Congress, has not issued a public statement addressing his position beyond his recorded vote. For now, the conversation remains one-sided. Constituents continue to press the question online, while traditional media outlets in the district have yet to engage with the story. Jan Plotczyk spent 25 years as a survey and education statistician with the federal government, at the Census Bureau and the National Center for Education Statistics. She retired to Rock Hall.

Marylanders Will Lose A Lot Due to Trump and GOP

By Jan Plotczyk • August 20, 2025

Donald Trump promised he would lower costs on Day One. A lot of people believed him. (Some still do.) But instead of addressing the economic concerns that got him elected, he pushed his One Big Beautiful Bill into law. Instead of lowering the cost of energy and groceries for regular folks, his OBBB gives handouts to the rich. The Democratic National Committee has put together a website that details all the ways we lose and the rich guys win. They’re calling it the Trump Tax. Here’s what they have to say. Nationally,

“The ICE Man Cometh”

By John Christie • August 12, 2025

The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It applies to all seizures of a person, including seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest. As interpreted by the Supreme Court in an immigration context, except at the border, the Fourth Amendment prohibits immigration enforcement officers to make detentive stops unless they are aware of “specific articulable facts that reasonably warrant suspicion” that the person detained may be illegally in the country. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on “generalizations” that, if accepted, would cast suspicion on large segments of the law-abiding population. On June 6, 2025, federal law enforcement arrived in Los Angeles to participate in what federal officials have described as “the largest Mass Deportation Operation . . . in History.” U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents and officers were sent to join officers from the Enforcement and Removal Operations directorate of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to carry out “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, California. This operation involved teams of three to five agents who temporarily detained individuals in public places such as streets, sidewalks, and publicly accessible portions of businesses, and made arrests for immigration violations. On July 2, five individual plaintiffs and three membership associations sued twelve senior federal officials, who share responsibility for directing federal immigration enforcement in the Los Angeles area, alleging a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Perdomo v. Noem (C. D. Cal). The complaint asserts that by an ongoing policy and/or practice, detentive stops in the Central District of California were being conducted without reasonable suspicion that the person to be stopped is within the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law. Reviewing the evidence offered by the plaintiffs in support of an injunction pending further litigation, the district court found that circumstances surrounding the stops were coercive enough that the interactions were not consensual. The district court also found that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed in showing that seizures were based only upon four enumerated factors” or a subset of them. Those factors were (1) apparent race or ethnicity; (2) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; (3) presence at a particular location; and (4) the type of work one does. The district court then concluded that in the context of the Central District of California, those four enumerated factors — even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and “do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop.” Moreover, the court determined that, despite there being no evidence of an “official policy” of making stops based only on the four factors and without reasonable suspicion, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendants’ agents were routinely doing so. Premised on these conclusions, on July 11, the district enjoined the defendant officials from relying solely on the factors below, alone or in combination, to form reasonable suspicion for a detentive stop: Apparent race or ethnicity; Speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; Presence at a particular location (e.g., bus stop, car wash, tow yard, day laborer pick up site, agricultural site, etc.); or The type of work one does. The administration appealed the district court’s order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which refused to intervene. Perdomo v. Noem (July 28). The three judge panel determined that “a characteristic common to both legal and illegal immigrants does little to arouse reasonable suspicion.” In the U.S. generally, apparent Hispanic or Latino race or ethnicity generally has limited probative value, because large numbers of native-born and naturalized citizens have the physical characteristics identified with Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Speaking Spanish and speaking English with an accent are likewise characteristics that apply to a sizable portion of individuals lawfully present in this country. As to location, the Supreme Court has made clear that an individual’s presence at a location that illegal immigrants are known to frequent does little to support reasonable suspicion when U.S. citizens and legal immigrants are also likely to be present at those locations. US v. Brignoni (1975). Like location, the type of work one does is at most “marginally relevant” to establishing reasonable suspicion, even if it is work commonly performed by immigrants without legal status. Evidence that a particular employer is employing a large number of undocumented workers does not create reasonable suspicion as to each individual employee. On August 7, the administration once more sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court. In doing so, the Solicitor General asserts that the injunction entered puts “a straitjacket on law-enforcement efforts.” Although this case arises out of ICE activities in Southern California, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will have obvious implications for the practices of ICE agents nationwide. John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

Trump’s Treatment of Immigrant Workers Will Make Food Prices Even Higher

By Jan Plotczyk • August 12, 2025

Across the U.S. food supply chain, more than one in five jobs is carried out by immigrants, the equivalent of 14 million workers across the sector. But many of these foreign-born workers — regardless of legal status — are afraid that they’ll be swept up in the administration’s illegal and cruel arrest, detention, and deportation actions. So, they’ve started staying home. The long-term effects of losing a substantial portion of the workforce will send a shock through the industry: crops will not be harvested, livestock will not be processed, grocery shelves will thin out, restaurants and food trucks will close, and food will get more expensive than it already is.

Live Event: Can Eastern Neck Survive Federal Funding Cuts?

By CSES Staff • August 12, 2025

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge is threatened by federal budget and staffing cuts. We are fortunate to have this unspoiled, undeveloped public land in Kent County. More than 70,000 people visit ENNWR annually for recreation and to enjoy its natural beauty. In April, Common Sense for the Eastern Shore published an article asking for help in spreading the word about the threat to ENNWR. The need for support in the face of this threat still exists. If you’d like to know more and would like to pitch in to help, Citizens Connect is holding an informational session: Monday, August 18, 5-6:30 pm Unitarian Universalists of the Chester River, 914 Gateway Dr, Chestertown The presentation and discussion will be led by members of the Board of Directors of Friends of Eastern Neck, Bill Burton, president, and Bonnie Ford, vice president. The session will cover how drastic budget cuts to the US Fish & Wildlife Service jeopardize the health of the refuge and threaten its survival. Without adequate staff, Eastern Neck could be “shuttered," public access curtailed, and the Visitors Center closed. Invasive plants would grow unchecked, migratory waterfowl would be at risk, and hunts would end.

Salisbury Mayor Involved in Fourth Car Accident: Community Pushes Back on “Pattern of Recklessness”

By CSES Staff • August 6, 2025

Mayor Randy Taylor is once again at the center of controversy after being involved in a traffic incident Monday morning, his fourth car accident in less than two years since taking office. According to Mayor Taylor’s official statemen t, the accident occurred around 8:30 a.m. on South Boulevard and involved a pedestrian using a walker. Taylor described the incident as “minor,” claiming that only the wheel of the pedestrian’s walker made contact with the rear of his city-issued vehicle. He further stated that the pedestrian refused medical treatment and that all protocols were followed. However, eyewitness accounts and photos circulating on social media paint a different picture. A bystander who witnessed the event posted that the mayor struck the pedestrian in the crosswalk and initially continued driving as if he had “hit a cone,” before returning to the scene. The witness described a delayed police response and expressed frustration that no other vehicles stopped to assist. Photos of the aftermath show a visibly shaken pedestrian, leaning on his walker, with Mayor Taylor standing nearby inspecting the damage. The images have sparked widespread outrage across the community. “This is not an isolated event,” said one resident in a viral post. “This is his fourth accident since taking office, and every time it’s brushed off as a ‘minor issue.’ How many more ‘minor issues’ will it take before there’s real accountability?” The mayor’s track record with city vehicles has drawn sharp criticism, with many Salisbury residents demanding answers about why repeated accidents have not resulted in consequences. Previous incidents have ranged from parking lot collisions to property damage, all involving city vehicles. Calls for transparency have intensified, with community members pressing for clarity on whether mandatory post-accident drug and alcohol tests were administered, as required by city policy. Mayor Taylor maintains that all procedures were followed and has promised to share a final report of the incident within 10 days. In the meantime, public confidence continues to erode, with many expressing frustration over what they see as a dangerous pattern of recklessness. “Four accidents in two years,” another commenter posted. “If a city worker had that record, they’d be gone. Why does the mayor get a free pass?” Neither the Salisbury Police Department nor Maryland State Police has issued an official report yet.