“Let the Monster Perish!” The Rev. Henry Highland Garnet’s 1865 Address in the Congressional Chapel

Jeanette E. Sherbondy • May 23, 2023


Henry Highland Garnet was born into slavery in New Market, now Chesterville, in Kent County, Md. He escaped to freedom with his family to Delaware and Pennsylvania, and became a resident of New York City. He became educated and was ordained a Presbyterian minister. Garnet was an active abolitionist and during the Civil War helped the Black soldiers in the Union Army. He was later appointed to serve the 15th Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C.

 

When he was invited to preach in 1865, Garnet became known as the first African American to address members of Congress. His sermon to them was an eloquent appeal to fulfill the mission of emancipation, presenting a to-do list that, today, is still waiting completion.

 

This sermon, “A Memorial Discourse: Delivered in the Hall of the House of Representatives, Washington City, D.C., on Sabbath. February 12, 1865” was printed along with a biography by his childhood friend James McCune Smith, M.D., “Sketch of the Life and Labors of Rev. Henry Highland Garnet.” The volume also includes Garnet’s 1843 speech to the enslaved people of the United States.

 

The following are excerpts from Smith’s account of Garnet’s life during the Civil War, and passages from Garnet’s sermon in the chapel of the House of Representatives.

 

Smith’s Account

 

Smith praised Garnet’s steadfast support for abolishing slavery in the face of strong opposition:

 

“He did not hesitate fearlessly to expose the national sin, and to declare the whole counsel of God to an unrepentant people. He was utterly unselfish.”

 

In the dark days between 1855 and 1864, there was aggressive opposition to the abolition of slavery by the national and state legislatures that enacted oppressive laws. Businessmen and the church were opposed to abolition. The press reported on the violence toward Black people during the draft riots of 1863 in New York City.

 

But Smith declared: “Throughout this frightful time, there was at least one Black man who neither cowered nor flinched. The tall form of the pastor of Shiloh [Garnet] always in front, where the blows fell thickest, seemed rather to dilate with the joys of battle, and his voice became as a trumpet’s call. By his eloquence, his high-hearted manhood, his conduct, and example, he cheered his people, not only his immediate flock, but all who heard him throughout the land.“

 

The mobs hunted for Garnet during those riots.

 

As Smith recorded, “They rushed down 30th Street where he resided, loudly calling him by name. By the lucky forethought of his daughter who wrenched off the door-plate with an axe, his house escaped sacking, and his own life and that of his family were preserved by the kind acts of some White neighbors.”

 

Five days later, there was a great turnabout by the merchants of New York, who organized a committee for the relief of the Black riot victims.

 

“They established an office at 350 Fourth Street, to which all applicants for aid were directed to apply. They wisely engaged the services of the Rev. H.H. Garnet at this office, in order that he might examine and report on each case that came up. Not less than 6,392 persons passed under his supervision, and were relieved.” The report that Garnet wrote was published in this same volume.

 

When the Civil War began, Garnet volunteered as chaplain to the Colored troops assigned to a military base on Riker’s Island. Smith wrote: “He served in this capacity until the 20th, 26th, and 31st Regiments of the United States Colored Troops marched to the field. During this time without interruption of his pastoral duties, he organized a Ladies’ Committee for the Aid of Sick Soldiers, and established a hospital kitchen on Riker’s Island.”

 

There were many problems to solve just to keep the men fed and healthy. Smith again: “The runners kidnapped boys and old men, cripples and maimed, and by collusion with the proper officers, forced them to Riker’s Island. Here the sutlers charged when he was invited to preach in 1865, after Emancipation, 50 cents for a cup of coffee, a dollar for a canteen of water; in the cold month of February they were thrust into old and worn cotton tents, compelled to sleep on the earth without even a camp-stool.” Garnet heard the complaints of the recruits and persuaded General Dix, the commanding officer of the base, to right them.

 

Garnet’s Sermon

 

On February 12, 1865, when he was pastor of the 15th Street Presbyterian Church in Washington, D.C., Garnet was invited to give a sermon to the representatives in Congress who attended the religious service held in the chapel of the Capitol. He brought his choir from the church. This was a moment in the concluding months before the official end of the war in April 1865, and within days of the adoption of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution that banned slavery.

 

Garnet’s sermon was titled, “Let the Monster Perish,” the monster being slavery. For many Whites, slavery was, and still is, referred to not as the monster but as the “peculiar institution.”

 

He addressed his sermon to the hypocrisy of leaders who did little or nothing “that accorded with the law of righteousness.” He based his speech on Matthew 23:4 which was a rebuke of the failings of the Scribes and Pharisees:

 

“For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.”

 

Garnet opened his sermon saying this about the Scribes and Pharisees: “In theory, they were right, but their practices were inconsistent and wrong. They knew their duty, but did it not. The demands which they made upon others proved that they themselves knew what things men ought to do. In condemning others, they pronounced themselves guilty. They demanded that others should be just, merciful, pure, peaceable, and righteous. But they were unjust, impure, unmerciful — they hated and wronged a portion of their fellow men and waged a continual war against the government of God. We have modern Scribes and Pharisees, who are faithful to their prototypes of ancient times.” 

 

Garnet recounted the many ways throughout history that led Americans to declare that “the best possible condition of the Negro is slavery.”

 

He recalled his own early recollections of slavery: “The first sight that met my eyes was a Christian mother enslaved by professed Christians, but thank God, now a saint in heaven. The first sound that startled my ear and sent a shudder through my soul were the cracking of the whip and the clanking of chains.” He rejoiced that Maryland is “now the free home of their liberated and happier children.”

 

Then he tackled the monster. “Let us view this demon, which the people have worshipped as a God. Come forth, thou grim monster, that thou mayest be critically examined! There he stands. Behold him, one and all. Its work is to chattelize man, to hold property in human beings. Slavery destroys families and feeds hate and prejudice. It promotes strife and internal division in the nation. It has caused the bloodiest civil war recorded in the book to time.”

 

Garnet pointed the way forward: “Let us here take up the Golden Rule, and adopt the self-application mode of reasoning to those who hold these erroneous views.”

 

Then he recounted the anti-slavery views of sages and famous men in Western history, from Plato, who said, “Slavery is a system of complete injustice,” through the ancients to Thomas Jefferson, “There is preparing, I hope, under the auspices of heaven, a way for a total emancipation,” and George Washington, “It is among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country shall be abolished by law. I know of but one way by which this can be done, and that is by legislative actions, and so far as my vote can go, it shall not be wanting.” Garnet went on to list many other men who spoke out against slavery.

 

He concluded, “Let the verdict of death which has been brought in against slavery by the 38th Congress be affirmed and executed by the people. Let the gigantic monster perish.”

 

Then Garnet gave his audience of legislators his assessment of when the “demands of the reformers” could be considered fulfilled — his to-do list.

 

  • “When all unjust and heavy burdens shall be removed from every man in the land.
  • When all invidious and proscriptive distinctions shall be blotted out from our laws, whether they be constitutional, state, or municipal laws.
  • When emancipation shall be followed by enfranchisement, and all men holding allegiance to the government shall enjoy every right of American citizenship.
  • When our brave and gallant soldiers shall have justice done unto them.
  • When the men who endure the sufferings and perils of the battlefield in the defense of their country, and in order to keep our rulers in their places, shall enjoy the well-earned privilege of voting for them.
  • When in the army and navy, and in every legitimate and honorable occupation, promotion shall smile upon merit without the slightest regard to the complexion of a man’s face.
  • When there shall be no more class legislation and no more trouble concerning the Black man and his rights than there is in regard to other American citizens.
  • When, in every respect, he shall be equal before the law, and shall be left to make his own way in the social walks of life.”

 

“Let slavery die. It has had a long and fair trial. Now speedily finish the work which God has given you to do. Emancipate, enfranchise, and educate every American citizen.”

 

And addressing them directly, he blessed the senators and representatives for their legislation of emancipation and assured them of the gratitude of many people.

 

 

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.

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Mayor Randy Taylor Moves to Dismantle Salisbury’s Housing First Program, Undermining Proven Strategy for Ending Homelessness

By CSES Staff • October 24, 2025
 Sparking alarm among housing advocates, social workers, and residents, Salisbury Mayor Randy Taylor has announced plans to gut Salisbury’s nationally recognized Housing First program, signaling a break from years of bipartisan progress on homelessness. Created in 2017 under then-Mayor Jacob Day, the initiative was designed around a simple but powerful principle: that stable, permanent housing must come first before residents can address problems with employment, health, or recovery. The program was designed to provide supportive housing for Salisbury’s most vulnerable residents — a model backed by decades of national data showing it reduces homelessness, saves taxpayer dollars, and lowers strain on emergency services. But under Taylor’s leadership, that vision appears to be ending. In a letter to residents, the City of Salisbury announced that the Housing First program will be shut down in 2027, in effect dismantling one of the city’s long-term programs to prevent homelessness. Taylor says he plans to “rebrand” the program as a temporary “gateway to supportive housing,” shifting focus away from permanent stability and toward short-term turnover. “We’re trying to help more people with the same amount of dollars,” Taylor said. Critics call that reasoning deeply flawed, and dangerous. Former Mayor Jacob Day, who helped launch the initiative, says that Housing First was always intended to be permanent supportive housing, not a revolving door. National studies show that when cities replace permanent housing programs with short-term placements, people end up right back on the streets, and that costs taxpayers more in emergency medical care, policing, and crisis intervention. Local advocates warn that Taylor’s move will undo years of progress. “This isn’t just a policy shift, it’s a step backward,” one social service worker said. “Housing First works because it’s humane and cost-effective. This administration is turning it into a revolving door to nowhere.” Even some community partners who agree the program needs better oversight say that Taylor is missing the point. Anthony Dickerson, Executive Director of Salisbury’s Christian Shelter, said the city should be reforming and strengthening its approach, not abandoning its foundation. Under Taylor’s proposal, participants could be limited to one or two years in housing before being pushed out, whether or not they’re ready. Advocates fear this change could push vulnerable residents back into instability, undoing the progress the city was once praised for. While Taylor touts his plan as a way to “help more people,” critics say it reflects a troubling pattern in his administration: cutting programs that work. For years, Salisbury’s Housing First initiative has symbolized compassion and evidence-based leadership and has stood as a rare example of a small city tackling homelessness with dignity and results. Now, as Taylor moves to end it, residents and advocates are asking a simple question: Why would a mayor tear down one of Salisbury’s most successful programs for helping people rebuild their lives?

John Roberts Is 20

By John Christie • October 24, 2025
On the first Monday of October, the Supreme Court began a new term, Term 2025 as it is officially called. The day also marked John Roberts’ 20 years as Chief Justice of what history will clearly record as the Roberts Court. Twenty years is a long time but at this point, Roberts is only the fourth longest serving Chief Justice in our history. John Marshall, the fourth and longest, served for 34 years, 152 days (1801–35). Roger Brooke Taney, served for 28 years, 198 days (1836–64). Melville Fuller, served 21 years, 269 days (1888 to 1910). John Roberts was originally nominated by George W. Bush to fill the seat held by the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor but, upon the unexpected death of William Rehnquist, Bush instead nominated Roberts to serve as Chief Justice. His nomination was greeted by enthusiasm and high hopes in many quarters. He was young, articulate, personable, and highly qualified, having had an impressive academic record, experience in the Reagan administration and the private bar, and service on the federal D.C. Court of Appeals for two years. His “balls and strikes” comment at his confirmation hearing struck many as suggesting judicial independence. He sounded as well very much like an institutionalist, having said at an early interview that “it would be good to have a commitment on the part of the Court to act as a Court.” Whatever else might be said 20 years later about the tenure of John Roberts as Chief Judge, the Supreme Court is no doubt much less popular and much more divisive today than it was on September 29, 2005, when he was sworn in as the 17th Chief Justice by Justice John Paul Stevens, then the Court’s most senior associate justice, and witnessed by his sponsor, George W. Bush. Gallup’s polling data shows popular support for the Court now at the lowest levels since they started measuring it. In July 2025, a Gallup poll found that, for the first time in the past quarter-century, fewer than 40% of Americans approved of the Supreme Court’s performance. According to Gallup, one major reason that approval of the Supreme Court has been lower is that its ratings have become increasingly split along party lines — the current 65-point gap in Republican (79%) and Democratic (14%) approval of the court is the largest ever. The legal scholar Rogers Smith wrote in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science in June, “Roberts’s tenure as Chief Justice has led to the opposite of what he has said he seeks to achieve. The American public now respects the Court less than ever and sees it as more political than ever.” These results signify more than simply a popularity poll because a Court without broad public support is a Court that will not have the same public respect upon which their most important decisions have historically depended. And, whatever the reasons for this development, it has happened on John Roberts’s watch. There is no better example of the current divisiveness on the Court than the remarkable string of “emergency” rulings on the Court’s so-called shadow docket since January 20. The extent of ideological and partisan differences has been sharp and extreme. The conservative majority’s votes have frequently been unexplained, leaving lower court judges to have to puzzle the decision’s meaning and leaving the public to suspect partisan influences. And the results of these shadow docket rulings have had enormous, sometimes catastrophic, consequences: Removing noncitizens to countries to which they had no ties or faced inhumane conditions Disqualifying transgender service members Firing probationary federal workers and independent agency heads Ending entire governmental departments and agencies without congressional approval Allowing the impounding of foreign aid funds appropriated by Congress Releasing reams of personal data to the Department of Government Efficiency Allowing immigration raids in California based on racial and ethnic profiling John Roberts has written many Supreme Court opinions in his 20 years as Chief Justice. At the 20-year mark, the most important, to the nation and to his legacy, will likely be his opinion in the Trump immunity case, which changed the balance of power among the branches of government, tipping heavily in the direction of presidential power. Trump v. United States (2024). In her dissent from his majority opinion in that case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned about the consequences of such a broad expansion of presidential power. “The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president,” upsetting the status quo that had existed since the nation’s founding and giving blanket permission for wrongdoing. “Let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.” Roberts claimed in his majority opinion that the “tone of chilling doom” in Sotomayor’s dissent was “wholly disproportionate” to what the ruling meant. However, Sotomayor’s words have proved prescient: the breadth of power that Trump and his administration have asserted in the months since he was sworn in for his second term has made plain how boundlessly they now interpret the reach of the presidency in the wake of the Roberts opinion. Despite the early “balls and strikes” comment, the assessment of John Roberts’ long term judicial record suggests something different as seen by several distinguished legal commentators from significantly different perspectives. As summarized by Lincoln Caplan, a senior research scholar at Yale Law School, in a new retrospective article on Robert’s 20-year tenure, “From his arrival on the Court until now, his leadership, votes, and opinions have mainly helped move the law and the nation far to the right. An analysis prepared by the political scientists Lee Epstein, Andrew Martin, and Kevin Quinn found that in major cases, the Roberts Court’s record is the most conservative of any Supreme Court in roughly a century.” “What Trump Means for John Roberts's Legacy,” Harvard Magazine , October 8, 2025. Steve Vladeck, Georgetown Law Center professor and a regularly incisive Court commentator, characterized the 20-year Roberts’ Court as follows: “The ensuing 20 years has featured a Court deciding quite a lot more than necessary — inserting itself into hot-button social issues earlier than necessary (if it was necessary at all); moving an array of previously settled statutory and constitutional understandings sharply to the right; and, over the past decade especially, running roughshod over all kinds of procedural norms that previously served to moderate many of the justices’ more extreme impulses.” “The Roberts Court Turns Twenty,” One First , September 29, 2025. In another remarkable new article by a widely respected conservative originalist, similar concerns about the present Court have very recently been expressed. Caleb Nelson, who teaches at the University of Virginia and is a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, has written that the text of the Constitution and the historical evidence surrounding it in fact grant Congress broad authority to shape the executive branch, including by putting limits on the president’s power to fire people. “Must Administrative Officers Serve at the President’s Pleasure?” Democracy Project, NYU LAW , September 29, 2025. When the First Congress confronted similar ambiguities in the meaning of the Constitution, asserts Nelson, “more than one member warned against interpreting the Constitution in the expectation that all presidents would have the sterling character of George Washington.” Nelson continues, “The current Supreme Court may likewise see itself as interpreting the Constitution for the ages, and perhaps some of the Justices take comfort in the idea that future presidents will not all have the character of Donald Trump. But the future is not guaranteed; a president bent on vengeful, destructive, and lawless behavior can do lasting damage to our norms and institutions.” 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. 

Rep. Harris Earns An “A” on GOP “Trump Score”

By Jan Plotczyk • October 24, 2025
If you’ve ever wondered just how slavishly loyal Rep. Andrew P. Harris (R-MD01) is to President Donald Trump, you can now put a number on it! Just consult the Republican National Platform Ratings. When you do, you will find that Rep. Harris has a very high overall score: 90.38%. He is the most aligned with the Trump/GOP platform among Maryland’s congressional representatives. No surprise there. Among all U.S. senators and representatives (using 2024 votes), Harris is 43rd most aligned. One might expect more from the chair of the right-wing Freedom Caucus. Harris scores at 90.38% aligned overall. His ratings by topic range from 82.98% to 100%. The topics refer to chapters in the platform: Defeat inflation and quickly bring down all prices. Seal the border and stop the migrant invasion. Build the greatest economy in history. Bring back the American Dream and make it affordable again for families, young people, and everyone. Protect American workers and farmers from unfair trade. Protect our Constitution and seniors. Cultivate great K-12 schools leading to great jobs and great lives for young people. Bring common sense to our government and renew the pillars of American civilization. Government of, by, and for the people. Return to peace through strength. Here are all Harris’s scores:

Several Thousand Rally Across the Eastern Shore in Protest of Trump Administration Policies

By CSES Staff • October 24, 2025
Several thousand people turned out on Oct. 18 in communities across the Eastern Shore to participate in the national “No Kings Day” protests, joining thousands of simultaneous events nationwide opposing the policies of President Trump’s administration. Demonstrations were held in Salisbury, Ocean City, Easton, Cambridge, Chestertown, and Centreville. These gatherings were part of a broader coalition effort that organizers say reflects frustration with the administration’s direction and a demand for renewed accountability and democracy. Participants across the Shore held signs and expressed concerns about immigration enforcement, executive power, and transparency in government. In jurisdictions that lean Republican and supported Trump in 2024, the rallies underscore a growing discrepancy between voting patterns and present activism. For example, in Queen Anne’s County — where the Trump vote was strong — residents joined the demonstration with statements of surprise at the turnout. Despite the scale of national mobilization, local organizers emphasized that the protest is rooted in community values of fairness, participation, and civic voice. One organizer on the Shore described the event as a reminder that “when people choose to show up, they remind their communities what democracy looks like.” Authorities reported no major disruptions during the Shore events, and police in some areas confirmed the rallies proceeded peacefully. For many in the region, the demonstrations mark an opening moment for more active civic engagement on the Shore, one that observers say could reshape local politics in counties historically seen as less partisan.

Maryland Democrats Launch Statewide Candidate Recruitment Initiative

By CSES Staff • October 24, 2025
The Maryland Democratic Party has launched a statewide initiative, Contest Every Seat, that aims to recruit candidates to run for public office across all levels of government ahead of the 2026 elections. Party officials say the goal is to ensure voters in every district across Maryland have a choice on the ballot. The program will include outreach, training sessions, and support for prospective candidates considering campaigns for local, county, and state positions. “The effort is designed to encourage Marylanders who want to make change in their communities to step up and take action,” the party announced. Interested individuals can visit mddems.org/run for information about the application process and training opportunities. The Maryland Democratic Party said similar initiatives in past election cycles helped increase candidate recruitment in local and rural areas, including the Eastern Shore.

Maryland Faces Economic Strain as Federal Shutdown Continues

By CSES Staff • October 24, 2025
With the federal government now shut down for more than three weeks, Maryland is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue daily, a reflection of the state’s deep economic ties to the federal workforce. According to the Maryland Comptroller, approximately 230,000 Marylanders work directly for the federal government, with an additional 200,000 employed by federal contractors. The state’s economy, long intertwined with the operations of nearby federal agencies, is feeling the strain as paychecks stall and agencies close. Comptroller Brooke Lierman estimates Maryland is losing about $700,000 in state revenue each day — roughly one percent of the state’s average daily revenue of $100 million. “That is a small piece of our overall state budget,” Lierman said, “but as long as all our federal workers are paid what they are owed, that money will get back to us.” Federal employees generally receive back pay after shutdowns end, but recent statements from President Trump suggesting that furloughed workers may not be repaid have created uncertainty. More than 150 members of Congress, including Maryland’s entire Democratic delegation, signed a letter this week urging the Trump administration to guarantee back pay under the 2019 Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, which requires compensation for federal employees affected by a shutdown, and which Trump himself signed into law. Rep. Sarah Elfreth (D-MD03) said Congress is prepared to defend those protections. “Denying that pay would be illegal, and we will use every tool we have — both in Congress and in the courts — to ensure federal employees are made whole,” she said. During the 35-day federal shutdown in 2019, Maryland lost more than $13 million daily in economic activity and over $550,000 daily in tax revenue, according to state data. This latest shutdown comes amid broader federal workforce reductions under the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, which announced layoffs earlier this year. A federal judge temporarily halted further cuts on Oct. 15 following a legal challenge. The effects extend beyond government offices. Universities such as Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland Baltimore Washington Medical Center report disruptions to federally funded research projects and grant cycles. Gov. Wes Moore has directed state agencies to provide emergency support to furloughed federal workers, including housing and utility assistance. On Oct. 17, Moore announced the Maryland Transit Administration will offer free MARC and commuter bus rides to federal employees who show valid government ID. “This is what Maryland does in times of crisis, we band together and help each other out,” Moore said. “But no state can fill the gap created by the federal government. The longer this shutdown lasts, the more pain we will feel.” There is no indication of when negotiations in Washington to end the shutdown will resume.
Show More