Douglass and Garrison both give arguments for the same cause - they even worked together for a period of time. They both argued for the abolishment of slavery. They don’t only try to convince you to help with their cause, but to take action for their cause. This done through showing the errors of slavery with the founding principles of the United States - all men were created equal. Garrison said in “No Compromise …show more content…
Garrison, the publisher of The Liberator, received many death threats, was arrested, and was even dragged through the streets of Boston by a mob of people. Although it was written, not just in the Declaration of Independence but in the Constitution, that Americans had the right to free speech, those who spoke out against slavery, those like Douglass and Garrison and Lovejoy, were severely punished. This tells us that americans at this time were hypocrites.We also infer that the people were racist, although we already knew that. At first, the colonies were oppressed, but then fought to gain freedom for themselves. The abolitionists were doing the same thing - just fighting for the people who couldn’t fight for themselves. Take Garrison for example. In his account, he is talking about slaves as actual people, in one line saying that because they are men, he is “but am bound, by every principle of honor, by all the claims of human nature, by obedience to Almighty God, to "remember them that are in bonds as bound with them," and to demand their immediate and unconditional emancipation.” From this, and all of Garrison’s account starting from the line “If the slaves are not men; if they do not possess human instincts, passions, faculties, and powers…” and ending with “demand their immediate and unconditional emancipation,”we see that the people of that period, even though the slaves had thoughts and feelings, just the same as them, were not human. They were beasts, animals that were