Garrison versus Douglass on the abolition of slavery: An Ethics of Conviction versus an Ethics of Responsibility

Abstract

[MWS 13.2 (2013) 254-263] ISSN 1470-8078 Garrison versus Douglass on the abolition of slavery: An Ethics of Conviction versus an Ethics of Responsibility Fred Guyette Keywords: William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, abolition of slavery, ethics of conviction, ethics of responsibility, Constitution of the United States. William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879) was a prophetic visionary com mitted to the immediate abolition of slavery in America, but only if it could be accomplished by peaceful means. Frederick Douglass (1818 1895) had even greater reason to abhor slavery. Douglass had been born into slavery and had suffered its evils firsthand. For a decade, Garrison and Douglass worked together to end slavery. Having begun as friends, however, they fell out with each other over the question of which strategy was best for achieving the goal they both desired: liberty for America's slaves. Here I offer a brief account of (1) Max Weber's essay, 'Politics as a Vocation', anticipating that it will shine a helpful light on the politi cal differences between Garrison and Douglass; (2) Garrison's non violent vision for the immediate abolition of slavery; (3) Douglass' greater willingness to forge connections between the rhetoric of lib eration and armed intervention at the national level; and (4) their eventual estrangement from each other. (5) In light of the differences between Garrison and Douglass, the final section returns briefly to Weber's distinction between an ethics of conviction and an ethics of responsibility in order to explore their meaning for the vocation of the political leader as Weber sees it. A Brief Account of Weber's Essay, 'Politics as a Vocation' Max Weber's essay, 'Politics as a Vocation', makes an illuminating distinction between an ethics of conviction and an ethics of respon sibility.1 Weber originally prepared this text for a public talk given 1. Max Weber, 'Politik als Beruf', Gesammelte Politische Schriften (Munich, 1921):© Max Weber Studies 2013, Clifton House, 17 Malvern Road, London, E8 3LP. Guyette Garrison versus Douglass on the abolition of slaver 255 at Munich University on 28 January 1919. Germany had lost many, many soldiers in The Great War, and Weber's speech focused on the vexing problem of political and military leaders who had so far refused to take responsibility for the devastating consequences of their decisions.2 It is likely that the primary target of Weber's critique was General Erich Ludendorff, who was publicly blaming everyone else for Germany's disastrous losses. Ludendorff did his best to shift responsibility away from himself and on to the liberal Republicans of the Weimar Government who had replaced Kaiser Wilhelm II and subsequently accepted the conditions of The Treaty of Versailles; the Bolsheviks who had organized labor strikes in key German indus tries; the Christians whose desire for peace only masked their moral weakness; and especially The Jewish financiers, who Ludendorff blamed for putting profits ahead of patriotism. Weber began his inquiry into the moral nature of political leader ship by describing the state as 'a human community that (success fully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory'.3 Any state will have a few leaders and many more people who follow them —otherwise 'anarchy' will reign. In light of their serious moral responsibilities, it is important to con sider how those leaders are granted 'legitimacy' in their roles. Weber outlines three different kinds of justification that make it possible for a leader to exercise political power.4 (1) First, there is the authority of the patriarch or the patrimonial prince, rooted in ancient custom or the traditions of the 'eternal yesterday'. (2) Secondly, there is the authority of charisma, which inspires devotion and confidence in the revelation mediated by the prophet or in the heroism displayed by the militari/ leader or in the vision that animates the leader of a polit ical party. (3) A third form of domination, grounded in statutes and rules, is exercised by the leader of a bureaucracy. Though Weber does give some attention to the other two types of authority, he is primarily interested in exploring the moral nature of charismatic leadership. In order for politics to be a vocation...