Blog Post

“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.

 

Vote 2024. Image: CSES design
By Peter Heck November 19, 2024
It’s probably too early for a real analysis of why the Harris/Walz ticket was defeated in this year’s presidential election, although there are plenty of people taking a crack at it. For a couple of interesting examples, take a look at Heather Cox Richardson’s Nov. 6 column , or David Brooks in the New York Times. Important factors certainly included sexism and racism. Many Americans still aren’t ready to accept a woman leader — especially a Black woman. And I spoke to one local person who said that many Black men he knew were wary of voting for Harris because she had been a prosecutor, putting other Black men and minorities behind bars. Whether or not that was a factor, Harris’s share of the Black vote was some 10% lower than Biden’s. But the most significant factor was probably voter turnout. According to a Nov. 11 New York Times story , Democratic turnout was significantly lower than in 2020. This helped produce a narrow majority in the popular vote for the Republican ticket. Trump’s total nationwide was about 74 million votes, roughly the same as he received in 2020. Harris, on the other hand, was at 70 million — roughly 11 million less than President Biden’s 2020 total. If those voters had come out again and voted mostly Democratic, Harris would have some 81 million votes to Trump’s 74 million, giving her the popular vote. Depending on where the voters lived, that could have produced a very different result in the Electoral College and the election itself. Though the Electoral College totals imply otherwise, this was really a close election. Incidentally, a reaction against incumbents may be another significant factor, and a global rather than a U.S. phenomenon. An article in the Financial Times notes that every incumbent party — on both ends of the political spectrum — in developed countries lost significant vote share in an election this year — an astonishing turn of events. Here on the Eastern Shore, nobody should be surprised that the majority of the voting public went for the Republicans. The area, after all, is predominantly rural and conservative, with a few blue enclaves such as Easton and Chestertown. While town-by-town results on the Shore are not yet available, in Talbot County, in which Easton is the largest town, Trump won by some 500 votes. Queen Anne’s gave Trump the win by about 9,000 votes. Local elections were not on the ballot in 2024, but local officials on the Shore — mayors, sheriffs, state’s attorneys, county commissioners, delegates to the General Assembly, etc. — largely reflect that Republican dominance. And day-to-day life is more directly affected by these people in all communities than by anyone in Washington. Still, what happens on the national level will have its effect on all of us. The architects and supporters of Project 2025 are going to be part of the new Trump administration, and he has appointed some of the project’s supporters already. Those appointees are probably going to be quite adamant in pushing through their agenda. Even if they can’t accomplish everything, some of the proposed plans ought to be cause for concern, above all the weakening of women’s rights, especially reproductive freedom. And with the Senate, possibly the House, and the Supreme Court effectively on the same page as the administration, the constitutional checks and balances will be severely weakened. If, as he said he would, Trump imposes heavy tariffs on imports, almost every economist predicts that consumer prices will rise, thus making it harder to control inflation. If a mass deportation of immigrants gets underway, many jobs will go unfilled, particularly in construction and food service. This will further hurt the economy. It’s possible that pressure to fill those jobs could raise wages. If RFK Jr. brings his anti-vaccine beliefs to the health department, another pandemic — a new covid strain, or just the regular flu — could kill millions. If Elon Musk starts cutting back what he perceives as governmental waste, programs benefitting local communities are likely to suffer, again removing dollars from local and state economies. The foreign policy implications of some of Trump’s statements could be significant. He has threatened to pull the U.S. out of NATO. This may be unlikely, but that political stance may encourage current and would-be aggressors in Europe and the Middle East. And Trump has said he will end the war in Ukraine in one day. Does he really have that much influence on Putin? Or does Putin have that much influence on Trump? Time will tell. Looking down the road, one also has to consider Trump’s health. Born in June 1946, he will be 82 by the end of his term. What if he becomes incapacitated, physically or mentally? A stroke, a heart attack, or just the rigors of old age in a stressful office — all are possible. Would Vice President-elect Vance, a former venture capitalist in the technology sector, continue Trump’s policies, or would he have ideas of his own? At one time, Vance criticized many of Trump’s positions. If Trump is no longer in charge, could there be a period of infighting as various factions within the party and administration assert their own priorities? Any of that could have significant effects, and it’s not unlikely, given Trump’s age. So it looks as if we are about to live in “interesting times.” Some people are talking about leaving the country, while others are still trying to understand what just happened. Many are already looking forward and starting to concentrate on the 2026 midterms, when Republicans could consolidate their gains or Democrats could make a comeback. May we all get through these times to the point where we can tell a younger generation the kinds of stories our elders told us about the Great Depression or the Civil Rights movement — hopefully, with something resembling a happy ending. Peter Heck is a Chestertown-based writer and editor, who spent 10 years at the Kent County News and three more with the Chestertown Spy. He is the author of 10 novels and co-author of four plays, a book reviewer for Asimov’s and Kirkus Reviews, and an incorrigible guitarist. 
No mandate. Image: CSES design.
By Jan Plotczyk November 19, 2024
 The 2024 presidential election was over swiftly. The Associated Press called it at 5:34 am on Nov. 6, and by 8 am, President-elect Donald Trump was crowing about the “ historic mandate ” given to him by the American people. A “mandate”? Turns out not. Trump jumped to an early lead on election night, but in the following days, his lead diminished as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted. A Baltimore Banner article on Nov. 6 highlighted the “Trump shift” that had occurred in every political subdivision in Maryland, even in counties where Democrat Kamala Harris won. This shift described the increase in Trump support since his loss to President Joe Biden in 2020 . As of Nov. 6, the biggest Trump shift was an 8.1% increase in his support in red Cecil County, but there were also shifts in the central Maryland counties that are the state’s Democratic strongholds — 4.3% in Montgomery and lesser amounts in other blue counties. Fourteen counties recorded shifts of 4% or more. On the Eastern Shore, every county had a shift over 4.5% except Talbot (2.7%), and the five largest shifts were Shore counties. For the state’s Democrats, it did not look encouraging. But as mail-in and provisional ballots were counted across the state, the Trump shift was reduced everywhere, and as of Nov. 16, disappeared altogether in Garrett (-1.2%) and Charles (-0.1%) counties. The shift dropped below 3% in all Maryland counties. Cecil’s shift became 2.1%. Montgomery’s shift dropped to 2.9%. Talbot’s shift declined to 0.2%, lowest of the Eastern Shore counties. Now, instead of five, only two of the highest five shifts were in Eastern Shore counties. The red bars in the chart below represent the Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 16, in ascending order. The grey bars represent the misleading (and ephemeral) Trump shift percentage values as of Nov. 6. Please note the degree to which the Trump shift lessened and disappeared in the 10 days after the election. Another red mirage. But if you had only read the Nov. 6 article and not looked at the updated data, you would have been fooled into thinking Trump support is stronger than it is.
School board elections. Image: CSES design
By Jim Block November 19, 2024
How many times were Common Sense readers told that the 2024 election would be the most important ever? Whoever the winner, people knew the results would not unite the country but further divide it. One place of divisive conflict on the Eastern Shore, indeed almost everywhere, is the local school system. Two extreme right-wing organizations targeting school board control have made their presence known on the Eastern Shore. Moms for Liberty , according to its website , wants “to empower parents to defend parental rights at all levels of government.” In the recent election, Moms for Liberty endorsed at least two Cecil Co. Board of Education candidates. One of them, Sam J. Davis (who got 44% of the total vote ), lost his race to Diane Racine Heath (55%). Another Moms for Liberty candidate, Tierney Farlan Davis, Sr. (57%), defeated Dita Watson (42%). Both defeated candidates were endorsed by the Cecil County Classroom Teachers Association . A second active conservative organization is the 1776 Project PAC . This PAC’s mission statement declares that it “is committed to reigniting the spark and spirit of that revolution by reforming school boards across America. Since progressive-led efforts to lockdown schools during the covid epidemic, test scores have declined, parents and students are increasingly worried about violence both in and out of the classroom, while politicians and activists push their own ideology.” Of the eight Eastern Shore school board candidates the 1776 PAC supported, three were unopposed. The five competitive races were won by 1776 PAC candidates; the average margin of victory was about 12%. The Talbot Co. candidate Ann O’Connor wrote a piece for the Delmarva Times and the Easton Gazette denying that her candidacy had received “endorsements from Moms for Liberty or any other group.” On the other hand, on X , we read that the 1776 PAC gave “huge congratulations to Ann O’Connor . . . for being elected to the now-conservative Talbot County Board of Education!” One might wonder whether or not any group gave her an endorsement. In a late October, the Washington Post ran a long story about the significant partisan cash flowing into Maryland school board races. In theory, Maryland school board elections are nonpartisan, because state law prohibits party labels on school board ballots. On the other hand, according to the Post, the 1776 PAC “has spent a total of $75,409.58 on 13 Maryland school board candidates across Cecil, Queen Anne’s, Talbot, Calvert, Somerset and St. Mary’s counties.” That sum and the other money spent on school board candidates does not indicate the strength of passion in the candidates and their supporters. Our governments are obligated to allow, if not to support, all citizens in their exercise of their First Amendment rights. Assuming freedom of speech applies to students and teachers , the last thing public school administrations should do is wrongly to restrict material that teachers teach and students learn. But when students learn that school systems inappropriately control what is taught, they will be at best confused. On one hand, they are taught they have free speech; on the other hand, they learn that in school, they don’t. Have we just been through American history’s most important election? If these school board elections diminish our Constitutional rights, the sad answer is yes. Jim Block taught English at Northfield Mount Hermon, a boarding school in Western Mass. He coached cross-country and advised the newspaper and the debate society there. He taught at Marlborough College in England and Robert College in Istanbul. He and his wife retired to Chestertown, Md., in 2014. 
Woman in gynecologist’s office. Image: CSES design
By Jeanette E. Sherbondy November 19, 2024
Although the election of Trump as president represents an open threat to maternal health according to the statements in Project 2025, there were some wins for women’s health at the voting booths. One major win for Maryland is the election of Angela Alsobrooks to the Senate. She has stated her position explicitly . She promised to co-sponsor the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would reinstate a nationwide right to abortion care by codifying Roe v. Wade . Even more strongly, she declares she will oppose any judicial nominee who does not support abortion rights. She firmly believes Congress and the Supreme Court should respect women’s health care decisions and leave them to be made between women and their doctors. Maryland also is a winner for passing a ballot measure to add the right to abortion into the state constitution. Six other states did the same: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Montana, New York, and Nevada. The National Law Review stated, “In Colorado, Maryland, New York, and Nevada, abortion was already protected under state law, so the ballot measures did not change what employers and health insurers will need to do to comply with the law. However, the ballot measures enshrined the right to abortion in those state constitutions, so it will be harder for future lawmakers to revoke these protections in the future.” Similar ballot measures failed in three states: Florida, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Maryland’s measure states that every person “has the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one’s pregnancy. The state may not, directly or indirectly, deny, burden, or abridge the right unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.” Ironically, Amanda Marcotte in Salon noted that “In state after state, voters backed both Trump and ballot initiatives that advanced and protected progressive goals.” Fortunately, many organizations have reaffirmed their intention to continue to fight for women’s health. Moms Rising , for example, affirms its dedication to maternal health: “Focusing on equity in pregnancy, childbirth, and the period after childbirth, our organizing is built on understanding and lived experience of greater systemic issues mothers experience throughout motherhood due to race, class, and gender disparities. This work includes campaigns on maternal mortality/morbidity, as well as mass incarceration and police reform.” According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , the maternal mortality rate in the United States is 32.9 deaths per 100,000 live births. In 2021, 1,205 women died of maternal causes compared to 861 in 2020 and 754 in 2019. That does not include all deaths occurring to pregnant or recently pregnant women. According to the American Medical Association, this spike in maternal deaths is the highest since 1965. The reasons are many. Dr. Sandra Fryhofer stated that “Black women are three times likelier than White women to die from a pregnancy-related cause. Health care access problems, underlying chronic conditions, and structural racism and implicit bias all contribute to these bleak statistics. “Poor insurance coverage prior to, during, and after pregnancy; lack of interprofessional teams trained in best practices; and closure of maternity units in many rural and urban communities” are other factors that contribute to bad maternal outcomes according to the AMA. It recommends expanding access to medical and mental health care and social services for postpartum women. The Commonwealth Fund wrote, “The United States continues to have the highest rate of maternal deaths of any high-income nation, despite a decline since the covid-19 pandemic. And within the U.S., the rate is by far the highest for Black women. Most of these deaths — over 80% — are likely preventable.” In her recent book, Eve (2023), Cat Bohannon explores women’s health within the largest framework possible — the last 200 million years of human evolution. She explains that humans have relied on gynecological aid for millennia because giving birth is very risky. However, when well supported and cared for, women can give birth successfully to the future generations, that is, as long as they have special care before, during, and after birth. According to the Commonwealth Fund , “Nearly two of three maternal deaths in the U.S. occur during the postpartum period, up to 42 days following birth. Compared to women in the other countries we studied, U.S. women are the least likely to have supports such as home visits and guaranteed paid leave during this critical time. The U.S. and Canada have the lowest supply of midwives and ob-gyns.” Given that mothers shape the health and growth of new generations, a society needs to put special emphasis into promoting the health and education and social well-being of infants and children by their moms. That means supporting women. Countries that do this benefit economically on the national scale and those that don’t fall behind. Racism and misogyny embedded in cultural practices, such as giving preference to males in detriment to females, to White people instead of to Black and Brown people, have long reaching deleterious effects. Egalitarianism has always been a human tendency that improves the chances of human survival. 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.
Graphic from the Salisbury Comprehensive Plan Report, Nov 2023. Image: Salisbury website
By Jared Schablein November 19, 2024
There is an urgent issue in Salisbury requiring immediate engagement. Mayor Randy Taylor's administration is trying to hide from our community that they intend to internally and unilaterally rewrite our 10-year Comprehensive Plan, without the knowledge of the Salisbury City Council. We need to encourage Mayor Randy Taylor and the City Administration that our council and our community deserve to be a part of this vital process. Last week public comments were collected at the City Headquarters Building. Residents submitted written comments and could share a three-minute comment addressing why this plan to subvert the Comprehensive Plan approval process is concerning to them. You can still help! Share this Email . We need to show the City that our residents are ready to take action! Please consider sending an email with this form to directly express your concerns to the Mayor's Office. Jared Schablein is the chair of Shore Progress.
Native American beadwork
By Lisa Michelle King November 19, 2024
Too often, K-12 social studies classes in the U.S. teach a mostly glossed-over story of U.S. settlement. Textbooks tell the stories of adventurous European explorers founding colonies in the “New World,” and stories of the “first Thanksgiving” frequently portray happy colonists and Native Americans feasting together.
Show More
Share by: