The Boston Way: Radicals Against Slavery and the Civil War

by Mark Kurlansky

An untold story of the Civil War pacifists in Boston who led the fight to end slavery without war.



Has there ever been good violence or a good war? The American Civil War is likely considered to be so since there seemed to be no alternative. Or was there? Before the war, Bostonian abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison correctly predicted that fighting would not bring about real freedom and justice. If emancipation came about through violence, he believed, it would take at least a century for Black people to get their rights. As we now know, it has taken even longer than that.



Here is the story of Garrison and other abolitionists, Black and white, male and female, who advocated a peaceful end to slavery and the start of human rights for Black people. The Boston Clique, as they were called, were victorious in persuading their fellow Bostonians to end Jim Crow laws on Massachusetts’ railroads. Persuasion was, these pacificists believed, the only means to lasting change.



In these pages, we find Frederick Douglass and lesser-known Black abolitionists, William Nell and Charles Remond. We meet leading feminists of the nineteenth century Lydia Maria Child, Margaret Fuller, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Additional key figures include Adin Balou, William Ladd, and Noah Worcester whose voices for nonviolence impacted Leo Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King.



Still, if it meant a faster end to the horrors of slavery, wasn’t violence the answer? In time, pacificist abolitionists such as Douglass and John Brown came to believe the entire system in the South needed to be overthrown and that could only happen through the shedding of blood. Time may now provide a different perspective.



While history has little memory of abolitionists, and even less for pacifists, nothing can be learned from that which is not remembered. What if the Civil War had never have been fought? Might we now live in a world of far greater justice and peace? What does this mean today as we still pursue “righteous” violence? This is the story of a road not taken.

Genres: History, Audiobook, Nonfiction, American History, War, Politics, Civil War

240 pages, Hardcover

Published October 7, 2025

About the author

Mark Kurlansky is an American journalist and author who has written a number of books of fiction and nonfiction. His 1997 book, Cod: A Biography of the Fish That Changed the World (1997), was an international bestseller and was translated into more than fifteen languages. His book Nonviolence: Twenty-five Lessons From the History of a Dangerous Idea (2006) was the nonfiction winner of the 2007 Dayton Literary Peace Prize.

Reviews

[David Hawk · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid 4.5

Was a little slow at 1st but definitely not low enough for a 4.
This was a great look into parts of our nation's history that I had not been fully aware of. It was engaging and covered a wide range of ideas, people, and events that happened coincidentally. I was aware of the abolitionist movement in theory, but the detail of certain people figures and the role they played I found interesting. Some of the nonviolent, nonresistant ideals and strategies used over a hundred years before, helped shape civil rights movements of the 1960s and now. I checked my copy out at the library, but is definitely worth getting my own copy as well.

[Sarah Jensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Book Review: The Boston Way: Radicals Against Slavery and the Civil War by Mark Kurlansky

Mark Kurlansky’s The Boston Way offers a meticulously researched and compelling narrative of Boston’s abolitionist movement, focusing on its radical yet nonviolent resistance to slavery in the decades leading up to the Civil War. Known for his ability to weave historical detail into engaging prose, Kurlansky delivers a work that is both scholarly and accessible, shedding light on a lesser-explored dimension of 19th-century activism. The book stands out for its nuanced portrayal of ideological tensions within the abolitionist movement, particularly the moral and strategic debates over pacifism versus armed rebellion.

Key Strengths and Contributions
-Historical Depth and Originality: Kurlansky unearths the stories of Boston’s abolitionist leaders—many marginalized in mainstream histories—highlighting their commitment to nonviolent protest despite escalating national violence. His focus on local activism provides a fresh lens on the broader antislavery struggle.
-Ideological Clarity: The book adeptly contrasts Boston’s pacifist radicals with militant abolitionists like John Brown, exploring how their divergent tactics reflected deeper philosophical divides about morality and political change.
-Narrative Power: Kurlansky’s signature storytelling elevates the text beyond academic analysis, with vivid portraits of key figures and dramatic moments (e.g., the Fugitive Slave Act resistance) that underscore the movement’s urgency.

Critiques and Limitations
-Geographic Narrowness: While Boston’s centrality to abolitionism justifies the focus, a comparative analysis of other Northern cities might have enriched the study’s broader implications.
-Structural Pacing: The middle sections occasionally lose momentum in detailed biographical sketches, diluting the thematic flow.
-Post-War Absence: The abrupt conclusion sidesteps the legacy of these radicals in Reconstruction, a missed opportunity to connect their ideals to later civil rights movements.

Thematic and Analytical Insights
Kurlansky’s core argument—that Boston’s radicals pioneered a uniquely moral and tactical approach to abolitionism—challenges simplistic narratives of the Civil War’s inevitability. His exploration of nonviolence as a strategic tool (rather than mere idealism) resonates with contemporary social movement studies, though deeper engagement with Black abolitionists’ perspectives could have further nuanced the analysis.

Overall Rating: 4.2/5

Section Scoring Breakdown
-Research Rigor: 4.5/5 — Archival richness and primary-source integration are exemplary, though broader contextualization is occasionally lacking.
-Theoretical Contribution: 4.0/5 — Offers fresh insights into abolitionist pacifism but stops short of redefining broader historiographical debates.
-Narrative Engagement: 4.3/5 — Masterful storytelling, albeit with intermittent lapses in pacing.
-Historical Relevance: 4.5/5 — A vital corrective to top-down Civil War narratives, emphasizing grassroots moral resistance.
-Structural Balance: 4.0/5 — Strong thematic cohesion, but the final chapters feel truncated.

Thank you to NetGalley and author Mark Kurlansky for providing an advance copy of this illuminating historical work in exchange for an honest review.

[Giana · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thank you to Netgalley and the author for providing a free eARC in exchange for an honest review.

Honestly, I really loved this book. It wasn't until I picked it up that I realized I had another book by this author on my TBR for AGES (Salt) and now I'm going to pick it up asap.

This was a history of abolition in Boston, but more accurately, I'd say it's a history of revolution in Boston leading up to the civil war. Kurlansky dedicates large portions of chapters to women's rights and other forms of disobedience, which provides a richer look into the culture of Boston, but I did forget I was reading about abolition at times. However Kurlansky's writing is engaging and paints a really vivid portrait of each of the people he talks about. He highlights all the differences of opinion even within the same movements and I learned a ton.

If I could make one complaint, it would be that I almost felt suffocated by the limitation to Boston at times. It was definitely a very interesting focal point to choose as I feel like a lot of anti-slavery narratives look to the South, and Kurlansky did look outside of Boston a bit to fill in some details, but for the most part we were stuck in Boston as if this was the only place in the world where these debates and conversations were happening. Even if we didn't focus on other countries, other northern cities, or the South in any large capacity, it would've been nice to check in a bit more to see how this Bostonian subculture was interacting with the larger world.

To clarify, I am not a historian, but nothing seemed incorrect or misleading from my limited knowledge, and this book seemed well researched. My rating mostly takes into account my own personal enjoyment as well as how much I felt I learned reading this (which was a lot)

[Michael Reilly · Rating 5 out of 5]

In 1831 William Lloyd Garrison began publishing "The Liberator", a weekly antislavery newspaper in Boston. In his first edition he came out in favor of the immediate emancipation of all slaves. He famously declaimed, "I am in earnest-I will not equivocate-I will not excuse-I will not retreat a single inch-and I will be heard." He continued to deliver that weekly message in "The Liberator" for the next 34 years.

Garrison was in the middle of a group of Boston intellectuals and activist who united in the thirty years before the Civil War in the fight for abolition of slavery. Mark Kurlansky has written a portrait of the complicated and contentious group of Boston abolitionists. They became known as "The Boston Clique".

Most of them agreed on basic premises. The Abolitionist mostly opposed the proposals to deport the slaves back to Africa, or some other location. They argued that the slaves were Americans with a right to stay in America. They opposed gradual emancipation. There were many proposals to end slavery gradually over fifty or even a hundred years. The Abolitionist argued that slavery was morally wrong and therefore must be ended immediately.

There were many issues that divided the abolitionist. The biggest was nonresistance. Garrison was morally opposed to using violence for political purposes. He opposed using force to free slaves or to take them away from slave capturers. He did not believe that Abolitionists attacked by crowds should use violence to defend themselves. He was an inspiration to Thoreau, Gandhi, Tolstoy, Martin Luther King and most pacifists since then.

Many abolitionists rejected nonviolence. They believed that slavery was a horrendous wrong and it was ethical to use force to stop it. John Brown was the most extreme example of this position. Garrison was adamantly opposed to his plans, but many prominent and wealthy Boston abolitionist funded his attack on Harpers Ferry. (They were successful in avoiding the consequences.)

Part of Garrison's theory of nonresistance was a refusal to get involved with politics. Running for office was seeking the power to compel people. True non-resistors should have no involvement with state power. This was a controversial position in the movement. By the period leading up to the Civil War many if not most abolitionist were actively involved in trying to use political power to limit and, ultimately, abolish slavery. Garrison lost supporters as he stuck to his strict position.

Kurlansky shows how the Boston group began to explore other issues. Many of the abolitionist were woman and were also early feminist. Frederick Douglas argued that "all great reforms go together." The issue divided the movement. Some argued that they should do nothing to distract from the battle against slavery. Some abolitionists did not believe in equal rights for woman.

The Abolitionist were also heavily involved in the setting up of utopian villages like Brook Farm in West Roxbury. There was also an overlap between the new spiritualist movement and the abolitionists.

Kurlansky shows how the southern defenders of slavery and their northern supporters argued that the abolitionists were just "Kooky Boston". There was no need, they argued, to listen to these impractical kooks. (Similar to using "woke" as an excuse to not consider someone's opinions)

Kurlansky does a first-rate job of introducing the fascinating group of people in this story. He shows the importance of woman in the movement and Garrison's commitment to work with, listen to and involve freed blacks in the abolitionist movement.

This a clear and crisp telling of an important group of Bostonians and a vitally important movement. It has significant echoes to our current problems.

[Liam Sullivan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short historical work gives an overview of the abolitionist movement in Boston from the 1830s to the 1860s.  The scene is dominated by William Lloyd Garrison and his followers who fervently demand the immediate emancipation of enslaved Black Americans, but also insist upon pacifism.  Garrison not only opposed violence but insisted on not participating in electoral politics because of the inherent evil of the Constitution which permitted slavery.

While the history accounts for familiar names such as Frederick Douglass (an early ally of Garrison but they later had a falling out over tactics), Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and John Greenleaf Whittier, as well as the less well-known William Ingersoll Bowditch, Charles Lenox Remond, and William Cooper Nell .  But Kurlansky makes an excellent choice in centering Lydia Maria Child in the narrative.  Maria Child became one of the most famous women in America publishing novels and cookbooks and authoring the Thanksgiving carol "Over the River and Through the Wood."    But she was also an activist concerned with abolition, women's rights, and Native American rights.  In 1833, she published An Appeal in Favor of that Class of Americans Called Africans, a radical and farsighted antislavery work that is also the first publication to refer to Black people as "Americans."

The caning of Charles Sumner and the Bleeding Kansas crises challenged the pacifism of Boston abolitionists.  Maria Child and others in the Boston Clique came to admire the determination of John Brown, if not his methods.  The outbreak of the Civil War challenged the pacifist idealists who found themselves in opposition to a war to end slavery.  While the pacifists failed to stop the war (and some ended up fighting in it or supporting family members in uniform), Kurlansky's conclusion makes the case for how they influenced the traditions of American nonviolent movements.

[Kevin Murray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Who knew that there was a Boston Clique at the center of the great social movement in opposition to the scourge of slavery in this country, and that the Clique was steadfast in its resistance to violent solutions to the problem? Mark Kurlansky rescues us from that particular ignorance with this, his 40th book, focused on this inspiring, if quixotic, group of shameless radicals.

William Lloyd Garrison, founder and editor of "The Liberator" is certainly the star of the show, and his powerhouse relationship with the indominable Frederick Douglass drives the movement until Douglass gets some distance from Garrison by going overseas and returns unwilling to resume the role of talented protégé. But the story extends well beyond this relationship, and Kurlansky brings the entire cast to life in this fast-moving volume.

The author seems to share the view of the Boston Clique that a violent emancipation of the enslaved would never successfully overcome the racist attitudes that formed the foundations of that peculiar institution. He, therefore, judges the great movement for abolition a failure in its inability to forestall the war foretold by the flow of blood in Kansas and the "insane" attack on Harpers Ferry by John Brown and co-conspirators. Despite Kurlanshy's own preferences, he allows us to see the near inevitability of this terrible war as even most abolitionists make heroes of those who resist slavery with righteous violence. Our friend, Parker, was a member of the "secret six" providing critical resources for the Harper's Ferry incursion.

Since Kurlansky is not a professional historian, members of that guild will surely find shortcomings in his telling of the story, but I find the book to be an accessible telling of a story that takes on renewed relevance in the context of the current elevation of White supremacy to the level of national policy.

[Nann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slavery was a problem in the new United States from its foundation. In the second quarter of the 19th century the abolition movement gained traction and notoriety because of a group of radical Bostonians. These men and women advocated nonviolent resistance, confident that "moral suasion" and persistence would succeed. The abolitionists included the very well-known -- Frederick Douglass, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, John Brown; the not-as-well-known -- William Lloyd Garrison, Lydia Maria Child, Abby Kelley Foster, Margaret Fuller, Maria Weston Chapman, Gerrit Smith.

The annexation of Texas, the Mexican War, the Fugitive Slave Act, and the Kansas border war all tested the concept of pure nonviolent resistance. Some abolitionists refused to vote as nonviolent resistance to government policies, but that contradicted the concept of women's suffrage (Seneca Falls, 1848). Thus the movement fractured. The Civil War was fought not only to abolish slavery but also to preserve the Union.

"Though [the movement] failed in the short term, their influence had a long reach," Kurlansky concludes. "The strategies of the twentieth century Civil Rights movement -- nonviolence, marches, boycotts, freedom songs, restaurant sit-ins, freedom rides -- were established a century earlier by the Boston Clique." (p. 236)

He adds, "Nothing can be learned from that which is not remembered." Thanks to this concise history we can remember and we can learn.

I'd give this five stars but the book could use tighter editing and many, many fewer commas.

[Bluemoonchild · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers a compelling and necessary reexamination of a lesser-known group of abolitionists—those who sought to end slavery not through war, but through peace and moral persuasion. Centered around figures like William Lloyd Garrison and the so-called Boston Clique, it challenges the conventional narrative that violence was the only viable path to emancipation during the Civil War era.

What stood out most to me was the way the book elevated the voices of both prominent and often-overlooked abolitionists—Black and white, male and female—who were committed to pacifism as a means of social transformation. The author does an excellent job weaving together a variety of historical figures, while not shying away from the philosophical and moral tensions within the movement itself. The narrative prompts readers to ask difficult but vital questions about the ethics of violence, historical memory, and what justice might look like when pursued through peace.

That said, I gave this book four stars instead of five because, while it offers a deeply thoughtful analysis, I occasionally wished for more narrative momentum. The structure leans heavily on biographical and ideological overviews, which sometimes makes it feel like a history textbook. Still, this is an illuminating, timely, and well-researched account of a path in American history too often ignored. For readers interested in Civil War history, abolitionism, or the philosophical roots of nonviolence, it’s a highly worthwhile read. It challenges us to consider not just what happened in history, but what could have been—and how those possibilities still matter today.

[I received an advanced copy of this book. All reviews and ratings are my own.]

[Donna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was the Civil War inevitable? Did it have to come to violence?

Many abolitionists didn't think so. They believed that enslavement could be ended without bloodshed. Some, like William Lloyd Garrison, practiced nonviolent resistance.

But enslavers and their enablers were too dependent on the economic system that enriched certain groups of white people at the expense of others, and many whites were too dependent on the racism embedded in society, institutions, etc.

This book taught me about various abolitionists whom I didn't know much about. It made me consider whether there could have been another way to abolish slavery. I don't know that anything but violence would have worked, as enslavers and others were too addicted to and dependent upon human trafficking and its inherent violence, hierarchy, etc. I doubt they would have voluntarily stopped the violence they constantly enacted upon others.

At times I felt as though the author was shying away from explicitly naming how evil enslavement was. He also made no mention of the Indigenous people enslaved by whites.

The author used the word "extinct" for a tribal nation, which is rather dehumanizing when it refers to people.

Thank you to the publisher and NetGalley for an ARC

[Kathleen Pappas · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a small but powerful book about the unique contribution of Boston abolitionists known as the Boston Clique. The group was a combination of pacifists/non-resistants Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison (The Liberator); lesser known Black abolitionists Adin Ballou, Charles Remond, William Nell, and the very well known Frederick Douglass (The North Star); and the violent activism of John Brown. The movement evolved to include prominent members of philosophy, letters, and social justice causes (Native Americans). Influential voices were authors Lydia Maria Child, Julia Ward Howe, Bronson Alcott, and John Greenleaf Whittier; women's suffrage leaders Margaret Fuller, Susan B. Anthony, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, along with Transcendentalists Emerson and Thoreau whose essay "Civil Obedience" was read by Gandhi, and Martin Luther King. Leo Tolstoy embraced the Christian nonviolence expressed in Garrison's publications while modern civil rights leaders (Bayard Rustin and James Farmer) adopted the strategies (boycotts, marches, sit-ins) of the Boston Clique whose legacy was far reaching. I recommend this book for lovers of history and to those who may choose to become one.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was so surprised how much I enjoyed, and learned, reading this book. It was easy to read these profiles of leading voices in the abolitionist movement, and their journeys, literal and in school of thought. From staunch nonresistance, including not participation in politics or not voting, to those who wanted to make change from within the government. Perspectives evolve as tensions rise. Whites and blacks, men and women, all discussing and debating on how to eliminate slavery in America. I especially appreciated learning about the women, lesser known figures, who played key roles in the “Boston Clique”, like Lydia Marie Child and Margaret Fuller. So many abolitionists are more well known for later efforts to secure the vote for blacks and woman’s suffrage. And the roots of this nonviolent movement, that influenced the fight for civil rights and Ghandi, weren’t only influenced by Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience.

[Carlo Corti · Rating 3 out of 5]

I love the idea of this book and the stories contained within it, I just don't think it was super interesting or that it required a book-length level of exposure. While the Boston Clique of Garrison, Douglass, Emerson, Thoreau, Child, Alcott and others were undoubtedly at the forefront of abolitionism, their own inconsistencies and privileges made it hard to find the message that can be carried on today. I love that they inspired MLK and Gandhi, and the idea that you can never be violent in responding to violence has a nice ideological purity to it, but it is really hard to appreciate that and simultaneously make the jump that if there weren't a Civil War, maybe equality for all would have happened sooner? That a big leap for me cognitively, but I appreciate Kurlansky laying out the argument.

[Chuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Early 20th century America. Slavery. Abolitionists. Suffragists. Too much political power held by southern states who were Hooked on slavery. Bostonians & other Northerners - Abolitionists ( the liberals of their day) were People who were role models for 20th-21st century nonviolent leaders like MLK.
The abolitionists could not peacefully persuade Southerners to give up chattel slavery.
This was a somewhat different civil divide than today, but it became irreconcilable. Kind of a classic divide of libs & red necks.
Civil War. 1.5 million casualties 1/3 were deaths. Total population of the USA was 31 million.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

In examining non-violent efforts to abolish slavery in the mid-19th century, Kurlansky introduces us to a fascinating group of characters, any one of whom would be worth an entire book. These "radicals" fervently believed that slavery had to be ended in order for America to become what its founding documents claimed it wanted to be. They were stymied time and again, and finally some of them threw in the towel and accepted the violence of the Civil War as a way to end slavery. It's a story not often told, as Kurlansky points out. His book sometimes seems short on detail, but he does cover a lot of ground.

[marcia · Rating 5 out of 5]

the story of Garrison and other abolitionists, Black and white, male and female, who advocated a peaceful end to slavery and the start of human rights for Black people. The Boston Clique, as they were called, were victorious in persuading their fellow Bostonians to end Jim Crow laws on Massachusetts’ railroads.

A short concise story of peaceful change to end end slavery but also talking about women's rights.

always praise for Mark Kulansky and his informative readable books.

[Rod · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thoroughly enjoyed this perspective regarding history that I kinda sorta thought I knew. Bringing the details of disagreements and evolving opinions swirling within the abolitionist movement to light leads me to consider not only what might have been but what could be if we don't always fall back on war and violence as a definitive resolution. It isn't. Look at where we are.

[Roger Smitter · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Boston Way -- Radicals Against Slavery & the Civil War is a book that might be small for one happened in the books. This is a different way to go through this book. There are different ideas and themes. Lots of themes………..

[Peggy Page · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting and important story marred by clunky, sloppy writing and frequent jarring anachronisms (such as the use of the words sexist and sexism, which did not exist in this time period, or writing that Garrison had “fans”). Distracting and annoying.

[Annie · Rating 4 out of 5]

So interesting!