CHAPTER XXXVIII.

DIVISIONS IN 1839-40.

Division in the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, in 1889, at Boston-Circumstances connected with or preceding it-Division in the Parent Society in 1840, at New York-Its attendant circumstances and results-General neutrality of abolitionists in the interior-Distinct origin (and from other causes) of the Liberty Party.

A DIVISION in the Massachusetts Anti-slavery Society took place at Boston, in May, 1839. The Liberty Party was regularly organized by a Convention at Albany, N. Y., April 1, 1840. A division in the American Anti-slavery Society, occurred in New York, in May, 1840.

The division at New York appears to have been connected, more or less, with the division at Boston.

By Mr. Garrison and his associates, the organization of the Liberty Party has been regarded as only one form of the opposition made to their State and National Societies, by those who separated from them.

The writer thinks them mistaken in the general fact, (admitting, perhaps, local exceptions) and that the Liberty Party was projected in the interior of the State of New York, by those who had not entered at all into the dissentions in Boston and New York. We must briefly notice the prominent facts.

THE DIVISION IN MASSACHUSETTS.

It was in Boston that the Liberator of William Lloyd Garrison was published-for a season as the organ of the Massachusetts Anti-slavery Society-and afterwards (when com

plaints were made of his introduction of other topics, and of the expression of sentiments obnoxious to some abolitionists) its publication was resumed in his own name, and on his own. account. Officially, or in form, the difficulty was obviated, but the prominence of Mr. Garrison, as an abolitionist, throughout the country, and his official connection with the Massachusetts Anti-slavery Society, appeared, in the minds of some, to identify his peculiar views with the anti-slavery cause, to its injury. Such persons were still annoyed with the continued appearance, in the Liberator, of the views they deemed so objectionable. They conceived that the Society was coming under their influence, and that its activities were in process of becoming mis-directed and injurious.

It was in Boston, therefore, that the first division took place.

Among the new views objected against, were the principles of "Non-Resistants," so called, who had organized a “NonResistance Society," and established a paper promulgating their views, in addition to the advocacy they received in the Liberator. The definition of "non-resistance," as gathered from the writings of its advocates, included, not merely the absence of war, of military armaments, and of "the death penalty," but, likewise, if we have rightly understood it, of all physical coercion in a way of punishment by civil government; the absence, consequently, of all that is commonly understood by the term, penal law. This view connected itself, then, and afterwards, with the peculiar theological tenets of those who had, for a long time previous, promulgated similar views of the Divine administration here or hereafter.

Political action, by voting, even for the abolition of slavery, under a civil government based on physical force, could not but be regarded as sinful by those who held, consistently, these new views. Such was indeed the fact. The inference was not merely admitted, but avowed and insisted on. For a long time, and on this ground alone, did this peculiar class of abolitionists decline and discountenance voting, before they

raised any objection to voting on the ground of the proslavery character of the Constitution of the United States-before, indeed, some of them seem to have discovered those traits of that document which have since become so palpable and manifest to them.

Here, then, was a division among the abolitionists of Massachusetts, in fact, in respect to their measures, before there was any division, in organization. What some of them regarded a most solemn Christian duty, others of them regarded a malum in se—a sin!

Another question resulting in division, appears to have been that concerning the proper position of females. The "Pastoral Letter," before mentioned, sent forth by the Association of Congregational Ministers in Massachusetts, in 1837, had strongly censured the public lectures of females. This created a re-action, and drew forth strong and startling assertions of "woman's rights." A "clerical appeal," signed by five Congregational pastors, in the ranks of the abolitionists, but on the side of the "Pastoral Letter" of 1837, increased greatly the excitement. In this "clerical appeal" there was manifested a strong sympathy for the pro-slavery portion of the clergy-a disposition to shelter them from the censures of abolitionists-and an effort to sustain them in their claims of high clerical authority. A very able reply to the "clerical appeal" was promptly issued by Rev. Amos A. Phelps, of the same religious denomination, who, afterwards, in the division, did not go with Mr. Garrison, and never embraced his peculiar views. The signers of the "clerical appeal," and those who agreed with them, would, of course, separate themselves from Mr. Garrison in the division that followed. But the case of Mr. Phelps shows that a division. from Mr. Garrison and his associates afforded no certain evidence of sympathy for the appellants, or approbation of their "appeal."

The editorial tone of the Liberator, in the mean time, was spirited and stirring. The assaults of the "Pastoral Letter" and of the "Clerical Appeal" were not merely parried, in a

way of self-defense. In such a warfare, not even "Non-Re sistants" were to be restrained from aggressive and even retaliatory movements. The body of the "orthodox clergy" with a few exceptions, were regarded by them as the aggressors, and that, too, in a bad cause. The most provoking as well as the most alarming feature of the assault was, that it had been successful in bringing to its aid a portion of the clergy tha held rank among abolitionists. "What is this clerical institution? Where is its charter? What are its claims? And what is the theology that lends it its sanction?" Questions like these must have arisen. Mr. Garrison was earnest and ardent. The distinctions between an institution and its perversion-between an office and its incumbent-between "orthodoxy" and the supposed conservators and expounders of orthodoxy, were very intelligible distinctions. Mr. Garrison may have lacked neither the discriminative powers nor the magnanimity to understand and admit them. Yet he may not have been in the best mood or position, at the moment, to perceive, to appreciate, or to inquire after them. The first impulse, if followed, would naturally be-"Is this the institution of the ministry? Then, away with it! Is this orthodoxy? Let it fall." The Liberator, about this time, abounded in sneers against the "clergy”—against "orthodoxy" and the "orthodox." It questioned or denied the obligation of observing the first day of the week, as the Sabbath. It broached speculations concerning the "law" and the "decalogue," as contrasted with "the gospel"-which, to many ears, conveyed an impression of speculative antinomianism. In all this, though connected (contrasted as some thought) with his terribly "orthodox" denunciations of the Divine wrath against oppressors and their apologists, there was much to alarm, perplex, and alienate a class of New England minds that had, until then, been warmly and affectionately drawn to him. He could not have intended to repel the "orthodox" abolitionists around him--nor to do them or their theology injustice. But his editorials seem to have had that effect. No protestations that his "anti-slavery platform was broad enough

for men of all creeds," served to satisfy them. They felt that there was a want of sympathy and confidence towards those of their creed-that to be "orthodox" was to lie under suspicion of latent pro-slaveryism.* In the mean time, those of other theological views clustered naturally around Mr. Garrison; attracted, in some cases, it may be, by his warfare with "the orthodox," as well as by his warfare with slavery. From ¿about this time, we date the change that came over the theological sentiments of Mr. Garrison, who, in 1830, is known to have been rigidly "orthodox" himself, having been educated in the sentiments of orthodox Baptists and being a warm admirer of the Puritans.t

Differences in theology, having a bearing on ethics, on politics, and on reformatory measures, and, especially, theological jealousies, mutually entertained, may therefore be reckoned, to a certain extent and degree, an element of division among the abolitionists of Massachusetts. We will not say that, in this, either party has been wholly free from blame. Yet it is evident that a theology that places the ballot-box and the yoke of slavery in the same category, could hardly be expected to shape antislavery measures for those who believed in the divine institution of civil government and the political responsibilities of the citizens.

In April, 1839, a new paper called the Massachusetts Abolitionist, and conducted by Elizur Wright, Jr., (formerly Corresponding Secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, and Editor of the Anti-Slavery Quarterly Magazine,) was commenced in Boston.

A new State Society, called the Massachusetts Abolition Society, was organized in Boston, the 27th of May, in the same year.

The new paper and the new society based the movement on their views of the importance of political action-views not

* We find Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, expressing in his paper, his regret that the Course of Mr. Garrison tended to introduce sectarian divisions among abolitionists. + Mr. Garrison is not, and never has been a Quaker, as many, at a distance, have supposed.