great pending question seemed to be, which of the two National Societies should superintend the activities and absorb the contributions of American abolitionists, the great majority of them, in the interior, found themselves in a convenient position to withdraw from the control and from the support of either. Within a year from the division in New-York, most of the State Anti-Slavery Societies out of New England, declined sustaining the position of auxiliaries to either of the National Societies, a measure which, it was believed, would greatly tend to discountenance divisions. In the States of New-York and Ohio, however, (perhaps in other States,) the friends of Mr. Garrison succeeded in forming State Societies, sometime afterwards.

it

The neutrality we have described may have been wise or may have been unwise. It was assumed at a time when the controversy was little understood in the interior, and when the changes in progress had been but imperfectly developed.

The fact of so extensive a neutrality respecting the "New" and the "Old organizations" belongs to the record, and throws light on the true origin of the Liberty Party; which could have had no important or general connection with this controversy, as has been represented and supposed, on both sides of the Atlantic.* It is claimed that the large class of abolitionists who wished to escape that contention, have not been, as a class, behind others, in their uncompromising fidelity to the enslaved.

* We mean to say that the Liberty party, which originated in Western New York, did not arise from a wish to oppose the "old organization" or Mr. Garrison-nor from a wish to support the "new organization." Some individuals in Massachusetts, who had encountered Mr. Garrison's theory of non-voting, may have been the more ready to fall in with an organized party. A letter of E. Wright, Jr., published in the Liberator, shows this. It is equally possible that Mr. Garrison's antipathy to voting, and his desire to have other abolitionists come into his views of voting, might have made him adverse to the organization of such a party, though he may not have been distinctly conscious of such a motive himself. We have never doubted that if Mr. Garrison had not become a "Non-Resistant," he would have been an early and zealous leader of the Liberty party.

CHAPTER XXXIX.

ORGANIZED POLITICAL ACTION-LIBERTY PARTY-LIBERTY LEAGUE-FREE SOIL PARTY.

Necessity of distinct organization-Early anticipations of this-Garrison, Follen, Stewart-Convention at Albany, July, 1839-Nominations in Monroe Co., N. Y.Myron Holley-Rochester "Freeman"-Convention at Arcade-Liberty Party organized at Albany, April 1, 1840, and James G. Birney nominated for President -Second Nomination, in 1844-Number of votes-Course of other voting abolitionists-What was accomplished?-Occasions of instability-Tendencies to re-ab-‐ sorption-Different views of its true policy-Nomination of Gerrit Smith by the Liberty League," and why?-Position taken by the "League"-Unconstitutionality of Slavery-Other features-Nomination (by the Liberty Party) of John P. Hale Rise of the Free Soil Party-Nomination of Mr. Van Buren-Buffalo Platform-Position of Mr. Van Buren-Various views of that movement and of its results-Hints for the future-Remnant of the Liberty Party.

THE Liberty party arose from the fact, that, after a protracted experiment, the candidates of the old parties could not, to any extent, if at all,-however "questioned" and "pledged "be depended upon, to do the work which abolitionists demanded of them. When they really intended to do it, their party associates would not suffer them. It would be easy to prove this, if we had room for the details.

Another fact, lying behind this, must not, as we value the impartiality of history, be withheld. Abolitionists themselves, connected with the political parties, and who "questioned the candidates," could not generally be weaned from an undue bias in favor of their political leaders. They too readily persuaded themselves that the candidate of their own party, though but slightly or ambiguously pledged, or even if not pledged at all, would probably do more for the slave, if elected, than the candidate of the opposite party, whatever his

anti-slavery reputation or his pledges might be. This delusion and its effects began, at length, to afford candidates an excuse for not answering the questions of abolitionists. They said, "It will be of no use, for abolitionists will generally vote for the candidates of their respective parties." The statement was exaggerated. But on many occasions and in many localities, there was enough of truth in it, to render the "questioning of the candidates" a farce.

It was hoped that by the organization of a distinct political party, this delusion might be dispelled, and abolitionists be led to honor their principles at the polls. Though a minority, they could exhibit a correct example, and thus preserve their integrity, and increase their moral power.

Mr. Garrison had advocated, sometime previous, the forming of a distinct political party, though he was not now in favor of it. His recommendation is, indeed, the earliest that we find on record. In his Liberator, in 1834, he advocated "a Christian party in politics"—with particular reference to the slave question.

Prof. Charles Follen, sometime after, suggested the utility of a new political party of democratic progress, of which one prominent object should be the abolition of slavery. This, if we rightly remember, was as early as 1836.

Alvan Stewart strongly urged upon the Executive Committee of the New York State Anti-Slavery Society, in February, 1839, the organization of a distinct party. The Committee were not then prepared for the measure, but some of them saw, clearly, and had long seen, the necessity of strenu ous efforts to counteract the partisan tendencies of abolitionists, by inculcating the highest principles of political morality. At the annual meeting of the Society, at Utica, Sept. 1921, 1838, a series of Resolutions, twenty-two in number, had been presented, discussed, and adopted, setting forth the principles of political action, and solemnly pledging those who adopted them to vote for no candidates who were not fully pledged to anti-slavery measures.* * Though not designed,

These resolutions, which had been nrenared hu We Dondell

at that time, to favor distinct anti-slavery nominations, nor expected to introduce them, these resolutions recognized a moral principle, in voting, which, it was afterwards found, could not be acted upon, in the existing state of the country, without a new political party. Both parties, then and afterwards, were completely under the control of their slaveholding members.

A National Anti-Slavery Convention was held at Albany, commencing July 31, 1839. It was called by a Committee appointed for the purpose at the annual meeting of the Ame rican Anti-Slavery Society, the May previous. Its object, as specified in the call, was "to discuss the principles of the anti-slavery enterprise" and "the measures suited to its accomplishment in the United States, especially those which relate to the proper exercise of the right of suffrage by citi zens of the free states." The mode of political action against slavery, including the question of a distinct party, was fully discussed, but without coming to any definite decision by vote, farther than to refer the question of independent nominations to the judgment of abolitionists in their different localities.

This suggestion was improved to sanction some local nominations in the State of New-York, which, with the discussions of the Convention, prepared the way for further progress.

The Monroe County Convention for Nominations at Rochester, N. Y., September 28, 1839, adopted a series of Resolutions and an Address prepared by the late Myron Holly, which have been regarded as laying the corner stone of the Liberty Party. In his "Rochester Freeman," commenced in June previous, Mr. Holley successfully advocated the policy of independent political action, and came to be recognized as -more than any other one person-the founder of the Liberty Party.

A New-York State Anti-Slavery Convention was held at

a business committee of which the late Myron Holley was Chairman. They were eloquently advocated in the Convention by Gerrit Smith, and extensively circulated in anti-slavery papers.

Arcade, (then) Genesee County, January 28th and 29th, 1840, attended by Myron Holley and Gerrit Smith; Reuben Sleeper, of Livingston County, presiding. This Convention issued a Call for a National Convention to be held at Albany, April 1, 1840, "to discuss the question of an independent nomination of abolition candidates for the two highest offices in our National Government, and, if thought expedient, to make such nomination, for the friends of freedom to support, at the next election."

The National Convention at Albany was accordingly held, at the time appointed, Alvan Stewart presiding. After a full discussion, the Liberty party was organized, and James G. Birney and Thomas Earle were nominated for President and Vice-President of the United States. The traveling, at that season of the year, was exceedingly bad, but delegates were in attendance from six States.

The entire vote of the Liberty party at the Presidential Election, in the autumn of 1840, amounted to a little less than 7000. In 1844, the Liberty candidates, James G. Birney and Thomas Morris, received upwards of 60,000 votes. These were but a small part of the professed abolitionists of the United States. A few hundreds, perhaps, abstained from voting, from conscientious scruples, and other considerations. But the great majority of those who did not vote for the Liberty candidates, unquestionably voted for the nominees. of the old parties, Harrison, Van Buren, Polk, and Clay, the two latter being slaveholders, and the two former openly opposed to the measures and objects of abolitionists.

Politicians accustomed to identify "success" with the eleo tion of their candidates may ask: What was effected by the organization of the Liberty party? Let the question be answered by asking another: What would have been the condition of the anti-slavery cause now, if all the voting abolitionists of the country had continued to vote (as all except "Liberty" men did) for the candidates of the old political parties? If any intelligent and candid politician will say, on reflection, that it would have stood on as high a ground as it