This text is part of:
[310]
So the convention dispersed, a satisfaction to nobody, yet on the whole serving the purposes of Stanton and Holley.
Its permanent outcome was an address on the1 ‘Slave Power’ entrenched in the Constitution.
‘The question of its [slavery's] abolition,’ the American public was admonished, ‘is the greatest political question now before the people for decision,’ and resistance to slavery ‘the highest political duty now resting upon every freeman.’
This doctrine was at least as old as 1830.
But in the declaration that the only force which can reach the citadel is the ballot-box, and that the ballot-box is the only peaceful mode of securing abolition,2 we recognize a new departure, which led directly up to the election of Abraham Lincoln—and to civil war.
Nevertheless, the desideratum for a third party,— actual nominations,—was wanting.
A special meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society had been appointed for October 23 at Cleveland, Ohio, and was3 urged in advance by Myron Holley and thirteen of his Rochester townsmen to name an anti-slavery Presidential ticket.
Despite the explicit resolutions of the American Society in 1837 and 1838, and Elizur Wright's4 official report in accordance with them,5 both the Eman-
2 Alvan Stewart wrote to the Emancipator in January, 1840: ‘An independent abolition political party is the only hope for the redemption of the slave’ (Mass. Abolitionist, 2.1). And this sentiment of Abraham L. Pennock's, of Pennsylvania, ‘What an absurdity is moral action apart from political,’ was expressly endorsed as his own by Whittier in February, 1841 ([Mass. Abol.] Free American, 3.13).
3 Life of Myron Holley, p. 252; Lib. 9.163.
5 ‘It is quite true that up to and in the last Annual Report of the American A. S. Society which I wrote, I opposed the formation of a distinct anti-slavery party. But directly after that report was written, I listened to arguments—particularly by Alvan Stewart—which convinced me I was wrong. I corresponded with Garrison, hoping that the same arguments might convince him. My friendship was never broken by the fact that he was not convinced. And that my friendship was genuine, I can appeal to the fact that when he and Knapp were in danger of being sold out by the sheriff for debt, I begged money in New York to save them’ (Ms. April 15, 1881, Elizur Wright to Oliver Johnson). See, for the sudden change that came over the trio (presumably in consequence of Alvan Stewart's persuasiveness), a circular distributed and signed by Birney, Wright, and Stanton in July, 1838, arguing in favor of catechising candidates as preferable to a third party, as to which—‘We hope our friends. . . . will discountenance any such attempt’ (Lib. 9: 183).
The Century Company. , 1885-1889.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.