This text is part of:
[311]
cipator and the Massachusetts Abolitionist approved of the Holley movement, whereas it at once received Mr. Garrison's condemnation.
In the name of the Massachusetts Board of Managers he composed an address to1 the anti-slavery electors of the State, setting forth his objections.
The proposed third party would, he said, not unite but divide abolitionists, for a minority at least would not go with it. But besides this weakening of their political strength, they would be invaded by a swarm of unprincipled aspirants, seeking loaves and fishes, and making flaming anti-slavery pretensions: abolition would thus soon become a marketable commodity.
The cause, consequently, would lose its reputation for disinterestedness, while the power of moral suasion would receive an implicit denial.
Moreover, the pulpit would be deterred from continuing its anti-slavery testimony, because it would then be taking part in politics, and making ‘electioneering harangues.’
As for the two leading parties, their whole weight was now held in check by the antislavery members in their ranks, but would then be precipitated on the new party.2 ‘All political minorities,’ again, ‘are more or less liberal’; and hitherto the minority in any free State, whether Whig or Democratic,
2 Quite a different view was held by John Quincy Adams. Noting in his diary, Nov. 24, 1838, an interview with Edmund Quincy on the subject of the abolitionists' tactics in interrogating candidates, he writes: ‘The moral principle of their interference to defeat elections when they cannot carry them, appears to me to be vicious; and I think the first result of their movements will be to bring the two parties together against them. As yet, their political action has only tended to break down the barriers between the parties, the natural consequence of which is to strengthen the Administration which they abhor.’ Naturally, the Whigs, who were in opposition, felt the embarrassment of being interrogated more than did the Democrats, and saw in it only a trick to play into the hands of Van Buren's adherents. Compare the letter of Nathaniel B. Borden, representative in Congress from the Tenth Mass. District, to W. L. Garrison, Dec. 6, 1838 (Ms.); and another to Francis Jackson, Jan. 3, 1840 (Ms.), in which he regarded the third-party movement as equally tributary to the Administration.
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.