Chapter 6: the schism.—1840.The nomination of Birney and Earle is finally effected in a pseudo-national A. S. Convention at Albany. The New York State A. S. Society becomes disorganized, and the Executive Committee of the American Society call in its agents, dispose of its organ, and shut up the office in New York City. At the annual meeting in May, Garrison and his New England supporters outnumber the partisans of the Executive Committee, and recover control of the Parent Society. A secession ensues, upon the issue of equal female membership, and the American and Foreign A. S. Society is formed, under the lead of the Tappans. Garrison is appointed one of the American Society's delegates to the World's A. S. Convention in London, and sails in May.
The sectarian reaction against the moral leadership of Mr. Garrison, as an abolitionist, culminated in the year upon which we now enter. So far as it took the phase of a Third Party movement, it was aided by the unparalleled excitement of the Presidential campaign which ended in the election of General Harrison. Under the guise of ‘New Organization’ (whose clerical origin must ever be kept in view) it fell in with the proslavery mastery of the leading denominations, notably the Methodist and the Presbyterian. Hence, the resolutions in which the great majority of the abolitionists expressed their sentiments during 1840, were directed against the formation of a political anti-slavery party; against giving support at the polls to either Harrison or Van Buren (on the ground of their notorious subserviency to slavery); against the exclusive and oligarchical spirit of the seceders from the old organization; and against churches either silent towards or in active fellowship with slaveholders. The common action and identity of interest between New Organization and Third Party have already appeared in this narrative, and will be more and more conspicuous as we proceed. Mr. Garrison's opposition to the latter will be understood only by bearing in mind the facts: (1) that Holley, Stewart, Birney and Gerrit Smith proposed to convert the existing anti-slavery (immediate-emancipation) organization into a political  machine—in other words, to substitute one mode of action for another; (2) that they expected to do this without subtracting from the existing constitutions of the national and subsidiary societies—in other words, without lowering the standard of anti-slavery aims and demands. Holding firmly to this clew, the reader will not be misled into thinking the case the same as if a body of men, not members of any abolition society, nor ready to become such because not satisfied with purely religious modes of agitation and achievement, but accustomed to vote with either the Whig or the Democratic party, had decided to form a new party having slavery for its main issue. Such an organization would have been judged by Mr. Garrison according to its performances, but would never have been regarded otherwise than as an encouraging sign of the times. The abundant private correspondence of this year will enable us to present the story largely in the words of the chief actors. Let us begin with an extract from a letter of Mr. Garrison's to G. W. Benson, dated Boston, January 4, 1840:
How sorry I am to say that it will be utterly out of my1 power to be with you at Hartford on the 8th inst. But what I cannot do, I cannot. I know how great will be the disappointment of the Connecticut friends—your own—and all the household at Brooklyn. And, what is worse, Quincy tells me2 that he will not be able to go. He made the attempt before3 —got half-way, or part way—was forced to stay in the cars all night, and then return home, in consequence of the storm. The annual meeting of our State Society takes place on the 22d. With a thousand other things I have to do between that brief space and this, I have the Annual Report to write, reviewing the events of the past year—which must, of necessity, be a very long and elaborate document. 0, I groan to think of it! Not a syllable of it is yet prepared—nor can I get one hour to devote to it; and yet it must be all written  before the meeting. Dear George, you see how I am situated: therefore, apologize for my absence to the friends at Hartford. If I can possibly get time, I mean to write a letter to Cowles,4 to be read at the meeting—but it is doubtful whether I shall succeed. I will do the best I can, and who can do more? Do not fail to be at the meeting yourself, and save Connecticut abolitionism from the political gulf which yawns to devour. And by all means be at our annual meeting on the 22d, if possible: we shall need your presence on many accounts.Somehow Mr. Garrison contrived to write his report in time to be partly read, and to be cordially received.5 It embodied a letter of the Massachusetts Board, dated6 December 6, 1839, declining to come to the aid of the New York Executive Committee in its financial strait. The Society endorsed this refusal, and further declined to accept the Massachusetts apportionment made at the futile meeting of January 15, 1840, towards covering the7 Committee's liabilities. If the resolutions on the death of Lundy and the8 awful destruction of Dr. Charles Follen9 gave a peculiar solemnity to the occasion, those which welcomed back the penitent author of the following letter (it was Mr. Garrison himself who reported them) inspired a cheerful thanksgiving. Its recipient had read it ‘with a10 thrill of sacred joy’:
The resolutions on the church to which the Massachusetts Society gave its assent at its annual meeting, were from Mr. Garrison's hand. They contained no doctrine that was not published by him at the very inception of his anti-slavery labors; but they may be quoted as a type of formal anti-slavery utterance on this subject during the year—and as a progressive example of the grounds of clerical hostility to their author:
Resolved, That no man who apologizes for slavery, or12 refuses to bear an open and faithful pulpit testimony against it, or who neglects to exert his moral and official influence in favor of the cause of human freedom and of the rights of his enslaved fellow-men, can have the least claim to be regarded as a minister of Him who came to preach deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; and that for abolitionists to recognize such men as ministers of Christ, or to aid in supporting them as such, is as inconsistent with their principles, and must be as displeasing to God, as it would be for them to support in that capacity a slaveholder, or an open defender of slavery. Resolved, That no association of men can have any just claim to be considered a Church of Jesus Christ which withholds its sympathy and aid from the oppressed, or which either refuses or neglects to bear its testimony against the awful sin of slavery; and that abolitionists are bound by the holy principles they profess, and by their regard for the rights of their enslaved and imbruted fellow-men, to withhold their support from such associations, and to endeavor to bring the members of them to repentance for the sin of stopping their ears at the cry of the poor. At Lynn, on March 10 and 11. 1840, before a large and13 enthusiastic assembly gathered in quarterly meeting of the Essex County Anti-Slavery Society, Mr. Garrison shaped kindred resolutions more pointedly, affirming ‘that the indifference or open hostility to anti-slavery principles and measures of most of the so-called religious sects, and a great majority of the clergy of the country, constitutes the main Obstruction to the progress of our cause.’ And for the special reproof of the Quaker community of which Lynn was the seat, he14 offered, with the necessary exceptions in favor of individuals, the following:
Resolved, That the Society of friends,—by shutting its15 meeting-houses against the advocates of the slave, and by its unchristian attempts to restrain the freedom of such of its members as are abolitionists—has forfeited all claims to be regarded as an anti-slavery society, and practically identified itself with the corrupt pro-slavery sects of the land.16Two other resolutions, bearing the stamp of the editor of the Liberator, and anticipating Mr. Seward's famous dictum as to an ‘irrepressible conflict,’ were also adopted at Lynn, in these words:
Resolved, That Freedom and Slavery are natural and 17 irreconcilable enemies; that it is morally impossible for them to endure together in the same nation; and that the existence of the one can only be secured by the destruction of the other. Resolved, That slavery has exercised a pernicious and most dangerous influence in the affairs of this Union, from its foundation to the present time;18 that this influence has increased, is increasing, and cannot be destroyed, except by the destruction of slavery or the Union. The Lynn resolutions against a Third Party found a special motive in the call for another convention to19 nominate Presidential candidates (again at Albany) on April 1, which had emanated from an anti-slavery convention held at Arcade, N. Y., a week after the Massachusetts annual meeting. The date was obviously fixed in anticipation of the annual meeting of the American Society in New York City. The following letter reveals the struggle going on for the possession of the State anti-slavery organization, in the region inhabited by the chief promoters of the political enterprise:
The Massachusetts Board lost no time in opposing the call for the Albany Convention. As soon as Mr. Garrison could prepare an address to the abolitionists of the United States, it was promulgated. It reviewed the26 causes of division in the anti-slavery ranks, and the rise of the Third Party movement, in spite of its unanimous condemnation by the anti-slavery societies, State and local; pointed out the unwise and reprehensible conduct of the Emancipator in advocating it, and the culpable complicity of the Executive Committee by its silent approval; and called upon the various anti-slavery bodies and periodicals to give no countenance to the approaching ‘National Anti-Slavery Convention for Independent Nomination.’ The call was presumptuous and without authority. ‘It is evident that there is, in the western part of New York, a small but talented body of restless, ambitious men, who are determined to get up a third party, come what may—in the hope, doubtless, of being lifted by it into office.’ ‘Let the meeting be insignificant and local, and thus rendered harmless’; and let there be no more calling of national conventions by irresponsible persons. The Executive Committee, in concurrence with the State boards, should call them, through the official organ. The address closed with an  appeal for an overwhelming attendance at the May meeting in New York. This manifesto, and especially the charge of ambition and self-seeking (though these were early recognized as a probable danger to political abolitionism by Wright,27 Goodell, and William Jay), were feelingly retorted by Leavitt in the Emancipator, by Goodell in the Friend of28 Man, by Gerrit Smith—whom Mr. Garrison expressly disavowed having had in mind among the office-seekers.29 Though rebuked by the Executive Committee, Leavitt renewed his attack on the address and on the 30 nonresistant abolitionists, denying the right of the Massachusetts Board to strike the keynote for abolitionists, and ridiculing Mr. Garrison as the ‘King of day’ at Boston. The Albany Convention mustered a hundred and31 twenty-one members enrolled, of whom one hundred and four were from New York State alone. Neither Pennsylvania nor Ohio—nor any more western State—was represented. Alvan Stewart presided. Torrey was one32 of the vice-presidents, Leavitt one of the secretaries; Holley and Elizur Wright members of the business committee, Gerrit Smith and Goodell of the committee on correspondence. ‘Will it be credited by the abolitionists of the United States,’ exclaimed Mr. Garrison,33 ‘the handful of abolitionists thus brought together had the folly, the presumption, the almost unequalled infatuation, to put candidates in nomination in their behalf for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States!—namely, James G. Birney, of Kentucky, and Thomas Earle, of Pennsylvania!’34 Simultaneously with this event came the intelligence that the Executive Committee was about to transfer the official organ into the hands of a private individual, though, as N. P. Rogers said, the Emancipator was as35  clearly the property of the National Society as the Herald of Freedom was that of the New Hampshire Society. Against this extraordinary action the Massachusetts Society, in quarterly meeting, protested in vain.36 The transfer was made, before the close of April, by sale37 to Joshua Leavitt, on account of the New York City38 Anti-Slavery Society (virtually the Executive Committee itself, under another name), whose organ it quickly became. The books and other property of the Society were likewise assigned to Lewis Tappan and S. W. 39 Benedict, to secure the Society's indebtedness, and in all but name the Society was extinct before the annual meeting—a literal clearing of the decks for action.40
The Massachusetts Board were fully alive to the impending crisis. They had already put forth a second address to the abolitionists of the United States, again46 from Mr. Garrison's pen. The same sectarian spirit, it said, that had sought the life of the Massachusetts Society, was now plotting the overthrow of the American. It would, at the approaching meeting, attempt to reconsider the vote of the last anniversary, by which the equal privileges of women as members were recognized; to pass resolutions enforcing the duty to vote, favoring a Third Party, and endorsing the Presidential nominations made at Albany, or at least averting condemnation of them by the auxiliary societies; to disband the Society, or effect a secession, and make the organization more narrow, under clerical control, and with proportional representation at the annual meeting; finally, to encourage the formation of sectarian societies. These were not idle imaginings. Amendments to the Constitution in conformity with the foregoing programme had already been broached in the Emancipator; and Birney47 and Lewis Tappan, having been charged by the Executive Committee to propose changes in the organization, recommended that the Parent Society should either48 ‘resume their whole power as to auxiliary societies—  as to territory, funds, etc.,’ or else disband.49 The Eman-cipator, speaking for itself, declared bluntly:
The true question is, whether the policy of the American50 Anti-Slavery Society shall be guided by its Constitution, in the hands of a committee of its own choice, responsible at its bar, and representing impartially the abolitionists of the whole land —or whether it shall be controlled at pleasure by a local Board, elected by a single auxiliary society, and representing a section of the abolitionists of a single State.Goodell was no less explicit, in his own paper. 51 Abolition and Non-Resistance, he wrote, can no more walk together than can Abolition and Colonization. He predicted a strong rally at New York ‘of non-resistants and of whole-Whig-ticket abolitionists combined.’ If they should succeed in censuring and displacing the Executive Committee, it would be equivalent to a dissolution of the Society. A new spur would be given to combined political action ‘if the National Society should slip out of the way, or get into the hands of the friends of Harrison and the opponents of civil government.’52 Combined ecclesiastical action would also receive a stimulus. ‘Or, perhaps, among the local churches and among abolitionists connected with them, the query might be revived with fresh interest, whether the Lord Jesus Christ did not institute, and does not require them to organize, Christian churches, which shall occupy and cultivate the ground attempted to be cultivated hitherto by the great reformatory and evangelizing voluntary associations of the day.’ ‘We shall be,’ continued Goodell, ‘as charitable as we can to men's motives, but their anti-abolitionism we shall steadfastly oppose, even if it shelters itself under the banners of Wm. Lloyd Garrison.’ And he bitterly threw off the last remnant of his old friendship for the editor of the Liberator in a short article entitled, ‘How to Make a Pope’: 
Take an ardent and strong-minded leader in a good but53 hated cause. Place him in the fires of persecution, and surround him with devoted and generous friends. Just in proportion to the frequency of his proving himself in the right, when almost everybody said he was wrong, will the conviction fasten upon his admirers that he is infallible. They will act, and perhaps speak, in conformity with their impressions. Almost of necessity, the same idea will insinuate itself imperceptibly, yet firmly, into his bosom. He soon shows that he expects to be implicitly followed, and his expectations realized. Thus it was with the bishops of Rome, and hence the rise of their exorbitant power.— Vide “Natural history of spiritual Despotism.”The wit of Collins found a way to forward the largest possible New England delegation to New York. On May 2, 1840, James C. Jackson wrote from New York to G. W. Benson:
J. A. Collins wishes me to say to you that he calculates on54 chartering the steamboat Massachusetts at Providence, for the purpose of carrying on our friends to the Annual Meeting of the A. A. S. Society. He wishes you to write to him immediately into what port you will have her put to take on the friends of truth from Connecticut. The fare will be cheap, and the expenses cheap. I need not say that the devil is arousing his myrmidons for the conflict, and that a defeat awaits us unless superior vigilance prevents. New York city, where I write this, is all alive.Public announcement of this mode of conveyance was made the next week in the Liberator. Mammon 55 consented, under the circumstances, to make no distinction between white and black passengers on the boat and in the special trains connecting with it—a prime 56 consideration in securing the attendance of colored delegates. On Monday, May 11, the great rally began at the depot in Boston: ‘A few came from the land of “down east,” ’ reported Mr.57 Garrison,
and from the thick-ribbed hills of the Granite State; but especially from the counties of old Essex, and Middlesex,  and Norfolk, and Plymouth, and Suffolk, in Massachusetts, they came promptly and numerously at the summons of humanity, in spite of ‘hard times’ and the busy season of the year, to save our heaven-approved association from dissolution, and our broad platform from being destroyed. An extra train of cars had been engaged for the occasion; but so numerous was the company, another train had to be started—our numbers continually augmenting at every stopping-place between the two cities. 0, it was a heart-stirring and rare spectacle—such as has never before been witnessed in the progress of our all-conquering enterprise; and many were the spectators who were looking on with wonder and surprise at such a gathering of fanaticism, and such a “ dying away” of abolitionism. On arriving at Providence, the company embarked on board of the steamboat Rhode Island, which had the American flag flying in the breeze, (the flag of Liberty has not yet been fashioned), a considerable number of delegates from Bristol County and from the city of Providence joining us; so that, huge and capacious as were the dimensions of our chartered boat, it was very difficult to move about with facility, notwithstanding the accommodating disposition of all on board. On making an enumeration, it appeared that there were about 450 anti-slavery men and women in our company, of whom about 400 were from Massachusetts.58 (Probably another hundred went by other routes.) There never has been such a mass of “ultraism” afloat, in one boat, since the first victim was stolen from the fire-smitten and blood-red soil of Africa. There were persons of all ages, complexions and conditions—from our time-honored and veteran friend Seth Sprague, through ripened manhood down to rosy youth. They were, indeed, the moral and religious élite of New England abolitionism, who have buckled on the anti-slavery armor to wear to the end of the conflict, or to the close of life. It was truly a great and joyful meeting, united together by a common bond, and partaking of the one spirit of humanity. Such greetings and shaking of hands! such interchanges of thoughts and opinions!  such zeal, and disinterestedness, and faith! Verily it was good to be there! . . . The northeasterly storm which had lasted for several days previous, cleared up finely just as we left Providence, and a glorious sunset and a bright moonlight evening followed. All was tranquil, all happy. In the course of the evening, spirited addresses were made by Wm. M. Chace, Dr. Manford,59 C. M. Burleigh, Samuel J. May, N. P. Rogers, and J. A. Collins, which were frequently responded to in an enthusiastic manner.The muster was not confined to the friends of the old organization. The New Organizationists, too, and the60 New York Executive Committee did what they could to ‘pack’61 the Convention. The Fourth Free Church could hardly contain the delegates alone, who numbered62 more than a thousand. As the President, Arthur Tappan, purposely absented himself, Francis Jackson, a63 Vice-President of the American Society, took the chair. His first duty was to appoint a business committee, and this he composed as follows, with an obviously liberal representation of Third Party and New Organization: W. L. Garrison, chairman; Ichabod Codding (Maine); Thomas Davis (Rhode Island); Rowland T. Robinson (Vermont); Amos A. Phelps, Abby Kelley (Massachusetts); William L. Chaplin, Lewis Tappan (New York); Charles C. Burleigh, Charles W. Gardiner (Pennsylvania); and Charles W. Denison (New Jersey). On Miss Kelley's confirmation by the meeting the fate of the Society depended. The viva-voce vote being questioned, a count by the tellers showed a total of 1008,64 with about a hundred majority in her favor. The deathknell  of sectarianism had sounded. Tappan, Phelps, and Denison at once asked to be excused from serving on65 the committee, the first assigning as his reasons that ‘to66 put a woman on a committee with men is contrary to the Constitution of the Society; it is throwing a firebrand into the anti-slavery ranks; it is contrary to the usages of civilized society.’ And his clerical associates added, that it was contrary to the gospel and to their consciences. Messrs. Tappan and Denison then arose, and asked those who had voted against the appointment of women to meet and form a new society. The battle being thus ended on the first day, the meeting proceeded to dispose of the pending amendments to the Constitution, which were all rejected save one, viz., that the Executive Committee should thereafter be elected by the Society instead of by the Board of Managers. The result of this change was, that Lucretia Mott, Lydia Maria Child, and Maria W. Chapman were made members of the Committee for the ensuing year. Among the resolutions adopted, that on political duty proved the most troublesome to frame, and in its final shape was offered by C. C. Burleigh. It read (a large majority approving):
Resolved, That the Constitution of the American 67 AntiSlavery Society does not settle, or attempt to settle, either affirmatively or negatively, the question whether it is or is not the duty of any of the members of the Society, as such, to vote at the polls.The series which this resolution introduced contained also the following:
Resolved, That, as abolitionists, we cannot give any 68 countenance to the election of Martin Van Buren or William Henry Harrison to the Presidency of the United States, without violating our anti-slavery principles and professions; inasmuch as both of them have publicly committed themselves in support of slavery. Resolved, That, without intending to pass a censure on those abolitionists who urge the formation of an abolition  political party, or the nomination of candidates for office on abolition grounds, we heartily disapprove the adoption of such measures, as inexpedient and injurious to the cause they are designed to promote. Resolved, therefore, That we regret the course pursued by the recent Convention of the friends of immediate emancipation at Albany, in nominating candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States; and highly as we respect the gentlemen whose names were brought before the public as nominees of that Convention, we cannot advise our friends to waste their energies in futile efforts to promote their election.The resolution on the Church proceeded from Mr. Garrison, and, after modification, was adopted as follows:
Whereas, the American Church, with the exception of some69 of its smaller branches, has given its undisguised sanction and support to the system of American Slavery, in the following among other ways, viz.: Mr. Garrison further offered resolutions expressing71 dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Executive Committee, in their annual report, for the sale and transfer of the Emancipator, inasmuch as the assets of the Society much exceeded its liabilities. The New York City Anti-Slavery Society was held morally bound to restore the paper, on being properly indemnified for expenses incurred; and a committee, consisting of E. G. Loring, N. P. Rogers, J. S. Gibbons, Nathan Winslow, and Thomas Earle, was appointed to negotiate for that end. The terms demanded being too onerous, there was nothing left for the American Society but to resolve, on72 motion of Mr. Loring, to establish a new organ. One other resolution, or series of resolutions, offered by David Lee Child on behalf of the business committee, still calls for notice:1. By profound silence on the sin of slaveholding; 2. By tolerating slave-breeding, slave-trading, and slaveholding in its ministers and members; 3. By receiving the avails of the traffic in “slaves and the souls of men” into the treasuries of its different benevolent institutions; and 4. By its indifference and opposition to the Anti-slavery enterprise;70—Therefore, Resolved, That the Church ought not to be regarded and treated as the Church of Christ, but as the foe of freedom, humanity and pure religion, so long as it occupies its present position.
Resolved, That the American Anti-Slavery Society regard73 with heartfelt interest the design of “the World's Convention,” about to assemble in London; and anticipate from its labors a powerful and blessed influence upon the condition and prospects of the victims of slavery and prejudice, wherever they are found. Resolved, That our beloved friends William Lloyd Garrison, Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Charles Lenox Remond, and Lucretia Mott be and they hereby are appointed Delegates, to represent this Society in the said Convention, and we heartily commend them to the confidence and love of the universal abolition fraternity. Resolved, That the Anti-slavery enterprise is the cause of universal humanity, and as such legitimately calls together the World's Convention; and that this Society trusts that that Convention will fully and practically recognize, in its organization  and movements, the equal Brotherhood of the entire human family, without distinction of color, sex, or clime.The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had74 been founded in London in April, 1839, at the instance of Joseph Sturge, an eminent member of the Society of Friends. His first public proposal of it, on reaching75 America, led the editor of the Emancipator to suggest that a world's anti-slavery convention be held in London76 in the following year; and this idea was quickly adopted by the new society. The official circular invitation reached Mr. Garrison, as corresponding secretary of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, in October. It was77 broadly addressed to ‘friends of the slave of every nation and of every clime,’ and, besides inviting them to a General Conference on June 12, 1840, strongly urged them ‘to associate themselves, and unitedly, as well as individually, to labor for the extinction of slavery.’ Stirred by the call of his co-sectaries, Whittier echoed it in sounding verse in the little collection of anti-slavery poems called “The North star,” —78
Yes, let them gather!—Summon forth‘Amen,’ said his old friend, the editor of the Liberator,79 ‘with all our souls! Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers —Jews, Gentiles, Ishmaelites—Women, Non-Resistants, Warriors, and all— “let them come” —all but those who refuse to associate for the slave's redemption with others who do not agree with them as to the divinity of human politics, and the scriptural obligation to prevent woman from opening her mouth in an anti-slavery gathering for “the suffering and the dumb” —and they cannot come, conscientiously—they are, par excellence, new organizationists!’ The Convention, he remarked later, had been80 distinctly placed on a non-resistant basis, in accord with the constitution of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, which pledged its members to the employment  of measures of ‘a moral, religious, and pacific 81 character’ solely. The New Organizationists did not need these signals82 to prepare themselves for renewing in England their sectarian warfare. The result of their private correspondence was manifested in a second, modified call,83 dated February 15, 1840, in which the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society desired ‘early to receive, from the different anti-slavery bodies who may appoint deputies, the names of the gentlemen who are to represent them’; and in a letter from Joseph84 Sturge to a member of the Executive Committee, dated March 3, 1840, in which he deprecated the sending of female delegates to the World's Convention, and desired it might be discouraged. It would encounter a strong adverse feeling in England, from which country there would be no female representation. In the meantime, however, the Massachusetts Board had already chosen its delegates, including not only Mr.85 Garrison, Wendell Phillips, George Bradburn, William Adam (Professor of Oriental Languages at Harvard College), Isaac Winslow, and many other leading abolitionists, white and black, but a large proportion of women— Harriet Martineau, a life-member of the Massachusetts Society; Mrs. Phillips and Mrs. Chapman and Mrs. Child, as well as their respective husbands; Miss Abby Kelley, Miss Emily Winslow, and still others. The Philadelphia Female Anti-Slavery Society, unabashed by Sturge's rebuke, named a full contingent of their sex, with Lucretia86 Mott at their head.87 Mrs. Mott, with Garrison and Rogers (already a delegate from New Hampshire), being88 now selected to represent the American Society, went in a double capacity, and so offered the completest test of the Convention's disposition to ‘fully and practically recognize, in its organization and movements, the equal brotherhood of the entire Human Family, without distinction  of color, sex, or clime’—to quote once more the89 resolution of the American Society. The closeness of the time of the anniversary meeting in New York to that of the World's Convention had led to a request from Massachusetts for an anticipation of90 the former date; but the Executive Committee, not indisposed to put obstacles in the way of a transatlantic representation from that quarter, refused to comply.91 Mr. Garrison quickly decided that for him the nearest duty was to attend the anniversary, whether it cost him92 a punctual arrival in London, or even the trip itself. As the event proved, he incurred the former penalty.
The pledged philanthropy of Earth.
The Columbus at last put to sea at noon on May 22, 1840, and Mr. Garrison, from near Sandy Hook, sent back a farewell to a friend in Boston (perhaps Mrs. Chapman), from which the following is an extract:
Knowing how many enfranchised spirits I leave behind me,122 who will be anxious to receive the earliest intelligence of the proceedings of the Convention, I shall write to you by the first conveyance. How that body will be organized, or how comprehensive will be the spirit which may pervade it, it is not for me to predict. The object of the Convention is to promote the interests of Humanity. It is, then, a common object, in which all who wear the human form have a right to participate,  without regard to color, sex or clime. With a young woman placed on the throne of Great Britain, will the philanthropists of that country presume to object to the female delegates from the United States, as members of the Convention, on the ground of their sex? In what assembly, however august or select, is that almost peerless woman, Lucretia Mott, not qualified to take an equal part? ‘I have no wish to mar the harmony, or disturb the repose, of the Convention by the introduction of any topic, but I cannot consent to have one human being excluded from the World's Platform, even for the sake of peace. If I should be outvoted on this particular point, I may enter my protest against the decision, but neither secede nor “new organize.” ’123Though fair weather ensued, the winds were baffling or disappointing, and the voyage of the Columbus was prolonged by nearly a week beyond the opening of the World's Convention. The captain (Cropper) was a Virginian, but did not discriminate against his white abolition passengers. Remond, however, on account of his124 color, was compelled to go in the steerage; and the second mate, who began by striking William Adams on125 account of a remonstrance against his cruelty to a sailor, on finding that Remond was to be the Rhode Island delegate's companion, caused a narrow bed, two feet wide, to be put up, said Adams might sleep there with his ‘nigger,’ and assigned his berth to other parties. As these failed to occupy it, the two friends had each a resting-place, though in very uncongenial company.126 But the cabin passengers, with their drinking and 127 gambling habits and their pro-slavery sentiments, were hardly more to the taste of Garrison and Rogers. On the thirteenth day out not one-third of the course had been made, though the ship had a reputation for speed. 
Fog and a gale retarded the passage from Holyhead to Liverpool, and brought the only perilous moments of the voyage.