Viewing page 2 of 16

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

354   Douglass' Monthly.    November, 1860.
Say what we will of GERRIT SMITH, America has yet to see, with all his alleged doubts, despondencies, errors and eccentricities, a higher aim, greater singleness of purpose, more unyielding tenacity to principle, more liberality in the bestowment of his means, in every good word and work, than has been displayed in the life of GERRIT SMITH-and if such a man be not worthy of our cause and our company, we do not know where to look for one who may be. The highest intellects of the country have confessed his ability, and almost the only objection to him we have ever felt the force of, is the fact that the man and his policy are too far in advance of the pride, selfishness and prejudices of the times, to command the votes of the people-an objection which Radical Abolitionists can certainly bear with at this, as well as at any former time. 
Through many long and labored pages, Mr. GOODELL, in his paper, the Principia, brings to view what he conceives to be the unsound religious doctrines and opinions of GERRIT SMITH. To do this, is the unquestionable right of Mr. GOODELL. He, as well as GERRIT SMITH, is learned in all matters of religious controversy. Let them discuss their differences tongue-wise and pen-wise. Let WM. GOODELL criticise and combat the religious views of Mr. SMITH, with all that logical skill for which he is justly distinguished; let him summon to the aid of his orthodoxy all the resources of his extensive reading and long experience. He is the proper judge of his work, and these are his legitimate weapons; but let him not add to these legitimate means of religious proselytism one which has its basis in nothing better than religious bigotry.-When a man finds a reason for refusing to vote for another for civil office, in the fact that that man differs from him in religious opinion, he acts upon the most mischievous and dangerous principle that can possibly disturb society. Mr. GOODELL denies that he acts on any such principle; but the fact remains that he refuses to vote for Mr. SMITH, and places what he regards the heretical opinions of Mr. SMITH among his reasons. To be sure, he charges the latter with making anti-orthodoxy a criterion of political action and association. But this charge cannot stand. Mr. SMITH will vote for WM. GOODELL, the Orthodox; but WM. GOODELL will not vote for GERRIT SMITH, the anti-Orthodox. What Mr. Smith sees fit to speak and write at Peterboro', and then publish to the world at his own expense, is his own affair. He has the same right to make converts to his creed, that WM. GOODELL has to make converts to his. Both men are free, and neither is responsible to the other for his religious creed; but when one refuses to work with the other for the abolition of slavery, because of these religious differences, Humanity steps in and says: Gentlemen, your religion is seriously interfering with your usefulness, and it is quite time to have an end to your dangerous and hurtful dispute. 
To all human seeming, the prospect of emancipation to the down-trodden and bleeding bondmen of this country, is dark enough. Mountain difficulties interpose their dark and frowning fronts to the triumph of Justice and Liberty, over the pride and selfishness of the dominant race. We dare not hold out hopes of an easy victory, and under the most favorable conditions. But alas! alas! for the slave, if to him can come no redemption until the religious creeds of men shall entirely conform to one standard. A deeper gloom must be added to the darkness and desolation of his fate, and the last ray of hope for peaceful emancipation extinguished. 
[[LINE]]
THE POLITICAL ABOLITION CONVENTION AT WORCESTER, MASS. 
[[LINE]]
Since our last publication, we attended a two days' Abolition Convention at Worcester, the proceedings of which may be found in our other columns. We cannot say that the Convention met all our expectations, or afforded strong encouragement that old Massachusetts will easily be aroused to the duty of voting directly for the abolition of slavery; and yet, in view of all the circumstances, the conviction of the people that they are doing about all that can at present be done against slavery by voting with the Republican party, the opposition to the new movement by the members and friends of the American Anti-Slavery Society, whose theory of the abolition of slavery it, in some sense, contradicts-the absence of several of the leading speakers, men and women, who had signified their intention to be present-the drenching rain which continued from the commencement to the close -the holding of the Convention at all-was in itself a success. Neither new principles, nor new applications of old principles, are readily perceived or adopted by the masses; all such principles and applications must have their day of small thing; and happy is the man who is not ashamed of the truth in the humility of its infancy. The idea, that the Constitution of the United States is not a slaveholding instrument; that its principles, spirit and provisions are anti-slavery; that it gives ample scope and power to the Federal Government to abolish slavery; and that it is the duty of the American people so to wield that power as that slavery shall be bro't to a speedy end, is not a new idea to Abolitionists in the State of New York but is quite new to the masses in New England, although the ablest argument ever written in favor of that theory emanated from LYSANDER SPOONER, a citizen of Boston. Abolitionists of Massachusetts have for years taught that slavery is constitutional, and that the first duty of the free States is to separate themselves from the slave States. They have made but a few converts to the last proposition, although the first is generally conceded. They have not done so for two reasons; first-people have failed to see in dissolution a remedy for the evil of slavery; and second-they have seen that breaking up the Union would, in all likelihoods of the case, add civil war to the list of evils already existing. 
People thus educated and prepossessed are not to be expected, especially on the eve of the election now at hand, to turn readily aside to welcome a movement at once contradicting all their established beliefs and opinions, and subversive of all their present plans of political action in respect to slavery. We, therefore, consider that the holding of the Convention in Massachusetts, at all, the steady attendance of a few good and true men and women upon all its sessions, listening to all that was said, and assenting to the principles laid down, fully compensate for the time and labor which the effort has cost. Mr. JOSEPH A. HOWLAND, of Worcester, was the chief opponent of the principles and plans of the Convention. His ground was that of the Garrisonian party generally. He was well and happily answered by Mr. STEPHEN S. FOSTER, who was chiefly instrumental in getting up the Convention. 
Mr. HOWLAND has since given a report of the Convention to the readers of the Boston Liberator, in which he vindicates his course in the Convention, exults in the smallness of the audience assembled, the absence of some of the speakers announced, the failure of some of the main supporters of the movement to be present, and thus pays his respects to the writer: 
"Mr. Douglass seemed to come quite readily into the work of the annihilation of the American A.S. Society, and in his various speeches took frequent occasion to misrepresent its character, and with his inimitable powers of sarcasm to caricature its positions and measures. At one time, in urging the support of the new movement, he said that it was the only organization that proposed the abolition of slavery.-Mr. Howland suggested the incorrectness of this assertion. In reply, Mr. Douglass said, I know that our friend thinks that the object of the American Anti-Slavery Society is the abolition of slavery, but he is mistaken - for the object of that Society is the dissolution of the American Union. To be sure, they hold that the abolition of slavery will follow the dissolution of the Union, but that is a matter of opinion. In my opinion it would not. 
When Mr. Douglass was through, Mr. Howland took the floor, and without attempting to make a full constitutional argument, confined himself to a brief review of some of the sophistries and falsifications of history whereon Mr. Douglass had based his constitutional argument, and took occasion to say, in sustaining the position and character of the American A.S. Society, that when Mr. Douglass asserted that the abolition of slavery was not not the object or purpose of that Society, he made a false assertion, and one that he knew to be false.-Whereupon Mr. Foster called to order. The temporary Chairman told Mr. Howland that his remark was neither parliamentary nor pretty, and Mr. Douglass thought that he ought to take it back. But as Mr. Douglass showed no disposition to retract his audacious libel, Mr. Howland did not retract his characterization of it. Had Mr. Douglass simply said that, in his opinion, the position or action of the American Anti-Slavery Society could not result in the abolition of slavery, or even explained what he meant in what he did say, it would have clearly appeared to be his right to hold and express this opinion, and Mr. Howland's remark would have been out of place as well as out of taste. But he did no such thing. And it is to be hoped that whenever he utters so atrocious a slander, some one will have the manliness to rebuke him with as plain Anglo-Saxon speech as Mr. Howland did on this occasion." 
To say that the Republican party does not propose to abolish slavery in the slave States, is not to utter an 'atrocious slander' against that party, although it is contended by the leading members of that party, that the non-extension of slavery will lead to the abolition of slavery. To say that the American church and clergy do not propose to abolish slavery, is not to slander the church and clergy, altho' leading men in the pulpit do say that the spread of the gospel will abolish slavery.-To say that the dissolution of the Union will not abolish slavery, is not to slander its advocates, although they say that the slaves would free themselves if the Union were dissolved. Not wishing to be placed in a false position to the American A.S. Society, we sent the following letter to the Liberator: 

Rochester, Oct 15th, 1860.
Mr. GARRISON: -You will oblige me by allowing me to say in your columns, that the letter of J.A.H. which appeared in the Liberator of September 28th, does me injustice, in the part it represents me as having taken in