Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

William H. Seward, Esquire : Peterboro, January 1, 1845.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 433

PETERBORO, January 1, 1845.

William H. Seward, Esquire:

MY DEAR SIR: -You were entirely right in sending to the press your letter to me of 25th November. Your fellow citizens are entitled to know your chief reason for clinging to the Whig party: and so honorable to your heart is this reason, that, say what men will of its being unworthy of your head, neither you, nor your friends for you, need be ashamed to see it in print. Your principal reason for adhering to the Whig party is, because you see that party is faithful to Liberty. Now, what if your vision be so disordered on this point, that you see what is not to be seen! Nevertheless, the illusion, which has won you, proves, no less than if it were a reality, the trueness of your heart to the cause of Freedom.

I am of the number of those who believe that you mistake the "instincts" and character of the Whig party. Were I to regard it in the light in which you do, I should eagerly join it. Not my preference for an Independent Treasury to a National Bank; nor my preference for absolute free trade to either high or low tariffs; nor my conviction, that Government has no more right to make railroads and canals for the people, than it has to make hats and coats for them; would hold me back from joining it. These, which are regarded by most men as mere money questions, are but "as the small dust of the balance," when compared with the question of inalienable, unchangeable personal rights. I am so much of "a one idea man," that I go with the party which goes with the slave, go that party as it may on these inferior questions. To the Whig party, as you would have it, I should, as an abolitionist, make little objection. But, I cannot consent to substitute your imaginations of its present, or your anticipations of its future, character, for what it really, and now, is.

I rejoice in the publication of your letter if it be only that the Liberty party may see, that there is one Whig certainly who does not indulge himself in reviling and slandering it. I am amazed and sorrowful, that this party, which, though it may be as foolish and fanatical as it is said to be, is, nevertheless, as trusting in God, and as strongly purposed to serve Him, as any party which ever existed say, I am amazed and sorrowful, that this party should be held up as hypocritical, jesuitical, traitorous to the slave, and unprincipled, because it would not vote for Mr. Clay, and because it would pursue just such a course as it had always said it would, and as consistency, truth, and decency, required it should. It is not enough that, by means of the basest deceptions and boldest forgeries, the Liberty party was defrauded of not less than fifteen or twenty thousand votes. They, who thus defrauded it, are now pursuing it with a spirit envenomed by the consciousness of their cruel, deep, and causeless injuries of it. That such a spirit is very natural to those who lack the magnanimity to confess their wrong doing, is no news to one who, like yourself, is a careful and philosophical observer of human conduct.

That Mr. Clay is a slaveholder, is reason sufficient why the Liberty party could not vote for him. Not to vote for a slaveholder, in any circumstances, or under any temptations, has, from the first, been one of its cardinal and unanimously received doctrines. Though it may be taken as a confession of its narrow mindedness, I am, nevertheless, free to admit, that the Liberty party is what its enemies reproachfully call - "a one idea party." Its sole object, its sole effort, is to abolish slavery. Now, if this is a true account of the Liberty party, then to expect that it should choose a slaveholder to promote its object - and that, too, a slaveholder who has, confessedly, done more than any other to extend and perpetuate slavery - is as unreasonable as to expect that the Temperance Society should select the greatest drunkard for its agent, or, that the Society for promoting the observance of the Seventh Commandment should commit its interests to the hands oŁ the most notorious adulterer.

It is said, that Mr. Clay was opposed to the annexation of Texas. It is enough, however, to justify the opposition of the Liberty party to him, that he remained a slaveholder. But, even if this party could have forgotten that he was a slaveholder, it does not follow that it must also have been blind to the fact, that he said - nay, that he deliberately wrote - that the question of slavery is entitled to no bearing on the question of annexation.

It is said, too, that however objectionable Mr. Clay might have been to the abolitionists, they should have voted for him, inasmuch as the party, whose candidate he was, is opposed to the annexation of Texas and to slavery; and inasmuch, moreover, as its rival party is in favor of both. Be assured, that I am not offended when the worst character is given to the Democratic party. A

guiltier party there never was. It consented to vote for James K. Polk, when it well knew that its corrupt and corrupting masters nominated him for no other reason than his being in favor of the

extension and perpetuity of American slavery. But, if such was not the base and diabolical motive for nominating Henry day - and candor requires the admission that it was not: but, if the Whig party is less guilty than the Democratic on the subject of slavery - and I cheerfully yield that it is far less so: has it, nevertheless, any just pretensions to the name of an antislavery party, or even of an anti-annexation party? What Adams and Seward and Slade and Giddings have said or done,

[2]

is not the question. I doubt not, that the establishment of impartial and universal liberty is among the warmest desires of their hearts, as it is also, among the warmest desires of the hearts of such Democrats as Bryant and Sedgwick. But, tell me of the first step taken by the Whigs, as a party, as a National party, against slavery. Or, tell me even of, a single, act of that party against Annexation. The proceedings of the Convention which put Mr. Clay in nomination are not now before, me - but I am quite confident, that there is not a syllable in them respecting Texas. To harmonize that Convention into an expression on that subject, would have been as impossible as to mix oil with water. Will you remind me, that, in the late Presidential Canvass, banners of Northern Whigs were inscribed with: "Henry Clay-Anti-annexation-Antislavery?" Then will I remind you, that banners of Southern Whigs were inscribed with: "Henry Clay-Annexation-Slavery." If Northern Whigs appealed to Northern love of liberty to promote Mr. Clay's election; for the like purpose, also, did Southern Whigs appeal to Southern love of slavery. Will you tell me, that it was a Whig Senate which rejected the Treaty of Annexation? Then will I tell you, that the same Senate did, about the same period, make John C. Calhoun Secretary of State: and did so by acclamation, as it were; and did so, too, with the full knowledge that he was the champion of Annexation and Slavery.

The truth is, my dear Sir, that its being a National party is, of itself, abundant and conclusive. evidence that the Whig party is proslavery. Every National party in this country, whether in Church or State, must, as long as American slavery endures, be proslavery; - and this, for the Simple reason, that the South, making slavery her paramount interest, will not continue in, nor come into, any party which sets itself against slavery. So, if you belong to the great National Methodist party, or to the great National Presbyterian party, yours is the twofold dishonor and sin of being tied to slavery, both in your ecclesiastical and political relations. The Southern Methodist Conferences are, now breaking off from their National party; and they are doing so, not because that party has acted out, or even spoken out, against slavery - for it has done neither: but they are breaking off for no higher reason, than that their National party dares to resist some new encroachments, some new demands of the slave power. Now, if Southern religionists will not consent to work with those who are restive in the proslavery harness, neither will, much less will, Southern politicians. Try it, and you will see it. If Governor Seward had the exclusive fashioning of the character of the Whig party - and oh, that he had it! - the Southern wing of that party would fly off from the presence of antislavery in the Northern, and from all connection and sympathy with the Northern, as quick as a Demon of darkness turns from a ray of Divine light.

This incorrigibleness of our National parties on the subject of slavery, was the occasion, the necessity, the justification, for organizing the Liberty party. Were the Liberty party, at this time, an, actual National party - that is, were not only all parts of the North, but all parts of the South also, furnishing it with numerous members - it would, therefore, be at this time a proslavery party. But, from the nature of the case, it can become an actual National party, only with the progress of its principles - only as the Nation becomes antislavery.

It is in the light of this necessary proslavery character of our National parties, that I see how, baseless and vain are your hopes of good from the Whig party. You believe, that the Whig party will prove itself to be an antislavery party. But, whenever it shall do so, the South will, as I have shown, fall off from it; and yours, like the Liberty party, will be but a Northern party.

And now, if your party must, in consequence of the fidelity to the slave which it shall evince, be, at the last, but a Northern party, why will it not, at once, identify itself with the Liberty party, which, from the like meritorious cause, is already but a Northern party? Does the pride of the Whig party revolt at the taking of this step? Then will the Liberty party save it the mortification, by taking the step itself. If the Whig party will not humble itself to join the Liberty party, the Liberty party will go to the Whig party. Only let the Whig party strike for the slave, and the Liberty party, little and lowly, unaccustomed to honor, and born and bred amidst reproach and scorn, will not be ashamed to identify itself with the Whig party - to be swallowed up by it. Is it said, that, in using such language, I confess that the Liberty party is in the market, and ready to be struck down to the highest bidder? But remember, how exceedingly honorable is the sole condition of its sale. Its purchaser must first have imbibed its spirit, and adopted its principles. Its buyer must first have been bought by it. The honor, which the Roman poet awards to Greece, of conquering her conqueror - "Graecia capta victorem cepit" - shall be the honor of the Liberty party, when, be it to the Whig party, or the Democratic party, or any other party, it shall heartily consent to lower its flag and open its gates.

Pardon my confident opinion, my dear Sir, that your place is in the Liberty party. Your efforts for trodden-down humanity would be immeasurably more useful, were they made in that party. Nevertheless, if you will continue to adhere to the Whig party, may you have all the success in pro moting the cause of liberty which you can have in so unfavorable a connection. There are thousands of honest and Liberty-loving Whigs, who will work with you. My heart will be with your hearts. So will it be with the hearts of the thousands who, in their connection with the Democratic party,

[3]

will also strive to do for the bleeding, crushed slave. But my hands can be with the hands of neither; for I am fully convinced that both their and your labors if not entirely lost; could be of unspeakably greater account, were it put forth in the Liberty party.

You intimate that the Liberty party is responsible for the election of Mr. Polk. My shame and sorrow would, indeed, know no bounds, should I come to believe that, by any sound train of reasoning, the Liberty party could be held responsible for that deep and disgraceful calamity. But I have not the least fear that it can be.

The Whig press is continually saying, that the Liberty party favored the election of Mr. Polk. But, surely, if there is a member of that party who voted for Mr. Polk, or who takes any pleasure in his election, he is but a nominal member of it, and is false to all its high and holy principles.

Whig newspapers complain, that Mr. Clay was defeated because the abolitionists slandered him. I will not stop to say, that these complaints come with an ill grace from newspapers which conspired to destroy the character of James G. Birney - a character so extremely beautiful to those who know it, and who are capable of admiring the profound and cultivated mind, which is seen to be guided by an honest heart, and to be breathed upon by the spirit of Heaven. But I will confess that they are poor abolitionists who slandered Mr. Clay. I hope that there are not many abolitionists base enough to slander Mr. Clay, or anybody. But how was Mr. Clay slandered by abolitionists? Was it by the misinterpretation of letters, which lie wrote during the canvass? I confess, that some of the interpretations, which both Democrats and Abolitionists put upon passages in these letters, were, in my esteem, ungenerous and unjust. Yet, I could not charge upon those interpretations a slanderous intent. Was Mr. Clay slandered, because he was called a duellist? - or, because he was called a slaveholder? Surely, he will not deny that he is both.

Mr. Clay would not have been defeated, had he done his duty. If he had, as soon as he learned that be was put in nomination, publicly washed his hands of the blood of duelling and slavery, he would have been elected. Such honorable and Heaven-pleasing repentance might, indeed, have cost him the loss of the vote of every Southern State; but it would have secured to him the vote of, probably, every Northern State. Even miserable New Hampshire, whose only ambition, it would sometimes seem, is to beat the Devil, would, very likely, have voted for him. Though her heart rivals her granite, it might, nevertheless, have melted under such an appeal. Oh that Mr. Clay had thus qualified himself for the votes of republicans and christians! Why will he not yet make it consistent for republicans and christians to vote for him? That old servant of the Republic, intellectual and eloquent, perhaps beyond any other man in it, is not too far advanced in years to be Mr. Polk's successor. Thousands have long looked forward to the day, which should witness the election to the presidency of our Nation of Henry Clay, the renowned statesman, as the happiest and most auspicious day in her history. But, infinitely happier and more auspicious would be the day which should witness the election to that office of Henry Clay, the penitent duellist and penitent slaveholder.

I thank you, my dear Sir, for desiring an interview with me. Be assured, that there is no person with whom, more than with yourself - with whom so much as with yourself - I desire a full and free conversation, respecting the great and good cause which we both love, and which, though in different ways, we are with equal sincerity seeking to serve.

I remain, with great regard, your friend,

GERRIT SMITH.