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

Letter of Gerrit Smith, to the Liberty Party of New Hampshire.

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 452

LETTER OF GERRIT SMITH,

TO THE

LIBERTY PARTY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.

PETERBORO, March 18th, 1848.

GENTLEMEN, -

To-day's mail brings the news, that your State Election has, again, gone against you. I will not condole with you Over this event. I will rather cheer myself with the hope, that you will make it the occasion of your repentance. It is, when we see our unjustifiable schemes baffled, and our expectations of their success overthrown, that there is most reason to hope for our repentance. I know, indeed, that you refused to repent under your similar defeat, a year ago. But, it does not follow, that you will refuse to do so, under this repetition of it. A second lesson in adversity often accomplishes in our hearts what the first failed to do.

It is of two things, that your grieved brethren in the Liberty Party desire you to repent.

1st. OF YOUR SIGNAL BREACH OF FAITH.
2d. OF YOUR RUIN OF THE LIBERTY PARTY.

However the members of the Liberty Party may disagree with each other, as to its scope, and on the question, whether it should be regarded as a temporary, or a permanent party, all of them admit, that it was organized with the distinct and full understanding, that its members were not to vote for persons belonging to proslavery parties - for slaveholders, or for those, who vote for slaveholders. In fact, it was the conviction, that persons, sustaining proslavery relations, should not be voted for, which led to the organization of the Liberty Party. Not too much, then, is it to say, that its members are under a solemn pledge to each other to vote in harmony with that conviction, in which the Party originated. But, in forming your famous Alliance with the Whig Party and Independent Democratic Party, you trampled this solemn pledge under foot. When, for the sake of securing the election to the Senate of the United States of a member of your own Party, you consented to vote for members of those other Parties, you were guilty of breaking faith with your associates in the Liberty Party, and of dealing treacherously with its vital and fundamental principles.

Mr. Colby belonged to the Whig Party. He had signified no purpose of quitting it, and no sorrow for his vote for Henry Clay. Without your help, he could not become Governor, and with it he could. He became Governor. You, also, made Mr. Hale of the Independent Democratic Party a Senator of the United States. For that I would not judge you, too harshly. You, perhaps, thought, that he had embraced the principles of the Liberty Party. I confess, that I thought so, until I saw him go along with yourselves into the Alliance with the Whigs. I could, then, think so, no longer.

I pass on to the other thing, for which you owe repentance-viz., THE RUIN OF THE LIBERTY PARTY. I might have included this under the head of your breach of faith, since it was the direct consequence of it. It will, at least, be admitted, that your breach of faith was the original and, therefore, most responsible, cause of the ruin of the Liberty Party.

The seeming and bewitching success of your Alliance went far to debauch the Liberty Party, and to turn it away from its sacred, stern, disinterested, regard for its principles, to follow the vulgar and corrupting attractions of numbers and victory. If, instead of that Alliance, you had fought and conquered, or fought and fallen, on Liberty Party principles, the influence of your pure and glorious example would have fortified those principles throughout the whole extent of the Liberty Party, and made them invincible. But, as it was, there was scarcely a Liberty Party Newspaper in the land, that did not exult over, or at least, acquiesce in your betrayal of Liberty Party principles. Even the Emancipator fell so low, as to frame excuses for that betrayal: and to speak of your "Constitutional necessity" to cast proslavery votes: and to speak of it too, as if it were paramount to your moral and God-ordained necessity not to cast them. Had you been true to the principles of the Liberty Party, the Liberty Party of my own State would not have been false to them on that occasion, when it listened to the seductive utterances of the Whigs, and was, thereby, made willing to choose proslavery then to frame a State Constitution. Of our sixteen thousand Liberty voters, scarcely three thousand abode by their principles on that painfully memorable occasion: - and this amazing defection, instead of being complained of by the Liberty Party Newspapers, was either winked at, or positively commended by the great majority of them. The defection in this State occurred only a short time after the defection in yours. The defection in your State, though not fully developed until 1846, was, I suppose, agreed upon, and begun, ere the middle of 1845.

I have referred to the Emancipator. The leading editorial in the last No. of that Paper refers to my "many wanderings" from the true course of the Liberty Party. It refers, also, to the doctrine formerly held by many Liberty men, in excuse for their "one idea party," that, in respect to the disposal of other political evils, "two could confide in the judgment and fidelity of those, who shall have acted faithfully in regard to this one evil of slavery." I confess, that this was my own doctrine. But, when was it, that my heart, which loved the Liberty Party so well, as to hesitate at no sacrifice of time or money for it, first began to sink: with the fear, that this Party would prove itself worthless, not only for every other good, but even to the antislavery cause itself? It was, when I saw even the Emancipator, that most relied on standard bearer of the Liberty Party, coining its ingenious justifications for the New Hampshire Alliance. Then, began my "many wanderings." And did not truth call for them? But, even, if it did not - and, even, if they were ever so guilty - is it not most ungracious, nay, most indecent, for the Emancipator, whose falseness to its trust first drove me to those "wanderings,"to reproach me with them?

But, to return from this digression - the year 1847 found you continuing on in that departure from Liberty Party principles, which you began in 1845 and 1846. You confederated with the Whig Party and the Independent Democratic Party to elect General Wilson to Congress, notwithstanding you knew, that he was a member of the Whig Party; and that he had put forth great and unrepented-of efforts to get Henry Clay into the Presidency, and himself into a command in the Mexican army. You, also, confederated with these parties to elect Mr. Tuck of the Independent Democratic Party to Congress; and you did what you could to induce the Liberty Party of the Nation to make Mr. Hale its candidate for the Presidency. Here, again, let me remark, that the Liberty Party in general, its press being proof, has kept nearly equal pace with you in violating its principles. Probably, not one in ten of its Newspapers has remonstrated against the election of General Wilson and Mr. Tuck, or against the nomination of Mr. Hale.

I was a member of the Convention, which put Mr. Hale in nomination. I did not vote for him. I voted for William Goodell - a man, whom, above all others, I should love to see President of the United States, since I know no other man, who has so just, so comprehensive, and so comprehensive, a perception, as he, of the true and Heaven-intended uses of Civil Government. The Scriptures inform us of "a poor wise man," who saved the city. And is it too much to hope, that if that "poor wise man," William Goodell, were made the Chief Magistrate of this Nation, he would, under God, save it?

I say, that I did not vote for Mr. Hale. It was, however, from no light esteem of his mental powers. Nor was it from any objections to his deportment in private life. That he is both an amiable and an intellectual gentleman I had no doubt. Nor did I doubt, that he was opposed to slavery and to the Mexican war. I at that time, supposed him capable of uttering the just and exalted sentiments against both, which he has since uttered.

[2]

I declined to vote for Mr. Hale for the sufficient reason, that, whatever respect might be due him from the Liberty Party, it was quite too much to admit a stranger into the very sanctuary of their confidence; - quite too much to make a man of another name and another creed their Presidential candidate. It is not only another Party, to which Mr. Hale belongs: - but it is a Party which, so far as I then knew, or now know, is characterized by not a single one of the distinctive doctrines of the Liberty Party. I have never heard, that "the equal rights of all men" is in the creed of the Independent Democratic Party. I have never heard, that its creed forbids voting for proslavery men. If it does forbid it, then Mr. Hale would not have voted for Governor Colby. If it does forbid it, then Mr. Tuck's first vote in the present Congress would not have been for General Wilson for Speaker - an office, scarcely less influential than the President's; and his second vote would not have been for a slaveholder for Clerk. Nor have I ever heard, that the Independent Democrats regard slavery is unconstitutional. Indeed, the fact, that Mr. Hale does not so regard it, was, obviously, the reason, why the Convention, which nominated him, rejected the Resolution, affirming its unconstitutionality. I express a candid, if not a sound opinion, when I say, that, had the Convention been about to put a Liberty Party man, instead of Mr. Hale, in nomination, it would have adopted, by a vote of more than ten to one, this Resolution, which it rejected. For the last two or three years, the conviction has been general - almost universal in the Liberty Party - that slavery is unconstitutional. Nine tenths of its members, who, during this period, have written and spoken on this subject, have taken this ground. But, the Convention, which nominated Mr. Hale, adapted its sentiments in this, as well as in some other respects, to its candidate. How mortifying, how unexpected, is such a policy, at the hands of Liberty men! A year ago, the Annual Meeting of the Liberty Party of Massachusetts insisted, strenuously, on the unconstitutionality of slavery. But its recent Annual Meeting resolves, that to concern itself with this subject is "a waste of time!" The simple explanation of this shameless conduct of the Massachusetts Liberty Party is that it had, in the mean time, gone out of the Liberty Party for a Presidential candidate - had taken up, for such candidate, a man, who denies that slavery is unconstitutional - and that, in order to get for him the tens of thousands of Whig and Democratic votes on which it is foolishly and madly calculating, it felt the necessity of recalling, or concealing, such "fanatical" Liberty party doctrines, as the unconstitutionality of slavery.

Mr. Hale's late speeches and communications show, that he does not admit slavery to be unconstitutional.

Alas, what a successful temptation to abandon Liberty Party principles has the nomination of Mr. Hale proved to be! Scarcely a Liberty Party Newspaper, that now says a word against the Constitutionality of slavery! Look, for an illustration of editorial apostacy, to poor Wesley Bailey, Editor of the Liberty Press of Utica. Until the nomination of Mr. Hale, no Paper was more decided, than his, against the Constitutionality of slavery: and, only, the very month before that, in which Mr. Hale was nominated, he advocated, in two State antislavery meetings, the passage of that very same Resolution, whose rejection by the Buffalo Convention we have spoken of. Since Mr. Hale's nomination, Mr. Bailey's Paper has given no more evidence of his opposition to the doctrine of the Constitutionality of slavery than it would have done, lead John C. Calhoun or James K. Polk been its editor. I should think, that an editor, be he Wesley Bailey, or some other of the no less delinquent Liberty Party editors, who can eat his own words, and betray the slave, on a point so vital, would, out of very self-disgust; try to spit in his own face.

But, to return to our examination of the creed of the Independent Democratic Party. I had no satisfactory evidence, at the time the Buffalo Convention put Mr. Hale in nomination, that the Independent Democrats are abolitionists. I am now convinced, that they are not: - that they are but opposed to the extension of slavery; - mere Wilmot proviso-men - and nothing more.

Mr. Hale has, recently, expressed himself on the floor of the Senate, as follows:

"Permit me to say to the Honorable Senator (,Mr. Butler of South Carolina,) in all kindness, and with no disposition to be offensive, that he entirely misstates and misapprehends the character of that portion of the American People, whom I am supposed to represent on this subject. Once, for all, let me say, that we desire no interference with, nor disturbance of; the existing institutions of the States. If the institution, of which you speak, be a blessing, bless yourselves with it: if it be a curse, stagger under it, as you may: but let us remain free from it - let us alone. It is all, that we desire - all that we ask."

Now, I do not understand Mr. Hale to mean by this language, that, as a man, he feels no concern for the three millions of his enslaved countrymen. To impute such indifference to him is uncharitable, unjust. But, I do understand him to mean by this language (, for this is the only other construction, which can be put upon it,) that, as a member of the Independent Democratic Party that, as a political man - he has nothing to do with the wrongs of those trillions - that, as such, he is but opposed to the extension of slavery. Perhaps, he also means, that the Liberty Party, as well as the Independent Democratic Party, is but opposed to the extension of slavery. His nomination at the hands of the Liberty Party may have deluded him into this belief. Nevertheless, every true Liberty Party man scouts the idea, that his Party was organized for the tame and worthless purpose of preventing the extension of slavery; or for any lower purpose than that of uprooting and scattering the whole system of American slavery.

Again - another evidence, that the Independent Democrats are not abolitionists, is to be seen in the fact, that neither he, nor Mr. Tuck, has moved for the abolition of slavery, either is the District of Columbia, or any where else. An abolitionist is one, who is in favor of abolishing slavery, and who works for its abolition. An antislavery person is one, who may be but opposed to slavery. Mr. Hale has, indeed, presented the Petitions of others for the abolition of slavery. Even this, however, he did with apologies, and with disclaimers of the purpose to waste the time, or disturb the temper, of the Senate. Had he felt, in his inmost soul, the justice of the cause entrusted to him, he would have been as free from apologies and disclaimers, as was Martin Luther at Worms, or Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga. The cap of Justice is always upon her head -never in her hand: - anti there are no circumstances, in which she owes to her foes any apologies, or any demonstrations of bashfulness.

Alas, that the Liberty Party, which, ere it fell under the control of men of policy, would admit no plea whatever for slavery - not even its Constitutionality; - and which sent messages to the slaves, exhorting them to regard the laws, by which they are bound, as but laws of pirates; and to take, without leave, the horses and boats of their oppressors to help themselves out of slavery; - alas, that such a Party should, so soon, have come to such a pass of degeneracy, as to turn its back upon its own whole-hearted and outspoken representatives of its righteous and characteristic principles, to choose for its champion and mouthpiece, one, who disdains membership in it, and has no sympathy with its doctrines; - and to choose him too for the very reason, that, being destitute of such sympathy, and being a man of neutralities, negations, and apologies, in the antislavery cause, he may get the votes of thousands, who will not give their votes to a positive and known abolitionist!

I said, that I did not vote for Mr. Hale's nomination. I add, that I cannot vote for his election. I cannot do so, because to do so, I must quit the Liberty Party; and I am not willing to quit it. I cannot do so, because I can have no part in killing the Liberty Party; and the vote of every true Liberty Party man for Mr. Hale is a stab in its vitals. Let those vote for Mr. Hale, who are weary or, or have never acknowledged, the stringent principles of the Liberty Party. I should rejoice to see all the Whigs and Democrats in the Nation vote for him, or Mr. Palfrey, or Mr. Giddings. But, if I am correct in my facts concerning Mr. Hale, then, nor I, nor any other man, who credits these facts, can, without gross dishonesty, vote for Mr. Hale, and yet claim to be a member of the Liberty Party - of such a Liberty Party, as I have described.

I said, that I am not willing to quit the Liberty Party. I do not forget, that many accuse me of having already forsaken it: and I do not forget, that many say, that I deserve to be expelled from it. Even, my old friend, Alvan Stewart, recommends, that persons like myself, be violently thrust out - be actually mobbed out - of Liberty Party Meetings: - and there are Liberty Party Papers shameless enough to print this recommendation, and Liberty Party men shameless enough to express their delight in it. And, what is my offence? It is, that, for the last two or three years, I have urged the Liberty Party to regard itself as a permanent Party, and apply its principle of "the equal rights of all men" in every direction - in the direction of the poor white man, as well as the

[3]

poor black man; - for the overthrow of tariffs and land-monopolies, as well as of slavery. It is not claimed that I have advised the relaxation of any of the duties of the Liberty Party, or the slightest breach upon its antislavery character: - and every one, who knows me, knows, that I would sooner lose my hand than suffer it to deposite a vote for a proslavery man. Nevertheless, I am to be denied the appellation of a Liberty Party man! - and, this too, whilst Alvan Stewart, and Wesley Bailey, and Silas Hawley, &c. &c., whose eagerness, only two short years ago, to vote for proslavery men neither reason nor religion could restrain, are to be acknowledged as sound Liberty Party men! But, never mind. A little more time will set this matter right. Such monstrous injustice - such a gross absurdity - cannot be long-lived.

What I said against voting for Mr. Hale should have been immediately followed by one or two things more on that subject. But it is not too late to mention them.

On seeing the proslavery votes of Mr. Tuck, at the beginning of the present Session of Congress, I was forcibly reminded of the ingenious argument, which was used in the Buffalo Convention to induce the Convention to nominate Mr. Hale. "Mr. Hale," said his advocates, "is of the same party, and therefore, of the same political principles, with Mr. Tuck: and that Mr. Tuck is worthy of the confidence of Liberty Party men, and is, indeed, an actual Liberty Party man, is evident from the fact, that the Liberty Party of New-Hampshire made him one of its Delegates to this Convention - ay, and (, as it was emphatically added,) the Chairman of its Delegates." Mr. Tuck did not attend the Convention. Perhaps, it was not expected that he should. Perhaps, the only purpose in appointing him was to make room for the ingenious argument I have referred to.

On my way home from the Buffalo Convention, Austin Willey of Maine and Hiram Cummings of Massachusetts made use of this same ingenious argument to reconcile the to the nomination of Mr. Hale. Will those esteemed friends permit me to ask them, whether they would, now, have me vote for Mr. Hale, because he is like Mr. Tuck? And will they also permit me to ask them, whether they can themselves be true Liberty Party then, and yet vote for Mr. Hale, provided he is like Mr. Tuck?

I said, that the Liberty Party is ruined. It is, however, not irretrievably ruined. It will recover itself, and be all the stronger for the painful experience, which it erring members have brought upon it. But, what it lacks, that it may, immediately, be itself again - ay, and very much more than itself - is, that these erring members do, immediately, repent. And with whom can the repentance begin so properly, and so effectually, as with yourselves, who led the way in the mischief, which is to be repented of? Come, then, gentlemen, and divorce yourselves, forever, from your Colbys and Wilsons and Tucks and Hales, and return to the Liberty Party, and re-espouse its principles, and resume your fellowship with the men; who have ever faithfully represented its principles. These principles are, still, as precious, as you yourselves esteemed them to be, ere you yielded to the temptation to betray them. To refuse to vote for proslavery men is, still, notwithstanding your distrust of it, the most effectual way to make slavery infamous, and slaveholders sick of it. And, let the add my testimony in behalf of the continued preciousness of the principles of the Liberty Party, that its tried and never-found-wanting men,- its Birneys and Goodells and Greens - are still as worthy of your confidence, as you yourselves thought them to be, before you turned your backs upon them, to run after men, whose merit is, that you can hope to elect there.

Doubtless, your taste of ballot-box-victories, in 1846, created in you an increased relish and hankering for other such victories: - and this will make you the more reluctant to retrace your steps. But, even, if you mean to persist in worshipping King Numbers, you will find it to your advantage to get upon the Liberty Party tract: again. Up to the time, when you quit it, there was no State in the Union, which promised so well for the slave, as did yours. Had you not quit it, the Independent Democrats and multitudes of the Whigs and Democrats would, ere this, have been attracted to you. Your folly in going down to their level was no less than would be that of the Temperance man, who, when he had induced his drunken neighbor to give up rum and brandy, should go down from the ground of total abstinence to meet half-way his half-reformed neighbor, and drink wine and beer with him. The subsequent failing off in your numbers has taught you, that, in parting with your principles in 1846, you parted with your power to command new votes, and lost the confidence of many, whose votes you had hitherto had. Among those, who are laboring in your State to promote the cause of the Alliance and the election of Mr. Hale is Elder Benjamin Shaw. It did not at all surprise me to find, that, in a report, which, some two months ago, he made of his labors, he uses the following language:

"In one town three of the most prominent abolitionists staid away from my lecture. They are disaffected, on account of our men going for Colby for Governor and Wilson for Congress, and siding and bargaining with the Whigs: - and a large number, who used to vote with it, have gone back for the same reasons; so that I fear we shall lose much more by the Alliance in the long run, than we have gained. Let Massachusetts and other States take warning by this. It is the very policy, that ruined the antimasonic party, and the policy that the Whigs urged in the National Election, and entirely contrary to the first principles of the Liberty Party. Neither Party will make such bargains, unless they are in a hopeless minority: and if we will be foolish enough to hold the ladder for them to climb up, they will haul up the ladder after them, and we may get up, as we can."

I said, that it did not, at all, surprise me to find my old friend Shaw, using this language. Nor did it, at all, surprise me, that you were defeated in the State Election, a year ago. Nor does it at all surprise me, that you are defeated in your State Election, the present week; - and, that too, by a majority three times as great, as the majority against you, last year. Nor will it, at all, surprise me to find Mr. Hale's vote, next Fall, but one half as large, as was Mr. Birney's, at the last Presidential Election. Mr. Hale is too worthy a man, and too nearly an abolitionist, to get the votes of Wilmot proviso-men: - and why should he, also holds no one of the principles, which distinguishes the Liberty Party, get the votes of half of the members, or of even one of the members of that Party?

Much is said of the "New-Hampshire revolution". In that very eloquent speech, but for which the Buffalo Convention could, hardly, have been wrought up to the unprincipled and suicidal policy of going beyond the limits of the Liberty Party and its principles for a Presidential Candidate - in that very effective speech, Mr. Henry B. Stanton said, amid thunders of applause: "Thomas Morris went home from Congress to do nothing; - and John P. Hale went home from Congress to revolutionize New-Hampshire!" But New-Hampshire has not been revolutionized. The game was tricked out of the hands of the Democratic Party: and that Party has been, ever since, successfully revenging itself upon the prostrate Alliance.

But, I must close this too extended communication. Think not, that it has been prompted by no more than a recently sprung-up-feeling. Your first treason to Liberty Party principles and the nearly simultaneous one in this State have been, ever since, among my deepest griefs. They and the Liberty Party indorsement of them constitute the reason, in my public letter of August 6th, 1846, for refusing to attend Liberty Party Meetings. In closing this communication, in which, because I respect and love you, I have dealt plainly and faithfully with you, I, again, call you to repentance. How happy, if the call should not be in vain; and if, among the fruits of your repentance, you should, forthwith, cast away your spurious, mongrel, Liberty Party, and reconstruct a true Liberty Party - a Party, which will sooner perish than vote for a proslavery man - and a Party, too, which will practically recognize the doctrine of the equal rights of all men; and devote itself, not only to the cause of personal freedom, but to the cause of peace, free-trade, free-soil, and, in a word, to the fulfilment of all political righteousness! Come, gentlemen, and rally such a Party, without delay: and let us see its representatives at the National Liberty Party Convention which is to be held in Buffalo, the 14th and 15th days of next June, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President and Vice President, and of setting forth the principles of a true Civil Government and a true Liberty Party.

Very respectfully,
your friend,
GERRIT SMITH.