narrowing the platform, even if it did not contain all that the most advanced Abolitionists desired, if such men and their followers could be drawn from the Whig and Democratic parties, and be thus arrayed in a compact and vigorous organization against the Slave Power, there would be great gain. Though they could not exactly forecast the end of such a movement, they felt that it was a step in the right direction, and that, when taken, it would disclose still further the path of duty and place them in a position to go forward therein. But the Liberty League and dissatisfied members of the Liberty party were not idle. Meeting in convention at Auburn in January, 1848, they called a national convention to meet in Buffalo in June. John Curtis of Ohio presided, and Gerrit Smith was chairman of the Committee on the Address and Resolutions. The committee reported two addresses, one to the colored people of the free States and one to the people of the United States. In them they censured severely the action of the Liberty party for what they denounced as recreancy to the principles of the party. The colored people were told that it was the "perfection of treachery to the slave" to vote for a slaveholder, or for one who thinks that a slaveholder is fit for civil office; that it was the religious indorsement of slavery that kept it in countenance; and that it was "better, infinitely better for your poor, lashed, bleeding, and chained brothers and sisters that you should never see the inside of a church nor the inside of a Bible, than that you should by your proslavery connections sanctify their enslavement." Speeches of great earnestness and directness were made by Beriah Green, Frederick Douglass, Gerrit Smith, Henry Highland Garnett, Elizur Wright, and George Bradburn. Mr. Green maintained that when the nation indorses slavery "the most marked inconsistencies creep out of the same lips, the flattest contradictions fall from the same tongues." Civil governments, he said, should be the reflection from the throne of God. To assert the claims of justice, to define and defend rights, to cherish and express a world-embracing philanthropy, to promote the general welfare, to afford counsel and protection, are "the appropriate objects of civil government." "God gave civil government," remarked Mr. Smith, "I had wellnigh said, to be on terms of companionship with the poor. Certain it is that he gave it chiefly for the purpose of protecting the rights of those who are too poor, ignorant, and weak to protect themselves." With their definition of civil government and the purposes for which it was instituted, and with their knowledge of what slavery was, such indorsement could not but seem not only unconstitutional, but inconsistent with and subversive of government itself. "Antislavery men," said Mr. Smith, "should identify themselves with the slave, and be willing to be hated and despised. They should not be ashamed to do what slaveholders call slavestealing. It was not "vulgar," he contended, "low, or mean," to help slaves to escape from the clutches of their oppressor. "As I live and as God lives," he continued, "there is not on earth a more honorable employment. There is not in all the world a more honorable tombstone than that on which the slaveholder would inscribe, Here lies a slave-stealer.'" The convention, much against his own avowed wishes, nominated Mr. Smith for the Presidency. Mr. Burritt having declined the nomination of the Liberty League for the VicePresidency, C. C. Foot of Michigan was selected as the candidate. State influence. - Georgia resolutions. Mr. Wilson's resolutions. — Mr. Wheat land's report. - Mr. Wilson's minority report. Defeated in the Senate. Mr. Wilson's resolutions Divisions among the Whigs. - State agreed to. Stephenson. Resolutions of Mr. Phillips's resolutions. Remarks of Adams, Allen, and Child. - - Mr.Webster's speech. - Sumner's letter to Winthrop. - Keyes's resolutions. State convention of 1848. - Palfrey's resolutions. Opposition of Mr. Winthrop.-Webster's speech. — “Conscience” and “Cotton" Whigs. - Position of New York. Treatment of Mr. Van Buren. —- Syracuse convention. — Field's resolution. Its rejection. - Herkimer convention. John Van Buren. Resolutions. freedom. - Address reported by Democracy of New York pledged to AMONG the most potent instrumentalities of slaveholding ascendency was the doctrine of State rights as defined and defended by Southern statesmen. By it the slavery propagandists gained concessions, silenced objections, and conciliated. support they could not have hoped for without such an auxiliary. And yet this influence was not always adverse, and the advocates and defenders of human rights sometimes gained advantages from their relations to the State they could not have secured single-handed and alone. By a wise use of the power which State organization gave the few friends of freedom in New Hampshire, John P. Hale was placed on the floor of the United States Senate, there to enunciate principles and to vindicate a policy far in advance of the average sentiment and purpose of the people he represented. Antislavery resolutions and legislation had been adopted by several Northern States more positive and pronounced than were demanded, or hardly justified, by the current opinions and convictions of those Commonwealths. In no State did this policy of using such influence become more effective than in Massachusetts. When the legislature of Massachusetts assembled in January, 1846, Governor Briggs laid before it a series of resolutions which had been adopted by the legislature of Georgia concerning slavery and the legislative action of Massachusetts for the protection of its colored citizens in the slave-holding States. On motion of Mr. Wilson of Natick they were referred to a special committee, consisting of two Senators and five Representatives. Soon thereafter Mr. Wilson introduced an order instructing that committee to report a preamble setting forth the crime of slavery and the aggressions of the Slave Power, and a resolution declaring the opposition of Massachusetts to the longer continuance and further extension of slavery in America, and her unalterable determination to use every constitutional power for its entire extinction. This motion encountered stern opposition, in which both Democrats and Whigs united. It was denounced as a measure to please "a little knot of political Abolitionists." Mr. Wilson urged its adoption in a speech of some length, setting forth the necessities of the case and the importance of taking an advanced position. "The issue," he said, "is now clearly made up. Slavery assumes to direct and control the nation. The friends of freedom must meet the issue. Freedom and slavery are now arrayed against each other. We must destroy slavery, or slavery will destroy liberty. We must restore our government to its original and pristine purity. The contest is a glorious one. Let us be cheered by the fact that the bold and daring efforts of the Slave Power to arrest the progress of free principles has awakened and aroused the nation. That power has won a brilliant victory in the acquisition of Texas; yet it is only one in its long series of victories over the Constitution and liberties of the country. Other fields are yet to be fought; and if we are true to the country, to freedom, and to humanity, the future has yet a Waterloo in store for the supporters of this unholy system." He called upon the members of his party to accept these vital and living issues, and abide the result, whether it were victory or defeat. If we gain the one, he said, let us enjoy and improve it; if the result be adverse, we shall have the glory at least of having "deserved success. Whatever others may do, I am willing to act with any man or set of men, Whig, Democrat, Abolitionist, Christian, or Infidel, who will go for the cause of emancipation." After a speech expressive of his abhorrence of slavery and his sympathy with the objects of the resolution, Peleg W. Chandler, a leading member of the House, from Boston, moved to strike out the instructing clause of the order. Mr. Wilson accepted this amendment, and the order in that form was referred to the committee. But the committee was reluctant. A reactionary spirit pervaded the legislature, which seemed adverse to further efforts. After a delay of several weeks Mr. Wheatland reported that "the annexation of Texas to the United States, in a moral point of view, was a great evil, and one which Massachusetts resisted as long as resistance would do any good. The evil has come, and a majority of your committee are of the opinion that further action in the matter is not called for." This terse and laconic report was sanctioned by six of its seven members. Mr. Wilson made a minority report, setting forth that, by the action of the two houses of Congress, Texas had been blended and indissolubly connected with the Republic; that every act in its history, from its first inception to its final consummation, had been a deep disgrace; that the fermenting of discord, the levying of troops, the speculation in lands, the dark intrigues which had been plotted, presented a mass of rottenness and corruption; and that the object of annexation was confessed to be the extension and perpetuation of human bondage. Inspired by that purpose, the South, he said, has "won one of the most brilliant victories in her long series of victories over the Constitution of the country and the liberties of the people. Our Union is not the Union our fathers made. That Union has been trampled beneath the iron heel of the triumphant Slave Power. We stand on the threshold of a new Union, which |