to become the formal organ of the movement, but very little sympathy or attention was bestowed by the press in general.

.

As the Presidential campaign of 1888 approached the Anti-Saloon Republicans prepared to test their strength in the national councils of the party. A second National Conference was called, to meet in New York, May 2 and 3, 1888. "The Anti-Saloon Republican movement," said the call for this body, "has now reached a magnitude and a momentum which nothing can withstand. It no longer pleads for a hearing. It commands compliance. It proposes to place the Republican party where it belongs, positively and finally on the side of the home and the public safety, as against the saloon system and its destructive work. Speaking for an overwhelming majority of Republican voters and good citizens, we respectfully but most urgently ask our brethren of the Republican National Convention, which is to meet in Chicago in June, to incorporate in their platform of principles a declaration of hostility to the saloon as clear and as emphatic as the English language can make it. We ask this because it is right. Right is might." But this Conference was not well attended. There were no very important representatives of the party present, and the finance report showed that Mr. Griffin's Committee was hopelessly in debt. Never theless it was decided to make as good a fight as could be made at the coming National Convention of the Republican party in Chicago. Despite the complete defeat of the Anti-Saloon Republicans in that body, the services of their organization were given to the National Republican managers in the Presidential contest.

Mr. Griffin conducted a campaign bureau, publishing and circulating documents which appealed to temperance people to support Harrison and Morton. This bureau was, however, in no way publicly connected with the Republican National Committee, Chairman Quay disclaiming responsibility for it; and Mr. Griffin was not permitted to carry on his work at the regular headquarters of the party, although a German and Anti-Prohibition bureau managed by a prominent

1 See REPUBLICAN PARTY.

"personal liberty" advocate was harbored there.

After the election the efforts to maintain an agitation were brought to an end. The New York Weekly Mail and Express continued for some months as the organ of the movement, and Mr. Griffin became its editor. But the proprietors of this newspaper, in July, 1889, perceiving the inconsistency of championing Prohibition while loyally supporting the actual policy of the Republican party, presented to Mr. Griffin the alternative of advocating High License and similar compromises or severing his connection with the paper. He stood by his principles, and with his retirement from the Mail and Express the national movement was practically terminated.

The Anti-Saloon Republicans, though never a strong factor in the Prohibition work, made important contributions to the discussion of political issues. There was a natural antagonism between them and the party Prohibitionists, and warm arguments were exchanged. A bitter spirit was manifested at times, especially in the editorials of the Weekly Mail and Express before Mr. Griffin assumed charge of that journal. Even the National Committee of the Anti-Saloon Republicans exhibited extreme rancor, and in one memorable address emanating from it the party Prohibitionists were derided as "a combination of misguided enthusiasts, moral peacocks, disgruntled politicians, mercenaries and cranks operating in the sacred name of temperance.'

But the conscientiousness and earnestness of most of the representative AntiSaloon Republicans were never questioned. Their arguments and efforts put many individuals to severe but wholesome tests. They were criticized for their concessions and tame acquiescence; but if, as Republicans seeking to convert their party organization, they had been more radical and less patient, their ultimate failure would not have been so instructive. The most important reason for their lack of success was expressed by Governor Foraker of Ohio, in a letter to Mr. Griffin. "We are straightout Republicans in Ohio," said he, "with entire confidence that the duly accredited representatives of the party in convention assembled will always best determine what the party should do." That is, the

Anti-Saloon Republican movement was irresponsible and irregular, viewed from a strict party standpoint, and the practical politicians were not disposed to encourage a factional, loosely-connected, sentimental and unauthoritative organization.

Besides Mr. Griffin, some of the men most conspicuously identified with the cause were Henry B. Metcalf of Rhode Island, Major Z. K. Pangborn, editor of the Jersey City Evening Journal; H. K. Carroll, LL. D., of the Independent; Gen. A. B. Nettleton of Minnesota, Noah Davis of New York, Frank Moss of New York, Rufus S. Frost of Massachusetts, Liston McMillen of Iowa and Alexander S. Bacon of New York.

Anti-Slavery Parallel, The. -A A marked similarity is observable in the movements against slavery and against the liquor evil in the United States. Slavery and the liquor traffic were intimately associated almost from the beginning. The traders who brought shiploads of slaves to America carried cargoes of rum to Africa. During the Revolutionary period the slave-trade and the liquor traffic alike provided themes for discussion and agitation. The early ef forts for both reforms were very conservative. The first Anti-Slavery society did not propose Abolition, but was, as its name implies, a "Society for the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in bondage." Similarly the first temperance societies consisted of individuals pledged "to discountenance the too free use of ardent spirits," or "to restrain and prevent the intemperate use of intoxicating liquors."

In 1775 the first Abolition society was formed at Philadelphia, with Dr. Benjamin Franklin as President, and Dr. Benjamin Rush as Secretary.

Two years later the question of prohibiting whiskey-making came to the surface, the following resolution being passed by the Continental Congress at Philadelphia:

RESOLVED, That it be recommended to the several Legislatures in the United States immediately to pass laws the most effectual for putting an immediate stop to the pernicious practice of distilling grain, by which the most

1 The editor is indebted to Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D., of Bradford, Pa.

extensive evils are likely to be derived if not quickly prevented."

In 1785 the Manumission Society of New York City was formed, with John Jay as its President, to secure the freedom of slaves. That same year Dr. Benjamin Rush put forth his famous tract, "An Inquiry into the Effects of Ardent Spirits upon the Human Mind and Body," which created a profound sensation and led to the "Memorial of the College of Physicians to the Senate of the United States Congress," deprecating the use of ardent spirits and recommending the imposition of high duties upon their importation. This memorial was presented Dec. 29, 1790. Four years later, in 1794, the Quakers presented to Congress the first Anti-Slavery petition. Soon after this Abolition societies sprang into existence in various parts of the country as did also anti-liquor societies. As early as 1789 a number of farmers of Litchfield County, Conn., combined to do their agricultural work without recourse to spirituous liquors.

In 1805, at Allentown, N. J., the "Sober Society' was founded, and in 1808, at Moreau, N. Y., an organization believed to have been the first so-called 'Temperance Society" was established. In 1816 a newspaper called the Appeal was started at St. Clairsville, O., to champion the Anti-Slavery cause. The movement against slavery languished for some years, but in 1831 new life was given to the agitation by William Lloyd Garrison's Liberator, and from that time forward the issue became of paramount importance. In 1834 President Jackson recommended to Congress the passage of an act suppressing Anti-Slavery literature. The Whig party opposed this radical measure, and many Abolitionists looked to that party to advocate their principles, much as Prohibitionists of a later day looked to the Republican party. In November, 1839, a number of Abolitionists met at Warsaw, N. Y., and organized a political Anti-Slavery party with a platform consisting of a single plank as follows:

"RESOLVED, That in our judgment every consideration of duty and expediency which ought to control the action of Christian freemen requires of the Abolitionists of the United States to organize a distinct and independent political party, embracing all the necessary means for nominating candidates for office and sustaining them by public suffrage."

This was about 64 years after the organization of the first Abolition society; and 64 years after the Moreau "Temperance Society" was formed the Prohibition political party held its first National Nominating Convention (at Columbus, O., Feb. 22, 1872).

Nothing is more remarkable in the history of these two political movements than the striking similarity between the arguments against separate party action brought to bear upon the adherents of the "Third Party" of a generation ago, and those used to show the inexpediency and immorality of radical Prohibitionists to-day. As" Prohibition doesn't prohibit" is a favorite claim of the anti-Prohibitionists, so the prediction that emancipation would not emancipate was industriously urged by the anti-Abolitionists. "It is a singular fact," said the People's Friend of Skowhegan, Me. (a pro-slavery paper), "that while it is well known that the emancipation of African slaves in the West Indies, especially in the island of Jamaica, has not only rendered the island a desert, but the Africans themselves the most miserable savages and idolators, yet clergymen, men professing the Christian religion, should from their pulpits recommend a similar course in this country. It is not emancipation itself that is complained of, but the injudicious manner in which it was done-emancipation without regard to consequences or the future welfare of the slaves. It is said that the Jamaica negroes are the most miserable beings on the face of the earth, and are fast returning to the worship of idols, beasts, trees and serpents." 1

The following appeal in the Portland Inquirer, just before the Presidential election of 1852 (Oct. 28), corresponds in letter and spirit with the closing words addressed at the end of each political campaign to the rank and file of the Prohibitionists by their leaders:

"Vote for principle: vote right, and you need not fear the consequences. A vote given in ac cordance with the dictates of conscience is not lost its salutary influence, a noble testimony for truth and freedom. will be felt, whether the candidate for whom it is given is elected or not. Those votes only are lost which are given for unfit men, in violation of principle."

The Abolitionists, like the Prohibitionists, were bitterly taunted with the com

1 Quoted in Austin Willey's Enquirer (published at Portland, Me.), Aug. 23, 1853.

Many people have been unable to see how voting for the Free Democracy [Abolition party] could effect anything in favor of free make out that we shall ever secure decisive maprinciples. They have figured it and cannot jorities, and without that, votes are all thrown The fact is, we shall have ma

away.

jorities fast enough by and by, but at present we for just principles is in the end precisely equiva hardly need them. A powerful, firm minority lent to a majority. In Ohio there is a

good illustration of the power of our votes, though a decided minority of a little over 30.000. While the slave Democracy all over the country elsewhere are prostrating themselves upon the Baltimore platform [of 1852], and before the inaugural, like the worshippers of Baal around his altar, the party in that State dare do no such thing How plain from these facts the value of a free vote, although it may not elect. Such results are within our reach while a small minority, and when these are gained the step will be short to majorities. Roll up, then, the votes of free men. We can succeed."

The speeches of noted Abolition advocates are replete with arguments that, with slight adaptation, might be repeated by those desiring to most effectively answer the popular objections to the Prohibition party. Charles Sumner, in an address delivered in the Metropolitan Theatre of New York, May 9, 1855, said:

"In such a cause I am willing to be called fanatic.' or what you will; I care not for aspersions, nor shall I shrink before hard words, either here or elsewhere. Hard words have the sneer is often launched that our enterprise been followed by personal disparagement, and lacks the authority of names eminent in church and State. If this be so the more is the pity on their account; for our cause is needed to them alas! It is only according to the example of hismore than they are needed to our cause.

But

It is

tory that it should be so. It is not the eminent in church and State, the rich and powerful, the favorites of fortune and of place, who most promptly welcome Truth when she heralds change in the existing order of things others in poorer condition who throw open their hospitable hearts to the unattended stranger. Nay, more: it is not the dwellers amid the glare of the world, but the humble and lowly who most clearly discern new duties. as the watchers placed in the depths of a well may observe the stars which are obscured to those who live in

the effulgence of noon. Placed below the egotism and prejudice of self-interest or of a class-below the cares and temptations of wealth or power.-in the obscurity of common life, they discern the new signal and surrender themselves unreservedly to its guidance. The Saviour

knew this. He did not call the Priest or Levite or Pharisee to follow him, but upon the humble fishermen of the Sea of Galilee.

And in another speech (Sept. 16, 1852) Mr. Sumner made the following reply to the frequent declaration that a "third party" effort was inexpedient and hopeless:

"But there is one apology which is in common to the supporters of both the old parties and which is often in their mouths when pressed for their inconsistent persistence in adhering to these parties It is dogmatically asserted that there can be but two parties, that a third party is impossible, particularly in our country, and that, therefore, all persons. however opposed to slavery must be content in one of the old parties. This assumption, which is without any foundation in reason, has been so often put forth that it has acquired a certain current and many who reason hastily or who implicitly follow others, have adopted it as their all-sufficient excuse for their conduct. Confessing their own opposition to slavery, they yet yield to the domination of party and become dumb. All this is wrong morally, and, therefore, must be wrong politically."

Joshua R. Giddings, explaining the rationale of the separate party movement for Abolition, used these striking words in a speech in the National House of Representatives, June 23, 1852:

"I am aware that a strong effort is making to

induce our Free Democracy [Abolitionists to sustain the Whig candidate Gen. Winfield Scott] at the coming election. With the gentle man nominated I have long been acquainted. To him nor to the Democratic nominee have I any personal objection. But if elected he is pledged to maintain the outrages, the revolting crimes pertaining to the compromise measures and Fugitive Slave law. to render them per petual so far as he may be able, to prevent all discussion relating to them. To vote for him is to vote for his policy, to identify ourselves in favor of the avowed doctrines which he is pledged to support, to give proof by our votes that we approve the platform on which he stands. But, sir. why vote for Scott in preference to Pierce? Of the men I say nothing. They merely represent the doctrines of the parties that nominated them. The doc

This is

trines of the Whig party pledge them and their candidate to maintain slavery. as far. I think, as human depravity can go. 18 the Democratic party has dived deeper into moral political putridity, some archangel fallen must have penned their confession of faith. If there be such a distinction, it can only be discovered by a refinement of casuistry too intricate for honest men to exert. Sir, suppose there was a shade of distinction in the depths of depravity to which those parties have descended, docs it become men-free men-men of moral princi ple, of political integrity-to be straining their visions and using intellectual microscopes to discover that shade of moral darkness? No, sir; let every man who feels he has a country to

save. a character to sustain-that he owes a duty to mankind and to God-come forward at once and wage a bold and exterminating war again.st these doctrines, so abhorrent to freedom and humanity."

The bitter opposition of many good men to the radical Prohibition movement was paralleled in the Anti-Slavery crusade. Biblical arguments were used by the antagonists of Abolition. Although most of the active Abolitionists were devout Christians, and the cause derived earnest and able support from the churches, vigorous resistance was offered by infiuential clergymen. Rev. Nehemiah Adams of Boston, Rev. Dr. Lord (President of Dartmouth College), and Bishop Hopkins of Vermont wrote books to counteract the teachings of the Abolitionists. So distinguished and noble-spirited a Methodist leader as Wilbur Fisk discouraged their efforts.1 It is said that only three of the 23 ministers in Springfield, Ill. (Lincoln's home), voted for Abraham Lincoln in 1860.

The Whig party treated the slavery question in essentially the same way that its successor, the Republican party, has treated the Prohibition issue. In localities where the Abolition sentiment was

E. V.

strong the Whigs professed Anti-Slavery sympathy and tendencies, and made much of the pro-slavery attitude of the Democrats. Elsewhere they took all necessary pains to assure the slave power that the party would protect its interests. Smalley's valuable "History of the Republican Party" (New York, 1884), discusses in a very candid way the unsatisfactory and cowardly behavior of the Whigs. "The Whigs dodged the slavery question altogether," says Mr. Smalley (p. 17); and "as a national organization it [the Whig party] was obliged to cater to the South, and no positive

declaration against the extension of slavery could be got from its conventions (p. 15). The Abolitionists were frequently charged with responsibility for defeating the Whig party, just as the Prohibitionists are blamed for beating the Republicans. Republicans. In 1844 it was the Abolition vote in the State of New York that

caused the defeat of Henry Clay for the Presidency; and just 40 years later the defeat of Blaine was attributed to the large Prohibition vote in the same State.

1 See "Life of Wilbur Fisk," by George Prentice, D.D., (Boston, 1890), pp. 194-221.

All sorts of compromises were resorted to during the Anti-Slavery agitation. Slavery was permitted in some States and forbidden in others. Even the tax plea was advocated: several times it was proposed in Congress to put a tax upon imported slaves, and thus secure a Government revenue from a traffic that "could not be suppressed." Indeed, there were plausible reasons for the claim that the slave trade could not be stopped; for according to the admission of Southern men the smuggling of African negroes into Southern ports was regularly carried on for years after the traffic was prohibited, and although it was declared by act of Congress that all Africans landed in the United States should be forfeited to the Government and entitled to freedom, not one African of all the 100,000 or more so landed was ever forfeited.

A still more curious coincidence is found in the fact that statesmen of the

highest character and talent strenuously insisted that legalization of the slave system had made it thoroughly legitimate and established a right of property in slaves not to be gainsayed or rudely disturbed. Thus Henry Clay said in a speech that "Two hundred years of legislation have sanctioned and sanctified negro slaves as property." 1

993

The Abolitionists, like the Prohibitionists, were unmercifully abused and ridiculed. Daniel Webster called their movement "a rub-a-dub agitation " 2 Henry Clay sneeringly said they were "under the influence of negrophobia." Chancellor Walworth called them "visionary enthusiasts" and "reckless demagogues. "Mr. Preston of South Carolina, in a speech in Congress on a motion made by James Buchanan, said that they were "hot-headed and cold-hearted, ignorant and blood-thirsty fanatics." Their petitions were denounced as "the rant and rhapsody of meddling fanatics, interlarded with texts of Scripture." A leading Whig journal of Albany, N. Y., said of the Free-Soilers: "They now constitute a sectional, political, Abolition party, with that poor despised member of the United States Senate, William H. Seward,

1 Quoted in "Complete Works of W. E. Channing, D.D." (London, George Routledge & Sons), p. 660.

2 Speeches and Lectures of Wendell Phillips (Lee & Shepard, 1884), pp. 38, 39, 50.

Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, by Henry Wilson, vol. 1, p. 139. Ibid, vol. 1, p. 235.

for their leader. They can never succeed in this State, and if they could they must be a miserable minority and powerless in the nation."

Nearly all the most earnest AntiSlavery leaders were devoted to temperance principles, frequently advocating advanced legislation. Gerrit Smith, Charles Sumner, Henry Wilson, Abraham Lincoln, Wendell Phillips, Horace Greeley and many others were thoroughly in sympathy with the anti-liquor cause.

The vote of the Anti-Slavery men in national contests was at first discouragingly small, and even after four Presidential compaigns had been fought their strength was unimportant when compared with that of either of the other parties. Below are given the votes cast for the Presidential candidates of the AntiSlavery men and also of the Prohibitionists:

The heavy decrease in the Anti-Slavery vote in 1852 was due to the desertion of many Democrats who had voted for exPresident Van Buren in 1848 from personal reasons rather than because of deep-seated convictions against slavery. With the Presidential contest of 1852 the Whig party made its last national campaign of importance; its disintegration followed, and in the struggles of 1856 and 1860 its successor, the Republican party, took an attitude satisfactory to most of the foes of slavery. These explanations are important in comparing the Abolition and Prohibition votes.

Appleton, James.-Born in Ipswich, Mass., in 1786, and died at the same place in 1862. He was prominent as an Abolitionist, and early in life became interested in the temperance reform. In