The rapid growth of the abolitionists intro duced discord and faction. In a short time leaders arose who demanded that abolitionists participate in politics, as a means of forwarding the cause. Some of the old leaders, of whom Garrison was chief, strongly opposed political action, but declared in favor of woman's partici pation in the work of the anti-slavery societies. The differences between the two parties were augmented by the strong opposition of some Northern clergymen to women taking part in public discussion. The dissensions grew till State and national organizations were disrupted, resulting in two sets of anti-slavery societies and two sets of anti-slavery publications. In 1840 a number of abolition leaders who believed the time for political action had come met at Albany and formed the Liberty party (q.v.). Among the founders of this national party were Myron Holley, Gerrit Smith and James G. Birney. The latter was nominated for the Presidency, and renominated in 1844. In the famous campaign of 1840 he polled about 7,000 votes and in 1844 62,000. Neither of these votes represented the total strength of the abolitionists and certainly not the strength of the anti-slavery sentiment of the country. The rapid rise of the anti-slavery societies which followed the formation of a national organiza tion greatly accelerated the work, begun by Garrison and the Liberator, of sending aboli tion documents into the South. The result was a storm of indignant protests from the slave holders who resented what they termed an in terference with their own domestic institutions. They declared that the abolition literature sent among them was incendiary and intended to excite servile insurrection, the most dreaded, because the most horrible, of events. Nat Turner's rebellion (q.v.) in Virginia (1831) was then still fresh in mind. In their excite ment the slaveholders made certain demands upon the people of the North. They called for the suppression of the abolitionists and their work by public opinion and by State action. Rewards were even offered for the arrest and transportation to the South of Garrison and Arthur Tappan.
Public feeling in the North was already so, bitter against the abolitionists that it hardly needed the added impulse of the South's de mands. On 4 July 1834 the anti-slavery celebra tion in New York City was broken up and the leaders compelled to flee for their lives. For nearly a week the excitement continued. All the important daily papers, except one, en couraged the populace to suppress the aboli tionists. Their business places and even their houses were attacked by the infuriated mob and the quarters occupied by the negroes were in vaded and property destroyed. In nearly every Northern State the work of putting down the abolitionists went on. The rougher element was encouraged by resolutions passed by meet ings of the respectable portion of the commu nity. Fifteen hundred influential names signed a call for an anti-abolition meeting in Faneuil Hall. The great orators of Boston addressed an excited multitude. In a few days gallows were found standing in front of Garrison's home. A few weeks later at a woman's anti slavery meeting a mob filled the streets, broke into the house to which Garrison had fled and dragged him out with a rope. He was rescued
with great difficulty and was compelled to leave the city for safety. Danger threatened aboli tionists in Brooklyn. Lydia Maria Child (q.v.) wrote: "I have not ventured into the city, nor does one of us dare to go to church to-day, so great is the excitement. Mr. Wright was yesterday barricading his doors and windows with strong bars and planks an inch thick?) A mob led by representative citizens of Cincin nati destroyed the printing press of The Philan thropist and attacked the houses occupied by negroes. In 1837 an Alton, Ill., mob shot down the Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy (q.v.), the editor of an abolition paper, while he was endeavoring to protect his press. This event and other ex treme measures against the abolitionists over shot the mark, and public opinion became more sympathetic toward the hated and hunted dis ciples of the abolition creed. The great major ity of them — women as well as men — showed the true martyr spirit, in the era of their per secution. But the rush of events was already drawing public attention away from the aboli tionists and turning it toward other phases of the anti-slavery conflict.
The Quakers had begun in Washington's administration to petition Congress against the slave-trade. Later their petition struck at slav ery in the District of Columbia. The abolition ists joined in the work of petitioning against slavery in the District. As early as 1831 John Quincy Adams, then a congressman, presented 15 such petitions, but declared that he did not approve of their object. From year to year these petitions had been received and referred to the committee on the District of Columbia and nothing more came of them. But in 1835 Hammond of South Carolina moved that an antislavery petition be not received. To some, this motion seemed necessary to check the ris ing tide of abolition petitions, but to others the remedy seemed worse than the disease, for it attacked the ancient right of petition. An ex citing debate arose running throughout an en tire day. Adams now came forward as the champion of the right of the petition and Slade of Vermont made a fiery speech declaring war upon the institution of slavery. This speech greatly angered the slaveholders and their sup porters. In 1836 the debate over abolition pe titions was renewed and continued for four months during which many thousands of per sons put their names to petitions. The result was a resolution of the House to lay all papers relating to slavery on the table and to take no further action on them. This was the germ of the famous °gag° rule. But this ac tion only stirred anti-slavery people and by 1838 petitions to Congress against slavery had in creased tenfold. Early in 1840 the House made answer to these by establishing the following standing rule: no petition . . . or other paper, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Terri tory, or the slave-trade between the States or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House or entertained in any way whatever.° Similar, though more temperate, debates were going on in the Senate and similar results followed.