John Thomas to Frederick Douglass, October 12, 1855

For Frederick Douglass' Paper.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

FREDERICK DOUGLASS: DEAR SIR:—The Whigs and Free Soilers have disappeared, and a new party—the Republican party—is in their place. It is by far the best great party that has appeared in this country. It is in its forming state now, and its perpetuity and character depend upon its being allowed to form and stand on its natural foundation, TEMPERANCE and FREEDOM. The great majority of the individuals composing it, intend it to stand on that basis, and for that reason alone made it. Standing on that basis, it will stand long in honor and power. To the great surprise of very many, and, no doubt, to the majority of that party, individual politicians (among them, to our astonishment, is Horace Greeley) attempt to force it to stand on the anti-slavery plank alone, and set the temperance plank afloat. In other words, they would have it stand on one leg. So might it stand a while, but it would assuredly soon fall. Strange to say, Mr. Greeley is put forward in the convention, and his paper used as the organ of the Anti-Maine Law portion of this party; and he urges that the Maine Law be left to shift for itself, to secure the countenance and support of such portion.— They have not yet succeeded in crippling the new party, nor do I believe they can do it.

The friends of temperance and freedom in this State for years have been fusing. They fused in fact before the Republican Convention was called—nor do I believe they can be disintegrated by the rum element which many have mixed with them. I say this fusion has been going on for years. It was not in good faith, therefore, for a few rum politicians in the city of New York, (whence all the disturbance comes,) to attempt by means of a call to divorce the elements of its union and strength.— They were together, the body was formed before that call was made; and the call which Mr. Greeley relies upon as a platform, seems a device to restrict its natural bodily proportions to the taste of Anti-Maine Law men—men who Mr. Greeley tells us are "prominent leaders"— to wit, John A. King, Philip Dorthimer, Moses H. Grisell, and Park Goodwin, and who, be also says, "are notoriously adverse to the principle" of prohibition.

I must stop to inquire how these men became leaders of the Republican party? Who elected them leaders? or what have they done to combine the elements which form it, unless it be the getting up that call? It is news indeed that this party has leaders so soon, and that those leaders "are notoriously adverse to the principle" of prohibition. Surely here is an attempt to slip the yoke on to this infant party ere it escapes the cradle. It is a startling idea that it is already under the guidance of antiprohibitory men, to be wielded for their uses.— And more startling still is it, that it is so with the assent, connivance and advice of Horace Greeley. But I deny the fact. So far from having leaders, the party protests against them, and especially and emphatically against such leaders. If leaders it must have, it will be those who cherish the principles of its life, viz: Temperance and Freedom, and not those who endanger the latter by tearing the former from its vitals.

But the Tribune talks differently. He says the prohibitionists—not the anti-prohibitionists —acted in bad faith, by insisting upon a prohibitory law. And that the Maine Law, instead of a life preserver, will sink freedom, if we fight for it as a party. Hear him:

"The attempt to coerce the minority into the affirmance of Prohibition seemed to us not in accordance with the dictates of good faith.— We had invited to that Convention all who were disposed to unite in resisting the aggressions and the diffusion of Slavery. That invitation had been accepted as well by opponents as by advocates of Prohibition. The former were an undoubted minority in the Convention as in the party—were heartily with the majority is resistance to Slavery and openly against them on the question of Prohibition. It seemed to us an unjust as well as ungenerous use of power, seeing they had come on our invitation to act with us on a matter in regard to which we were agreed, to force them into a virtual repudiation of their convictions on the point as to which we were at variance."

"We had invited the majority to join us to resist the aggressions of slavery, therefore the Maine Law should be left out of the party, because that minority oppose it." But that minority are J. A. King, P. Dorthimer, M. H. Grinell, Park Goodwin, &c., and they are "prominent leaders" of the party, as Mr. Greeley intimates, and could not therefore be present by invitation, but by a call dictated or approved by themselves. Leaders are the inviters, not the invited. Who does not see that all the trouble in the premises, lies in the fact, that individuals, aspiring to be leaders, attempted to forestall the expression of the party, and force on it a platform suited to their views, and bind it to their aims, in defiance of the opinions and feelings of nine-tenths of the voters of that party? And who does not see that the lack of justice and good faith attaches to those individuals, and not to the majority, as imputed by Mr. Greeley? If those who got up that call— (we don't think it was done solely or mainly by those who signed it)—if they hoped to escape censure in this regard, or to obligate the masses, they should have been as explicit as Mr. Greeley is. Then the call would read thus:

"Whereas, a minority of the Republican party are openly opposed to prohibitory liquor laws, but all are united against slave extension; therefore all who will give the Maine Law the go by, and unite to prevent the extension of slavery are requested to meet, &c."

That is the substance and effect of the call according to Mr. Greeley's interpretation, but cunningly they did not say so, that say was shrewdly reserved. The makers of the call knew they were appealing to men who insisted on the Maine Law as the first object of regard, and whose innocence and respect for the movers of the Convention, could not anticipate an intention to strike that object out of the scope of the party. They knew that such respectful and innocent ones would come to the Convention with their claims burning on their hearts and tongues—more than that, they knew they could do nothing without them. What if the call was, as above couched, in terms, as Mr. Greeley and his party claim it was in effect—how many prohibitionists would have responded to it, and how great would be its prestige and renown? Mr. Greeley knows, and these leaders know, there would not be enough in attendance to save it from contempt; they knew that before their call was made, and so drafted it as to draw the Maine Law men into it with their claims. With what face, then, do they charge a lack of justice and good faith in presenting those claims? We avoid harsh terms, and only infer, if there is injustice and bad faith in the premises, Mr. Greeley and his minority of liquor politicians are in a sad position to charge them upon the prohibitionists.

Mr. Greeley urged in the Convention and urges in the Tribune that Temperance should not be a party question, because it is "a proposition by itself." True, but it is a tremendous big proposition overshadowing all others. It touches every human interest as a State question; all others shrink to insignificance. Thro' the Senators and Congressmen it approves, it pours its health and poison into all the veins of the General Government. Adopt Mr. Greeley's proposition, limit Temperance politics to Assemblymen and Senators, and the Republican party may not only surround our capital as formerly with a powerful cordon of Anti-Maine Law State officers, to prohibit legislation and control executive patronage in behalf of rum, but through our Congressmen it may, as formerly, pour its tide of debauchery upon the national capital to be reflected back on our morals and politics. May Heaven defend us against such counsellors! Who can refrain from the inference that Mr. Greeley is misled by his little corps of rum politicians, to the end, not that they be Assemblymen or State Senators, but that they may be Congressmen and Senators or Presidents of the United States, and occupy the departments of State at Albany. Such proposition from a man less honest than Mr. Greeley would awaken only indignation and contempt. We are alarmed by his concessions that a portion of candidates for State officers are not only not Temperance men, but are openly opposed to prohibition. If such is not the identical language of his articles, it seems to be their meaning. What does he mean, I should like to know! Who does not know that had it been told the Convention that Preston King and Comptroller Cook were drinking men and opposed to the Maine Law (I state it by way of supposition not as a fact) they would have been voted down by an overwhelming majority? What has most contributed to the overthrow of the Whig and Democratic parties but this rum question? The slave question with its great power did not move them until the liquor question came to its aid. Divided were these interests and ever will be powerless—united, they will shake from the foundation every fortress of guilty power. "United we stand, divided we fall," is the motto every Liberty man and every Temperance man should wear upon his heart.

And yet Mr. Greeley and his minority men, pretend to believe, that though the Whig party and the Democratic party were not strong enough to survive the distracting force of the liquor question, the Republican party will be.— Temperance men will compromise with rum men and give them a portion of the State and national officers with one hand, while with the other, in the Assembly and Senate, they will shut up the dramshops. Thus rum and anti-rum will grow together, and be a long-to-live-glorious party! The proposition is an insult to common sense. A party composed of rum and anti-rum cannot survive the next presidential election. The cunning advocates of it don't expect it to. It may answer a turn. It may put liquor men into State offices—it may send them to Congress—it may help elect a President and secure a patronage for their benefit and then perish—perish it must. It looks not beyond the hour. Its first step is from the cradle to the grave. But if liquor men may be thus bolstered and encouraged with offices which do not act directly for rum and slavery, why may not pro slavery extensionists and even slaveholders have like encouragement? It will puzzle any rum Republican to say why. Shall Hards and Softs and Know Nothings be excluded from State offices not connected with the

liquor question and that rum politicians may fill them? Shall the prohibitionists put on a party harness for such ends and uses? God forbid. Ere rum politicians employ us to get office, they must change sides on the rum question. We may not bestow honor and reverence upon the enemies of our families and country.

When I speak of rum politicians, of course I mean anti-prohibitionists, be they teetotalers or not. When I speak of prohibitionists, I mean all Maine Law men, be they teetotalers or not. That a man is a teetotaler alone does not qualify him for my vote. That he is not a teetotaler does not of course disqualify him. He must be a prohibitionist. Prohibitionist is a land mark of the Republican party. It is a man's fidelity ability and integrity in regard to prohibition that determines his party position and title to office. A fervid desire of prohibition is a better test of personal virtue even, than abstract teetotalism or ice-bound religion. The limit of party expediency is the confines of integrity in direction of right, and that limit is defined by one word—Prohibition.

I must close. I repeat the idea I commenced with. The temporary platform proclaimed at Syracuse is but an expression of the delegates that formed it. Of course it is not relied on as a permanent party basis, either on the liquor question or the slave question. The platform will be shaped hereafter. All Temperance men, all Liberty men must abide by the party and give it shape. Its strength is their strength.— Never before in this State or country was there a great party whose bone and muscle was Temperance and Freedom. Let that bone and muscle do its work and place this party on its own basis. What if they were led to a false position by the mistake of Horace Greeley and a clique of rum politicians. Put upon guard now, they will not be in a condition for the like again. "No constitutional slavery by the General Government," if not as broad and explicit an expression as we would make it, is comparatively only broad. It abolishes slavery in all States and territories outside the old thirteen States, and emancipates every slave and his descendants who emigrate therefrom. But I regard the expression on the slave and Temperance questions, only as it indicates the heart of this great party. The Whig party, a large portion of the Democratic party bow respectfully to these great principles. They come into our presence to do so. They are swept into the current of Temperance and Freedom. Let every true man stand firm in his position and that current will assuredly circle and settle around him. He may not shift position when the ground he stands on is the centre of attraction, and the popular wave casts its offerings at his feet.

Yours, respectfully,

JOHN THOMAS.