Society at New York were placed in a difficult position, but as far as I
am able to judge, they endeavored to hold on the steady tenor of their
way, without, on the one hand, countenancing the introduction of
extraneous matters upon the anti-slavery platform; or, on the other
hand, yielding to the clamor of the pro-slavery party, whether in church
or state.

In subsequent anti-slavery meetings in Boston, New York, and elsewhere,
it became manifest that there was a radical difference of opinion on the
subject of political action; the non-resistant and no-government
influence, operating decidedly against the employment of the elective
franchise in the anti-slavery cause; and the agitation of this question,
as well as that of the rights of women, in their meetings, gave to them
a discordant and party character, painfully contrasting with the
previous peaceful and harmonious action of the societies. That some of
both parties began to overlook the great subject of the slaves'
emancipation, in zealous advocacy of, or opposition to, these new
measures, I cannot well doubt, judging from the testimony of those, who,
not fully sympathizing with either, endeavored to bring all back to the
single object of the anti-slavery association. In addition to these
intestine troubles, the pro-slavery party made strenuous exertions to
fasten upon the society the responsibility of the opinions and
proceedings of its non-resistant and no-government members. Under these
circumstances it is easy to understand the interruption, for a season,
of the unity of feeling and action which had previously characterized
the assemblies of the abolitionists. The actual separation in the
societies took place in the Spring of 1840. The members of the executive
committee at New York, with one exception, seceded and became members of
the committee of the "new organization," under the name of the "American
and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society." There are, therefore, now two central