or national anti-slavery societies; the "old organization," retaining
the designation of the "American Anti-Slavery Society." The State
Societies have, for the most part, taken up a position of neutrality, or
independence of both. It is important to add that the division took
place on the "women's rights" question, and that this is the only one of
the controverted points which the American Anti-Slavery Society has
officially affirmed; and it is argued, on behalf of their view of this
question, that since, in the original "constitution" of the society, the
term, describing its members, officers, et cet., is "persons," that
women are plainly invested with the same eligibility to appointments,
and the same right to vote and act as the other sex. I need not say how
this "constitutional" argument is met on the other side. The other new
views are held by comparatively few persons, and neither anti-slavery
society in America is responsible for them. In conclusion, I rejoice to
be able to add, that the separation, in its effects, appears to have
been a healing measure; a better and kinder feeling is beginning to
pervade all classes of American abolitionists; the day of mutual
crimination seems to be passing away, and there is strong reason to hope
that the action of the respective societies will henceforward
harmoniously tend to the same object. That such may be the result is my
sincere desire. It is proper in this connection to state that a
considerable number of active and prominent abolitionists do not
entirely sympathize with either division of the anti-slavery society;
and there are comparatively few who make their views, for or against the
question on which the division took place, a matter of conscience.

I have now given a brief, and I trust an impartial account of the origin
of these dissensions. Some may possibly regard the views and proceedings
above referred to, as the natural growth of abolitionism, but as well
might the divisions among the early reformers be charged upon the