The Liberator (newspaper)/September 18, 1857/The Banks Convention

The Banks Convention.

This Convention at Worcester, though not so numerously attended from abroad as was expected, was united, enthusiastic, and large enough to indicate a strong interest. I believe that Mr. Banks will be elected, through the strong desire of decent men to be rid of Gov. Gardner, and to unite on a tolerable representative of average Massachusetts sentiment. It is a genuine movement, and includes a wide range of elements. The combination of extremes in the Convention was very marked. The self-congratulation of some Boston men that there are ‘no extremists in the party,’ is amusing, in view of the prominence of those eminently law-abiding men (in fugitive slave cases) S. P. Hanscom, John L. Swift, and Judge Russell! In this city, moreover, great pains were taken to include among the delegates some of the leaders in the Disunion Convention, such men as Thomas Earle and S. D. Tourtellotte;—a significant circumstance.

In fact, at the preliminary meeting of the Convention which nominated Banks, in the principal speech made in his behalf, it was stated, as one of the chief proofs of his anti-slavery sincerity, that he had offered to ‘let the Union slide.’ And this was received with applause!

Thus, I doubt not, many strong anti-slavery men will support Banks, without any personal faith in his reliability. Between his election and Gardner’s, it is the old question between half a loaf and no bread. Look only at to-day, and the half loaf conquers. But if there is reason to hope, that by holding out till to-morrow (and not otherwise) the whole loaf may be obtained, it may be better to starve a few hours longer. This is, in a nutshell, the whole philosophy of third parties.

Another point, however, comes in. The moral offset to the advantage of having a decent party in power is, that it is a worse evil to have a bad thing done by a decent man than by a scoundrel. Let a fugitive slave case occur in Boston, (and the number of fugitives among us is increasing rapidly, thank God!)—it is plain what the State Executive will do. Gardner or Banks, no matter,—the Governor will sustain the United States laws, order out the muskets, and shoot down Charles Sumner himself, if he lifts a finger of resistance. The difference is, that the act which Republicans will curse, if done by Gardner, they will applaud, if done by Banks. And while Gardner would do the act with open villany, Banks would disguise it with such skilful words as would have almost vindicated the Stamp Act or Boston Massacre.

For these reasons, I can see nothing to be gained, by anti-slavery voters, through the support of Mr. Banks. To intrigue with Gardnerites or Buchananites against him, is utterly unjustifiable,—and yet there may be, I am sorry to say, some who will do this. But to honestly support an anti-slavery man, is worth risking the election of Gardner for.

Worcester, Sept, 11, 1857.T. W. H.