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 doctrines of the Reformation, or the “thirty years’ war” upon the preaching of Luther.

On the evening of the 14th instant, we met at a social party the leading abolitionists of Philadelphia of the “old organization.”  There were present all but one of the delegates from Pennsylvania to the London Convention.  I availed myself of the opportunity of briefly and distinctly stating the unanimous conclusion of the London Anti-Slavery Committee, in which I entirely concurred, on the points at issue.  I observed, in substance, that in the struggle for the liberation of the slaves in the British Colonies, one great source of our moral strength was, the singleness of our object, and our not allowing any other subject, however important or unexceptionable, to be mixed up with it; that though the aid of our female coadjutors had been of vital importance to the success of the anti-slavery enterprize, yet that their exertions had been uniformly directed by separate committees of their own sex, and that the abolitionists of Europe had no doubt that their united influence was most powerful in this mode of action:  that the London Committee being convinced that no female delegate had crossed the Atlantic, under the belief that the “call” or invitation was intended to include women, felt themselves called upon, without in the slightest degree wishing to interfere with private opinion on this, or any other subject, to withhold their assent to the reception of such delegates, as members of the Convention, and that their decision, when appealed against, had been ratified in the Convention itself, by an overwhelming majority, after a protracted discussion:  finally, that those whose views I represented, could not be parties to the introduction, in any future convention, of this or any other question, which we deemed foreign to our cause, and therefore that for those with whom it was a point of conscience to carry out what they deemed “women’s rights,” I saw no alternative but a separate organization, in which I wished that their efforts on behalf of the oppressed colored race, might be crowned with the largest measure of success.  I observed, in conclusion, that my object was simply to state the decision of those with whom I acted in Great Britain, and that I must decline discussion, being fully convinced that it was better that the now separate societies should aim at the common object, in a spirit of kind and friendly co-operation, each in its own sphere, rather than that they should waste their energies in mutual contentions, and in the unprofitable discussion of topics not legitimately belonging to the great question of the abolition of slavery.

Although I had to address a company almost unanimously opposed on these points to myself, my communication was received in a kind and friendly spirit, and I was courteously informed that it would be taken into consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.