His narrow intolerance of the idea of anti-slavery political action, and his fierce and unjust censure of the champions of that idea, well illustrate the trait in point.  Birney and Whittier, and Wright and Gerritt Smith, and Joshua Leavitt, he apparently quite forgot, were actuated by motives singularly noble, were in their way as true to their convictions as he was to his.  No, there was but one right way, and in that way stood the feet of the pioneer.  His way led directly, unerringly, to the land of freedom.  All other ways, and especially the Liberty party way, twisted, doubled upon themselves, branched into labyrinths of folly and self-seeking.  “Ho! all ye that desire the freedom of the slave, who would labor for liberty, follow me and I will show you the only true way,” was the tone which the editor of the Liberator held to men, who were battering with might and main to breach the walls of the Southern Bastile.  They were plainly not against the slave, although opposed to Mr. Garrison, narrowly, unjustly opposed to him, without doubt, but working strenuously according to their lights for the destruction of a common enemy and tyrant.  This was the test, which Garrison should have taken as conclusive.  The leaders of the Liberty party, though personally opposed to him and to his line of action, were, nevertheless, friends of the slaves, and ought to have been so accounted and treated by the man who more than any other was devoted to the abolition of slavery.

But the whole mental and moral frame of the man precluded such liberality of treatment of opponents.  They had rejected his way, which was the only true way, and were, therefore, anathema maranatha.  When a moral idea which has been the subject of widespread agitation, and has thereby gained a numerous following, reaches out, as reach out it must, sooner or later, for incorporation into law, it will, in a republic like ours, do so naturally and necessarily through political action—­along the lines of an organized party movement.  The Liberty party formation was the product of this strong tendency in America.  Premature it possibly was, but none the less perfectly natural.  Now every political party, that is worthy of the name, is a compound rather than a simple fact, consisteth of a bundle of ideas rather than a single idea.  Parties depend upon the people for success, upon the people not of one interest but of many interests and of diversities of views upon public questions.  One plank is not broad enough to accommodate their differences and multiplicity of desires.  There must be a platform built of many planks to support the number of votes requisite to victory at the polls.  There will always be one idea or interest of the many ideas or interests, that will dominate the organization, be erected into a paramount issue upon which the party throws itself upon the country, but the secondary ideas or interests must be there all the same to give strength and support to the main idea and interest.