Though you have demonstrated your ability to utilize the internet in finding and plagiarizing a website, your "facts" simply do not support that conclusion. You are confusing the Free-Soilers (who were by definition what their name said - those who wanted free soil in the territories) with the abolitionists (who also wanted what their name said - the abolition of slavery). An abolitionist could be a Free-Soiler and some of them were, but not all Free-Soilers were abolitionists and far from it. In fact, the most successful Free-Soilers - as in the ones who won election to office and later became the Republicans - were NOT abolitionists.
While the Free-soilers went on to play a spoilers role in the presidential election in 1848 and eventually send a dozen men to Congress, the Liberty party with Garritt and Spooner went..nowhere.
I'm sure that would come as news to Smith, Spooner and any competant historian. Smith won election to Congress in 1852, which, the last time I checked, occurred 4 years after 1848. As for Spooner, his book became the subject of discussions on the floor of Congress at many points in the 1850's, which, the last time I checked, also occurred after 1848.
More concrete evidence that Spooner and his cohorts were fringe players on the American abolitionist movement's stage.
Not really. All you offered, mac, was a small list of only loosely relevant facts that you stole off of a website then misinterpreted and mistook for evidence of something that it was not. About the only thing you "evidenced" with that little charade was your willingness to engage in plagiarism and your inability to make even the most basic dinstinctions between free-soilers and abolitionists.
Well, mac, it seems you have thoroughly embarrassed yourself yet again, so I suppose that, rather than respond like a reasonable person and apologize for your errors, you will bombard me with the usual barrage of inane name calling with not a word of substance. It's par for the course though...
mac_truck => as in hit by one.
Face it loser, you're just another intellectually dishonest bottom bitch for Lew Crockwell and his CSA zombies.
Oh really? You're challenging the anti-slavery pedigree of the Free Soil party and its direct antecedent roots to the defunct Liberty party? Well lets follow the political path of one John Parker Hale.
Elected to the Senate as a Democrat from New Hampshire, Hale was an early leader in the New England anti-slavery movement. He joined the Liberty party and was their nominee for US president in 1848, but withdrew and joined the newly formed Free Soil party with Martin Van Buren. Four years later (1852), John P. Hale was the nominee for US President of the Free Soil party.
It seems pretty clear to me that the Liberty party merged with radical Democrats and conscience Whigs in 1848 to form the Free Soil party. That John P. Hale could go from US presidential nominee of the Liberty party in 1848 to US presidential nominee of the Free Soil party in 1852, informs me that abolitionist viewpoint predominated in the Free Soil party.
Your attempt to raise Spooner and Smith to eminence using the Liberty party of 1849 is a canard. Most contemporary references to the Liberty party do not extend past 1848 . Thats about when Smith and Spooner took over, isn't it?
-btw is it true that the one 'true' abolitionist Gerritt Smith did evenutally make it to US congress in 1852, as a...Free Soiler!?