OCR Interpretation

Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, December 26, 1845, Image 2

Image and text provided by Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, OH

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83035487/1845-12-26/ed-1/seq-2/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

would not scruple to murder our mother fo
a meal of victuals or t-j scatter the desecni
tflj remains of a dead sister, or father, or
wife, lo manure; otir cucumber vines! We
thank God tlr.it instinct is stronger than
reasoning, and conscience more- powerful
thin argument. Wo do most sincerely be
lieve, and we deliberately weigh what we
nay, tint nil the books and papers which
have been written to prove slavery a divine
institution, have never convinced a single
man or woman that it was right--mt not o;i!
We have not read the argument above referr
ed to life is too short for a man t.i read a
discourse to prove that a man may not mur
der his father, or sell hi J country for gold,
or enslave his fellow man! If then wo will
not and cannot read the argument of our
able friend, 'A Virginian,' in defence of the
right, what shall we say of tho God defyinj
defen ler of the wrong? Wo promised to
eive tha 'Alabama Preacher' and hi class a
round, when wo got coo!: wo now postpone it
forever: for until this miserable anil dying
beinT of ours becomes yet most deserving
of all the ills that flesh is heir to, we never
ran associate in our mind Helicon and Sla
very without tho most unqualified loathing
and hot indignation! C. M. Hay I J'rue A-merican.
Friends Editors: '
In tho Bugle of tho
1 9th inst., is an article written by my friend
D. B. Davis, which seems to demand some
reply from me; and which I hasten to notice,
believing that a candid interchange of views
relativo to the subject of his communication,
cannot but bo beneficial to all parties con
cerned. In the communication to Salem Monthly
Meeting, published in your paper of the 12th
inst., and to which my friend B. B. Davis
oems to have some objections, it is statod
that "the Society of Friends professes to bea
Christian body that it professes to keep it
clf such, by dealing with those of its mem
bers who are guilty of immoral or unchris
tian conduct." In regard to this matter I
suppose there can be no difference of opinion
among those who know anything directly of
the professions of tho Society, whatever con
clusions may be drawn by those who judgo
of these professions by its practices merely.
In the Discipline of the Society of Friends
of Ohio, as revised and printed by direction
of the Yearly Meeting in 1842, it is declared
that the great head of tho church has been
pleased to gather Friends as a people to him
self, and to inspire theia with a degree af the
same universal love and good will by which
was ushered in the dispensation of the Gos
pel. Declarations of the same nature abound
throughout the discipline, and 60 far as that
instrument is to be received as an exposition
of the principles professed by the Society,
(and I know not where else we are to look
for such exposition) the Society makes the
Tery highest pretensions to Christianity.'
Furthermore, if any member acts in a manner
unworthy of this profession, it is declared to
be "the indispensable duty" of the Society
to treat with him without delay, and if he
fails to give evidence of repentance, to dis
own him. But it is useless to multiply words
here. No one who has read the discipline of
the Society or other writings approved by
Friends, or listened to the testimony of their
recommended ministers, can be In doubt for a
moment relative to this matter.
My friend B. B. D. call himself a mem
ber cf Society. lie stands committed in fa
vor of these principles and regulations before
Friends, and the world. In his own heart lie
either docs, or docs not adopt thorn. He oi
ther does or does not beliove it right for the
Society to make these high professions and
its "indispensable duty" to carry them out,
by disowning delinquent mombers and in oth
er particulars. If ho believes it the duty of
the church to act upon those principles and if
the church refuses to set thus, it must ac
cording to his own argument bo his "indis'
pensahle duty" to disown the church; as ev
ery argument used in the discipline, or which
can be used to justify the Society for the dis
ownraent of delinquent members will go as
far, aud I believe farther to justify individu
als who are true to principle, in disowning a
delinquent church.
If on the other hand he rejects these prin
ciples of the Society, as being incorrect, he
appoars to the world what he is not deceives
the Society, and stands condemned by the
discipline; which declares that thero is impo
sition "on the part of those who (as is some
times the case) insist on being retained as
members while at varianco with Friendi
either in principle or practice!!" There
cems, then, no course for my friend
o pursue, but to join himself to what he
pleasantly terms the "new Comcouter Soci
ety," unless ho is prepared to take the posi
tion and maintain it, that the Society of
Friends dors act in a manner worthy of its
high Christian professions. This position he
will not attempt to establish, for two reasons.
The one is that he is well acquainted with
the position occupied by the Society for sev
eral years past, towards questions of reform.
The other is that he is en honest man.
My triwnd is well aware that most of the
meeting houses belonging to Friends have
boen closed against Anti-Slavery and Tem
perance meetings that thousands of its mem
bers support slavery, by voting for slavehold
ers, upholding a pro-slavery Government and
in other particulars that many, perhaps a
majority of the recommended ministers of tho
Society, ns well as many of its other mem
bers are using their whole inlluence against
the Anti-Slavery movement, and yet retain
their standing in the Church; and that members
have from time to time been disowned, whol
ly on account of their consistent Anti-Slavery
character and action. Cuuld such things
he, if the Society carried out in practice its
Christian professions? Can that bo justly
considered a Christian Society, which, while
it professes to recommend none to tho min
stry, except such as are divinely appointed,
nd speak by iminediato inspiration of tho
Holy Spirit, yet retains in the ministry per
sons who are active and bitter in their oppo
sition to thccaiiBoof tho slave, and declares in
its Quarterly and Yearly meetings, that it
believes such are "careful in tho exercise of
their gifts to wait for divine ability?"
Can tho body which hurls from its connec
tion such persons as I. T. Hopprrand his as
sociates, wholly on account of their efforts in
behalf of blooding humanity, be justly look
ed upon as occupying the high moral and re
ligious station claimed by the VSociety of
Friends? But one answer can be given by
any friond of truth to these questions.
I know it is sometimes asserted that Friends
of Ohio and other places, have not'.iing to do
with tho action of Friends in New York.
This is a mistake. I. T. Hopper was dis
owned not merely by Rose street Monthly
Meeting, nor by the Quarterly and Yearly
Meetings of that place which sanctioned its
proceedings, but by the Society of Friends;
not one meeting in unity and correspondence
with New York, having ever, so far as lam
informed, breathed a whisper in disapproval
of this high-handed outrage.
Such then, is the position occupied by the
Society from which I have thought it my du
ty to disconnect myself, and to which friend
B. B. D. still adheres. Though I believe
that after a careful examination of the sub
ject he will agree with me that ho cannot bus
tain his present relation to this body, without
in somo measure at least, sanctioning its pro
slavery character without being, so far as
this connection is concerned, the "mpporttr
of Slavery the enemy of the Slave.'"
B. B. Davis is of opinion that my princi
ples, if carried out, would require that I should
come out from the Anti-Slavery and Temper
ance Societies as well as that of Friends.
If he succeeds in establishing this view of
tho subject, it will, it seems to me, have lit
tlo to do with the matter in question, as it is
not at all likely the discovery that I am
already involved in guilt, owing to my con
nection with two Societies, many of whose
members are corrupt, would induce me to
connect myself with a third, of tho same, or a
worse character, and thus add to my guilt.
Principle, it seems to me, would require that
I should leave the former, rather than join the
But I do not admit norbalieve, that the argu
ments used to show the duty of disclaiming the
Society of Friends will apply to the Bame ex
tent, or to any extent, to the members of the
Anti-slavery & Temperance Societies, for the
reason that these associations are in several es
sential particulars different from that Society.
Every person who subscribes to the Consti
tution of the A. A. S. Society is a member ef
that association. Individuals of all classes,
and of every character and condition, meet
together on its platform to labor for tho over
throw of slavery. That Society has no pow
er nor does it claim the right, or hold it a du
ty, to disown any member under any circum
stances. All, who wish to do so, ment upon
that platform compare views with etch oth
er unite, so far as they can agree, in the ear
rying out ef moasures for tho promotion of
the Anti-Slavery cause, and whore differen
ces of opinion arise, or a courso of conduct
is pursued by some which others disapprove,
neither party is responsible for the doings of
the other, any mors than one individual is
chargeable with the wrong done by another,
from the fact that belli live in the same village
or neighborhood. The same may bo said cf
the Temporanco organizations. Every or.e
can see ut a glance tho wide distinction ex
isting between associations of this character,
and tho Society of Friends and most other
religious bodies, which are disciplinary, and
profess to shut nut from their connection all
who do not sustain a christian character.
It is evident therefore that what my friend
says about members of A. S. Societies using
the product of slave labor, voting for slave
holders, &c, though it may have an effect to
induce theso members to examine the ground
whereon they stand, cannot by any means be
made to prove it the duty of any to come out
of those Societies, whoso members as before
shown are not responsible for the setions of
each other.
I will now very briefly answer, so far as
I am able, tho several interrogatories at the
conclusion of B. B. D's communication.
Tho first question I answer in the affirma
tive. To the 2nd I answer, we should use
tho best means which arc strictly moral 3rd
there are. ltd. To the first part of this in
quiry I reply that I have been a member of
an assoieialion in which it is in order to agi
tate all questions, no matter of what charac
ter. This association is, however, small. It
was established a few months ago in Salem.
To tho latter pa-t of the query I answer, that
I have endeavored to exert an influence upon
the members of the Society of Friends, though
I have not taken part in the discussions of
its meetings.
5th, This depends upon the character of
the organization. If it is disciplinary, and
adopts as one of its cardinal principles, tha'
it is tho "indispensible duly" of the body to
disown those of its members who do not act
"in a manner becoming their profession," it
is the duty of thoso who are true to principle
to disown those who pro not, no matter which
is tho stronger party. If on ilia other hand
the association is similar to the O. A. A. S.
Society, then thoso who aro true arc not im
plicated in tho guilt of thoso who aro false.
Cth, It would not. 7th, No. 8t!i, This I
cannot answer; I think probably it would not
continue lor any great length of time. Oth,
Some members of that Society abstain from
tha proceeds of slave labor to a great extent.
A majority I presume do not; some members
who use theso products consider themselves
inconsistent in doing so, others do not. 1 Oth
This I cannot answer. 11th, It is not.
12th. It does. In proof of this I refer my
friend to the action of the Society in New
York, towards I. T. Hopper and others; and
to tho action of Indiana Yoarly mooting tow
ards the Friends of Grocn Plain.
Respected Friends:
In looking over tho Bugle a few
days ago, I was very forcibly struck with an
article from the pen of John B. Wolf, taken,
I think, from the "Western Christian Adve.
cate," and it occurs to me just now, that a
word in relation to some things contained in
it, might not be out of place; and I also wish,
to call attention to Rome further devclope
ments of his real character, that from them,
the people may see, what this class of per
sons (tho Priests) are, and what they are do
ng; but, I would observe here, that from all
I can learn of the man, I conclude that he is
a tool in the hands of Eliaha Bates; comes at
hit call, and barks nt his bidding and I will
further add, that no other than a Priest, or the
willing tool of a Priest, could be guilty of
placing before the public an article so notori
ously false, and slanderous, in its character,
as the one alluded to. In the first place
he professes to have a perfect knowledge of
the motives, which impel our friends to pur
sue the course they are taking, and tells us
that it is the establishment cf the principles of
Infidelity. Merely calling tho reader's atten
tion to this, is sufficient; all will see the
Priestly assumption at a glance. He says
"he asked some quistions when nt the Con
vention at this place,' but he says nothing of
the manner of doing it or, of the professions
he made to the audience. Those questions
were asked out of pure regard for tho cause
in which wo were engaged (so he said) "and
much depends on the answer you give to
them. It is for the benefit of the audience,
of the speakers, and of the cause, that I, atk
them, there is a great deal behind them" &c
And yet, he denied in the same meeting the
correctness of the foundation principle of the
Anti-Slavery enterprise; that is, that it is
wrong under all circumstances to hold Slaves;
hence, he must be viewed as an advocate of
Slavery; an advocate of man holding his fel
low man as property. This also, only re
quires to have the attention directed to it in-
order to exhibit the basonoss and hypocrisy
of the man. But I mutt not dwell longer on
this, I wish as I said in the commencement,
lo call attention to other dovolopenients of the
real character of this Priest, John B. Wolf.
On the evening of the 1-1 tit of last month,
a meeting was held somo three or four miles
west of Mt. Plsasant, to examine the pro
priety of holding temperance meetings on tho
Sabbath day. At an early hour, the house
was well filled, and among tho number pres
ent wr.3 John B. Wolf. Tho ordinary for
malities of organizing wcro over when I ar
med. But I very shortly discovered that
some thing more was to bo done. Arrange
ments were being made to select speakers.
This last, was evidently tho work of friend
Wolf, us after movements clearly proved. I
took occasion to suggest that any person pres
ent wishing to speak on tho question under
consideration bo left at liberty to do so. At
this friend W. aroso and said 'he would op
pose any movement of the kind, the audience
had coruo there to hear men of influence and
intelligence speak, and must not be disappoin
ted. "The proposition" he said, "involved
the discussion of another question, that of the
natural rights of man, altogether extraneous
to tho ono we came todiscuss." There was
soinothing more said, not now rccollccted,he,
however, took upon himself the entire con
trol of the meeting. Eight persons were
named who might, if they wished, have priv
ilege rf (speaking, but all others were pro
hibited. One who dared to think only as
his Priest dictated, asserted in his remarks,
that the real question lay back of the our pro
posed here for discussion, 'It is' says ho
la the Sabbath a Christian institution?" He
attempted to show it to be such a one, and as
none appeared to be dissatisfied with it being
made tho question, be demanded that we
should come to it. 1 arose and inquired cf
the audirneo which ono of the questions I
Bhotild discuss, as it had been said that the
one of holding temperance meetings on the
Sabbath was notjthe ono w e came to examine;
some one made nnswer bcth. I then pro
ceeded ta show the necensity of doing good
on all days, and from that, and the fact that
the salbath is not a Christian institution; that
the introduction of the Christian dispensation
abrogated the Jewisil Sabbath and did noten-
tablish any other that Christ, his Apostles,
nor yet the oarly Christians cvtr observed
any particular day as tho Priests of the pres
ent day would have us do. It was said by
another that the Church and State were the
only institutions recognized in the Biblc,and
wo had no right to form others.
In reply.it was shown that if this doctrinn
was adhered to, no reformation could ever be
accomplished in cither, for the Church would
excommunicato, and the State put to death
thoso cf their members who attempt to re
form them. The utterance of these facts,
was more than the piou3 Priest rould bear;
(and by the way, all that was s:id by myself
in relation to tho Sabbath was proven from
their own authority, tho Old and New Tes
taments and the standard Church histories.)
He imposed himself in the meeting for nearly
half an hour, for the purposo of abusing my
self and others: said wo belonged to a Socie
ty whose object was to destroy the Marriage
relation, bring about Agrarianism, that we had
introduced our Community principles there
by proposing that all be at liberty to speak
who desired &c. He also stated that I had
left the qurstion and taken up another, the
Christian Sabbath and when asked who it
was that first introduced it, replied emphatic
ally "did'nt tell you what the question was,
and what light had you to pay any attention
to what thry said?" thus, again, placing him
self in the position of the whole meeting, or
rather assuming to be the meeting.
It would occupy too much space to give all
the particulars, but from those given all who
ere net blind must see the necessity of ceas
ing to sustain a lying and tyrannical Priest
hood. Tliey are always in the way of every
reform that is started. The lie v. John B.
Wolf could charge ethers whom he knew
were laboring to reform the drunkard and
break the chain of the Slave, with striving to
destroy the marriage relation, while he him
Blf represents a body, that has already abro
gated that sacred institution in the case of
one sixth of tho American people. If aboli
tionists do not get tho Priests converted to
truth, and righteousness, they had as well
give over striving for tho relief of the Slave
from his chains.
Yours fur the right.
Mt. Pleasant, Dec. 10th, 1845.
Thanks to the friend who furnished us
with a copy of the following letter; it will
doubtless be read with much interest. Eds.
"New Ltmi, Asht. Co., O.,
15th Nov. 1845.
Dear Brother,
You know the Frcu Will Baptists of this
place, were set all on fire bcecause Mr. Fos.
ter and Mi6S Kclley, slandered them so, in
proving them to be pro-slavery.
They een went so far as to cx-coramuni-
cate some of their worthy members, (who,
they were sure, would leavo them) for tho
same reason that they "gnashed their tooth"
no Mr. F. & Miss K.
Might not one, reasonably expect such
thorough-going-Abolitionists, as these Free
Will Baptists, would sit most patiently, under
an Anti-Slavery lecture, though it were deliv
ered in a houso devoted to Jleligiout War-
Well, last Sunday ovening, I gave them an
opportunity of proving, that they had been
slandered, by those Anti-Slavery Lecturers
and theso ex-communicated church-mem
bers, and that it wan not without reason they
wore so exasporatcd against them.
After listening to a sermon from Elder
Yates, in which ho endoavored to prove
that the body as well as the soul, would go to
Heaven; that the judgment day was the day
for which all others was made that the Saints
would smilesnd triumph- over the last eon
flagratioD, when the Earth, and with it, its
wicked inhabitants should be consumed in
the flames, &.C., &c, I say, after listening
to a sormon which ran after this sort, I took
advantage of "opportunity given for any
one to speak;" but had said but few words
barely informed thrm that I "proposed to call
their attention to another subject, their duty
to God their Father and man their brother, in
which lliey had a more immediate interest
than the ono to which they had been giving
their attention" when tho Elder with
commanding voice, said; "Sit down" "Sit
down!!" "Sit down!!" "Its my meeting."
I remarked that I chose not to relinquish
the opportunity given and proceeded.
Thereupon the Elder commenced singing
"praises ti God" in order lo drown my voice
an 1 thus break me down. His piout Ant,'.
Slavery brethren joined in with him and sang
("in tho Spirit" no doubt) until they were
tired of it.
Meantime, I continued speaking spoVe
slow and loud S3 as to enable theso not en
gaged in Religious Worship, to hear. I
made use of this circumstance, the spirit
manifested towards me, to convince there
that these professed christians were "of the
Well they so.in became weary of "mrkinj
melody unto tho Lord" and so changed the
order cf worship. Two of their hading,
most devotional brethren made towards me
with firm step, (Courageous mo n!! What
Christian fortitude!!!) and with hearts all
filled lo overflowing with tha spirit of their
Master, laid violent hards cn rr.c r.nd thrust
mo out into the street.
As soon as freed from their grasp I retum
d to t'.io "Hjuso of God" ar.d egain ccm-
ir.cnccd speaking was dragged out the sec
ond time by the samo pious Chtiitiatu th
second time returned and remained unmoles
Tho elder thought it bent not longer to
continue the "unequal combat, and eo uncer
emoniously lrfl the house without singing,
prayer, or the benediction.
The sisters and most of tho brethren fol
lowed, leaving in: to closn the meeting in my
own way.
You would naturally supposo such a bus
tle as was produced by this "drag out"
would seriously alarm the female portion of
the assembly, but so far from it, some of them
wcro a good deal elated, as they cvi ced by
their indelicate grint M they pat sed me on
their way out.
They probably had seen the like before, for
they believe in fightiug.for what they cr.ll ihoir
"reiiri'ou rights."
I w ill just say, in justice to some of
their mcri.bers, whe disapprove of breach
ing the subject of' Slavey in a reli
gious meeting, that they disapproved cf th
'drag out" on tho ground that it would make
talk and give them a bad name abroad.
One of t!ii sisters loo, w ife of the leader
in the attack upon my person, "Would'nt
havo had it dono for Tin Dollars;" fur tint
reason as her husband said la reply, "O
you'r afraid it'll hurt my business, that's all
you care for it."
I did intend giving you before now an ae
count of the manner Mr. Foster used up El
der Dunn that "Angel" bb some of his F.
W. Baptist sisters call him, but I've waited
so long I'll defer it till I see you, which I
hope will be eoon. Yours truly,
"I love agitation when there is cause for it
the alarm bell which startles the inhabi
tants of a city, saves them from being burn
ed in their beds." Edmund Eurke.
CfcrPcrsons having business connected
with tho paper, will please call on James
Bamaby, corner of Main and Chcsnut ste.
In New Brighton, Pa. on the 21st. inst. at
tho house of Milo A. Townsond, Stephen
S. Foster of New Hampshire, to Abby Kcl
ley of Massachusetts.
Stephen S. and Abby Kelley Foster, after
visiting a few towns in WeBtorn Pa. design
holding a series of meetings on the Western
Reserve. Those persons of the latter place
who desire meetings in their respective neigh
borhood's, and can procure suitable places,
and accommodations, will please send infor
mation (pust paid) to the Editors of this pa
per. It is desirable to hear from the friends
as soon as possiblo, so that such arrange
ments may be made as time will allow, and
the interests of the cause eeera to demand.
Oif-Carvor Tomlinson is hereby Informed
that wo can supply him with the book for
which he wrote. We have been waiting for
an opportunity to forward them, bot none has

xml | txt