Anti-slavery bugle. [volume], January 02, 1846, Image 2

About Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861

Image provided by: Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH

                
COMMUNICATIONS.
CONVENTION OF FRIENDS.
It is now generally conceded by abolition
ists tbat tho society of Friends occupies a
pro-slavery position and that it stands in the
way of the redemption of the Slave, and con
sequently that it is Anti-Christian.
In viow of these facts,many of its members
both at the East and West are dissolving
their connection with the society, are coining
out of the church,while others who are con
spicuous in the Anti-Slavery .cause.sce no im
propriety in remaining in connection with it
and laboring to replace it upon the Anti
Slavery ground that it once occupied.
I would now suggest the propriety of cal
ling a convention during the present winter
to comparo views on this important question.
E, H.
tFashington Township,I)cc. SOA 1815.
We hope the above proposition of our
friend Enos Ilillis will receive that careful
consideration which its importance demands.
Eurs.
LETTER FROM NEW BRIGHTON.
Fbismds Editors:
"The notorious," Abby Krllcy has
been here. After the description so often giv
en of her by our "Watchmen of Zion," we
might have expected lo see attached to her a
pair of horns, and a cloven foot. The people
have looked, heard, examined; the scare crow
has vanished like a phantom at the approach
of morning's dawn. The churches lit re have
been bolted and barred, hearers cautioned,
threatened, exhorted; nil has been done to pre
vent investigation that a band of inquisitors
could do, while debarred of their old argu
ments, halter, fire, and fagot. Devi!, infidel,
heretic, have been used so often that somo
new name must be invented to produce the
desired effect. Short sig'.ited mortals, to sup
pose the mind can thus bo fettered.
"Can you lull tho winded winds to sleep
Arrest the rolling world, or chain the deep?'
I pity the poor clergy here, the chains thry
have fastened around the limbs of the bond
man are evidently galling their own necks.
They are afraid of each other, of their own
hearers, and of the abolitionists. I only know
of one remedy fir them, which is to throw a
sido their infalibility, sack truth, anil line men
conform to its teachings; this would make
them free indeed. Those who have built the
churches here have been debarred the use of
them: tho upper story of a factory was the
best place in a village containing five church
es, where suffering Freedom might be defend
ed ! ! My countrymen, what strange delu
sion has stripped that sacred nam? of all its
charms? Once the very mention of the name
of liberty would brighten the rye and quick
en the puls8 of Americans; to secure its
blessings they could wade through sens of
blood, and scenes of danger. Mast this ap
athy last forever.' Is tho sun of our liberty
already on the decline, soon to be extinguish
ed, in the starless night of slavery? Forbid
it Heaven, forbid it man!
Our country can and must be free. The
love of liberty, though crushed, has not been
extinguished; long buried under piles of sec
tarian rubbish, the agitations of mind, like the
lieavings of an earthquake, has ngnin thrown
it upon the surface, the breath of fico discus
sion may yet fun it into a flame.
Let it once be established that freedom of
speech is as dangerous to Northern as South
ern oppression, and the efforts of our profes
sional gentlemen to suppress it will forever
be in vain. Convince the people that those
who can construo an old law into authority
paramount and superior to the rights of man,
are ever ready as occasion offer9 to wield it
agfimst black or white, that a pale face and
straight hair would not avert the blow; show
them that such can defend the monopoly of
the soil and the divine rights of the landed
aristocrats, as readily as the traffic in hu
man flesh and the divine rights of slavehold
ers; convince them of these things and they
ill declare themselves at onco independent
'cuch unworthy teachers. The profession
'. gentlemen here almost to a man, have op
posed tree diacussion, the priest, the lawyer,
-rid the physician, mysterious and indivisi
ble as the Trinity, have been leagued against
i'. No wonder. They all fatten on the misor
n s of mankind, to alleviate those miseries is
to destroy them, like Demetrius they feci their
"..raft is in danger." Oh people think for
ourselves, trust not your inestimable rights
' i the hands of your political and spiritual
aides, they will lead you into the quagmires
f religious and political superstition which
avo already engulphed so many nations:
ey will tie you up with old laws, creeds,
: J constitutions, until like a fly in tho spi
(' r's web you can't move a limb; you may
t .on demind liberty as the people of England
I ve demanded the repeal of the corn laws, a
In paichnient and ink will form a barrier
; ' can't surmount. Protect mental freedom
... ; like Sampson's cords your fetters will
r..- p from you, with scarce an effort: extend
i. ie Mca&ii.ga of freedom to the bleeding
bondman, and the eternal spirit of justice will
reward you.
'That mercy you to others show
The same will show to you.'
Act the reverse and your moral sentiments
will becomo blunted, and yourselves prepar
ed to becomo the destroyers of each other.
Follow not the multitude to do evil, suffer
not yourselves to he harnessed to the car of
church or stale; while like that of Juggernaut
thry crush human victims. If you do, remem
ber "The solf sime grave oppression delves
For others rights, is yawning fur yourselves."
The strong holds of oppression hero are
badly shaken, the handwriting on the wall is
visible, their glory has departed, happy for
the world when it sinks into oblivion. The
light of science, unobscured by tho gloom of
superstition, will then dawn upon the human
mind.
Believe me, the "Thugs" hero had nearly
strangled thought, but their giant power is
crippled, physiological and moral reform may
yet progress. Tho soul of man may yet
stand erect and dare to cxerciso its God-given
rights.
Reformers, a world's redemption lies upon
you, press on to the noble task, the united
power of thought will do it, the voice of mil.
lions, like that of Deity, ere long will sny
" Let there be light."
Abby and her comrades have done much
good here, thry have troubled the waters,
over which the nngcl of darkness has long
brooded in death-like silence.
Nature's true nobles, shrink not from your
herculean task. In tho sinilrs of an approv
ing conscience and tho blessings of many a
grief-worn heart ycu will f:nd an ample re
for all toils.
HENRY BROWN.
New Brighton, Dec. 29. 1845.
Fme.vds Editors:
1 have perused with
interest the reply of J. Barnaby, Jr. in your
last, to my article the previous week, and am
gratified to perceive a disposition of candor
and a desire to maintain the true issue perva
ding his arguments.
Friend Barnaby charges the Society of
Friends with being an anti-temperance, pro
slavery, war-sustaining Society immoral
and corrupt. I scarcely believe these accu
sations applicable to the worst man in our
community; he must therefore pardon me for
dissenting from him on this subject. To that
part of his argument by which he conceives
these charges are sustained, I have as yet
made no reply. Absence fron homo will
probably prevent me from giving attention to
this matter next week, oth erwise, I should
have made it the subject of a separate article.
Friend Barnaby, it appears to me, has com
pletely failed in his attempt to prove the a
bovc allegations. lie produces several rea
sons to prove them. Let us examine their
soundi:e-s.
First, the Society is pro-slavery and war
like for voting under this government. Ipke
it fur granted Lo will exonerate the Anti-Slavery
Society of which he is a member from
such a charge. I will also tike their consti
tution and declaration ot sentiment, as he
takes Friends discipline, as the bent expo
nent of their principles. Thoso documents
declare "political action in a constitutional
wiy, to be among the means they p.ledge
themselves to usa for the overthrow of slave
ry ! The common acceptation of this is to
vo'e and maintain the principles of the V nilod
States Constitution. Friends discipline,
(new edition, page 22) clearly discourages
such things, and goes as far as a Society, tol
erating freedom of conscience, can well goto
discourage it. Those who vote generally
vote against Slavery, by doing thus, do they
suppolt it? To be pro-slavery, is to be in fa
vor if Slavery. The term has no other defi
nition. Now if he has proved that the Suci
cty n in favor of Slaverj', I have entirely
verlooked nil his proof. lie has proved truly,
tiiat Friends in many places are opposed In the
measures and movements of the Anti-Slavery
Societies, and every argument he has produ
ced except the one I have just answered, goes
to establish this one fuel and nothing more.
Let us see. For illustration, take the Ortho
dox Friends of Salem, and apply to them this
kind of reasoning and see what tho result is.
They close the doors of their meeting house
against lecturers on temperance, abolition,
peaco, and tho meetings of horse thief detect
ing societies, therefore aro they in favor of
grog-drinking, slavcholding, war-making and
horse-stealing! They shut their doors against
tho Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, &c,
and their ministers use their influence against
them, and they disown their members for join
ing and "acting consistently" with those So
cieties; therefore are they opposed to tho re
demption of souls ! Thry must also, accord
ing to this logic, bo opposed to the marriage
covenant, because they disown their members
for marrying a certain way. One of our lead
ing tempcranco men recently objected to the
uso of a mooting house by the Temperance
Society, because they disfigured ,oil0u
the floor. Is bo therefore in finer of rum-sel-ing?
In the case of closing meeting houses
and disowning anti-slavery men from society
noticed by J. B. he will not admit that objec
tions to the measures and ether matters among
abolitionists, caused them to act thus, al
though there is much evidence to that effect
as I will endeavor to show. On the same
ground, I havo a right to require him to ad
mit that Orthodox Friends are in favor of the
eternal damnition of souls. And that be
cause each religious society and their minis
ters oppose each oIit their deliberate purpose
is to send their fellows to everlasting perdi
tion! And what becomes of the Ohio Amer
ican A. S. Society? is arraying a warm,
not to say a violent opposition against other
.1 nil-Slav jry Societies, and must therefore ac
cording lo my apprehension of the logic of
my friend, be pro-slavery also!
If friend Barnaby is informed on the sub
ject of the disowninent of I. T. Hopper, and
the Green Plain Friends, ho should, in order
to give those meetings a fair bearing, (and I
admit they need as favorable a construction
of their motives as charity can give them)
state that in each case those meetings at the
same time retained many very active anti-sla
very members, who, if they had acted "whol
ly" as ho says, with tfcrencc to the one sub
ject, would likewise have been disowned.
Besides, the charges in both instances were
for doing other tilings not necessarily connect
ed wiih abolitionism, butat variance with the
discipline. I find anti-slavery Friends gen
erally admit this, without justifying the acts
of those meetings. I do the same.
A besetting sin of mankind appears to he,
alvay3 to ascribe the worst conceivable mo
tive to every act of an opponent. Abolition
ists understand this, yet "pro-siatciy" fits
their lips, about as well as do "love of excite
ment," "new things'" "popularity, ice.,
that of their opponents.
To be favorable to "immediate emancipa
tion," was once the rule or test of abolition
ism. Now, thousands of that bcliefare "pro
slavery." My friend reasons thus. A Yearly meet
ing, although it petition Congress for the ab
olition of slavery remonstrate with the Leg
islature against the Black Laws, appoint an
anti-slavery committer, admonish its mem
bers against voting for slaveholders, and n
gainst using the products of slave labor, and
refuse to correspond with another Yearly
meeting for its misnsatf of Anli-SIavery
Friends, (and the Bugle recognizes this as an
anti-slavery act,) although it docs these, and
other acts which when done by the .'hitl-S.'a-vcry
Socic'y are called anti-slavery acts, yet
for not reading a document contrary to order,
(cud which snine of tho prominent members
of the O. A. A. S. Society on the ommitlre
who cxaminid it, agreed should not be read)
and because a minority of the mce:iiig, aboli
tionists among them (or till then called each)
refused the uso of (lie meeting house duri.ig
tho sessions of the meeting fer thc-.e causes,
and for some opposition to the mi.:s;t es of ab
olitionists by several of the mom'.c.s the
Yearly meeting i3 pro-sinery!
Although the meeting passes many direct
anti-slavery acts, my friend doc3 not admit
that such give it an anti-slavery character
but if it pas3 one fourth as many, or ono in
a hu -dred against an Anti-Slavery Society,
ho calls it pro-slavery. Ho is very good at
eharain-' but will trivo no credit. I trust be
keeps a mom fair book than this in his thnp
But what makes it nppearthe more unreason
able, as I have already shown, is, that eppo-
sition to the anti-slavery movement is one
tiling and pro-slavery entirely another thing,
He makes them identical. It is strange he
cannot ses that as tho Society of Friends are
so very much averse to a hireling priesthood,
and to most of the measures of abolitionists,
that they cannot opposo them without incur
ring the charge of pro-slavery, while he docs
not appear to perceive that the charge would
be equally, yea, much more applicable to his
Ami Slavery Society, for opposing another
Anti-Slavery Association the Liberty party.
His idea of what constitutes pro-slavery is
such that J. R. Giddings, Gerrit Smith, Cas
sius M. Clay and Lucretia Mott, as well as
the Liberty party, deserve that cognomen.
I am not sure it is nut becoming an honor to
incur the appellation.
Whether I havo succeeded in proving that
the stigma of "pro-slavery" is not applicable
to Friends, or not, I trust I have shown Ilia?
the arguments of my friend fail to establish
his ciiarge. I cannot in the space allotted to
me begin to answer tbeolheraccusations, viz:
That Friends are anti-temperance, warlike,
immoral and corrupt. I will refer him to those
already convinced, not by the professions, but
the practices of Friends, that they are the re
verse of what he believes them to be. I do
not take isolated cases, but the enlightened
world, their friends and foes, bear a united
testimony to the contrary of his belief. If
the fact, that ministers in a religious Society
oppose "bitterly" an Anli-Slavory Society,
makes the former pro-slavery, then why does
not the bitter opposition of A. S. lecturers to
religious Societies make them anti-religionists?
Are those members of a religious Society
who are inactive in the cause of the slave en
titled to any credit for the meritorious con
duct of their fellow members? or docs the
rule work but one way? If it may he rever
sed, then are the pro-slavery members of a
Society entitled to much credit for the pass
age of an net of the body which they havct-i-
olentiy opposed.
Tho arguments of friend Barnaby, not alrea
dy answered, mav all bo couched in the fel-
lowing propositions, viz:
1st. The Society of Friends make a high
profession and disown members who, in its
opinion, fail to come up to this standard.
Vint. I. IS. U. being a member ol that
Society cither does or does not believe it right
to make these high professions and to disown
its delinquents.
3rd. If he does not believe these regula
tions to be correct, be deceives tho Society
and the world, by rem lining in connection
with it.
4th. He cannot ho ignorant of the fact,
that the Society does not live up to its pro
fessions, and as it disowns its members fur de
linquency B. B. D. is bound to disown the
Society, and this obligation rests even strong
er upon him than it does on the Society lo
disown its members.
5th. The diff-renec between the regula
tions of a Temperance or other reform Secie
ty and Friend's Sunty, is ku0i tint a num
ber of the latter is necessarily implicated in
the guilt of other members, even of ether
Yearly meetings acting under different dis
ciplines, but in those reform associations, the
members are no more rc-ponsiblo fer tho acts
of the body lo which tVy belong than arc
the different individuals in a m ijhborhood
for the evil deeds cf each ether.
On the first, second and fifth propositions,
I would remark, that I believe it right fur all
persons and societies to endeavor to do what
to them appears to be right, rind that the So
ciety cf Friends do no more. Also that it is
right for all associations, and societies, and
individuals in them, to manifest their dissent
to every tiling that apprirs to them to be
wrong among them, to '"testily ngninst
t'icm" and thus clear thi-ir own s!:irt?; mid
that all societies and associations and even
individuals to a great jr or less extant, i this.
Every word cf disapprobation of a wrong, is
in effect, what Friends do when they disown
a member. The idea w the same, whether
it be incorporated in a discipline or bo kept
in tho mind. The olijtct of a protest against
an error in a reform society, has in it the es
sence of a 'testimony' against a delinquent
member in a religious society. The form'
does not change the su'i.ilance of the thiurr.
The real difference is all in tho imagination.
And every argument whioh will apply to one,
will apply to the other. It may be supposed
that because a Friend after disownmcnt is
imt permitted lo participate in the meetings,
constitutes a rial difference, but is the feel
"'A' rf repuUian not the same toward grog
sellers who intrude themselves into a temper
ance meeting, and meddle, and sway its ac
tion, and thwart its purposes, as against a
disowned alienated member of Friends socie
ty, who should persi-jt in a similar course in
their meetings! 1 have Heard no luile grum
bling among Abolitionists when thus intru
ded upon, (Temperance societies ofl en formal
ly disown delinquent members.) I am sur--prised
at the sentiment that there is no kind
of responsibility resting on one member of an
Anti-Slavrry Society for the action of tho bo
dy. Why does my friend get up in those
meetings and testify against their r.cts if ho
has no responsibility to bear in the case?
Were he not an unassuming man he would
leave us to inler that he merely desired to he
hoard. I cannot conceivo of any other good
object under the sun that could actuate him,
than that which ho disclaims. If I under
stand lain, ha will not protest against the act,
jf at oar next A. S. Anniversary the Society
adopts a resolution to support J. C. Calhoun
for President in 181(3. He will not be "re
sponsible" for what they do, no more than
are two neighbors for each others acts!
But the contrast is very great when I com
paro with this, his idea of the responsibility
of a member of Friends' Society. Itamounts
to something like this. Were Abby Kel
ley Foster a member of the Ohio Yearly
Meeting, and wero she to labor as she does in
behalf of the si ave, and with her wonted do
vutedness to truth and duty, would labor in
as well us out of that Society fer the advance
ment of her cause, sho would, if she did not
withdriw on hearing of the disownment of
an Anti-Slavery Friend in New York for
quarrelling with an Anti-Abolition Minister,
be a pro-slavery woman! lie my well feel
it his duty to withdraw if such be his idea
of accountability.
There is perhaps no other society or orga
nized association in which a majority do no
rule. Is tho Society of Frienda tha
- I r
of three individuals may defeat the intention
of 500 other members. When therefore the
meeting refuses to take action on any subject
tho inference, with strangers to their order is
that the majority have thus decided. This
is a prevailing error with persons who pars
sentence upon tho society. If friend Barna
by in a temperance meeting votes with a mi
nority when a resolution passes to put the
law in force against the rumseller, there is
more semhlanco of justice in holding him
accountable for the act, than there would in
a Friends meeting where a majority overrule
him and pass an act. In the first case he
has assented to the principle that the majori
ty have a right to rule, in the latter caso be
has made no such concession. The idea ob
tained to seme extent that to "submit" in a
Friends meeting is equivalent to a sanction,
is incorrect. 1 "submit"' when the constable
tikes my cow for a muster fine.
By the third proposition, my friend thinks
if I do not unite with the regulations of so
ciety, I deceive it and the world. I do not
agree to the correctness of many regulations
in the Society. Nor yet do I deceive them.
If they ever supposed mo to bo in favor f
all regulations, they are undeceived long ere
this or I do not know how to do it. As t
the "world," so far as I can "shed a feeble
ray around," my views arc morp or less
known and never on prrpcr occasions with
held. 4th proposition. I do not believe the soci
c'y carries cut his professed principles, but,
that duly requires, that I should hence with
draw, i-j not so clear with me. It there b
a s i, iely er a man rnyw here who does do
this. It is v, l:::t 1 did v.it know. Our very
ici:i,'.;ic-is it rpprnrs to me, constitute one of
the strongest reasons for ferming ourselves
into society that l y the potency of combin
ed i ction, we may improve) rich other and tho
world. My friend and I have entirely differ
ent ideas of the dject of icligious societies,
lie thinks tinic vhouid he no such society
till r.-.en aro perfect it ran carry cut their
principles, that they could not crntuninato
each other, f.n 1 then there would be no need
of such a society.
1 venture nothing in nss;rting tint my
friend Barrnby professes to bclk-ve in a doc
trine which is even above the profession
Friends, which requires greater practical
christian perfection to carry it out than any
in tho Society of Friends, they do net be
lieve human nature competent to att.iin it. It
is tho doctrine of community, yet hs doubt
less fal'u quite as far short of carrying cut
his principles on this subject and probably
others us do Friends any part of ihcir prates
sions which he can name. IIo admits that
he does not carry out his principles. In this
ho is like myself and others-.
Yet ho disowns the society for the same
omission of duty! There is tho difference
in favor of Friends; th y do not understand
tlicir principles to require them nat lo vote, &c
as was tho case with nearly all the non-resistants
till recently. It is friend Ilarnaby'e ap
plication if their principles that shows them
to bo so inconsistent in this matter. In his
cwn ens?, he acknowIedg33 that tho carrying
out of his principles or professions would
lead him to a vary different course.
The sum and sabsttneo of all his reasons
fordiaowning Friends is, that they fail to put
their principles into practice, and my friend
will not deny being lilic than in this respect.
That he did not do it whilo a member, nor
dnc3 not now do it. I consider this a reison
why he should not disown tho society. I
showed sufficiently in my last, how well the
reform societies with which J. B. is connec
ted, carry out tlvdr principles by hiring
slaveholders to furnish thorn with cotton lux
uries, &c.
J. Barnaby 's idea, that, the right of a sin
gle member ta disown tho body being rathi
superior to tho right of the mass to disown a
member, does not appear so obvious to me.
If ho aud I h.iva a settlement of accounts,
and a qucstiun of justice arises between us
involving $100, I should be induced to
change my opinion of his honesty if he
should persist iiicirrying out this principle
of claiming lo have a belter idea of right than
a whole community or society to which I
would desire to have tlio matter referred.
Why should not a declaration of my friend,
in a society, and out of it of his opinions
and his dissent from its erroneous course be
a virtual disowninent of tho society to far as
it is wrong? Would he feel guilty in hir
conscience for a wrong act of the society af
ter laboring to the best of his ability lo pre
vent it? Does he regard the fact that public
sentiment might look upon himas implicated,
as constituting him an evil dor! On leaving
a society because it is unroformed, would ho
not leave a field of labor such as needed his
labor most? When he goes in quest of
a field of labor in a moral enterprise
does he seek a neighborhood where they
are already reformed? Docs he expect u
havo more influence with strangers than a
mong his acquaintances and friends? If the
society is pro-slavery is it not likely to re-