Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-01-02

inpl In the case of closing meeting houses
and disowning anti-slavery men from society
noticed by ]. b. he will not admit that otec-
tions 10 The measures and other matters among
abolitionists, caused them to act mus, al
though there is much evidence to that eject
as | will endeavor to show. On the same
ground, | have a right to require HIM 10 ad-
nit that Orthodox Friends are in favor OF the
eternal damnltion of souls. And that DC
cause each religious society and their minis
tiers oppose each other their deliberate purpose
is to send their fellows to everlasting Perdl-
ion! And what becomes of the Ohio Amer
lean A. S. Society? II is arraying a warm,
not to say a violent opposition against other
.9nti-SlaUsry Societies, and must therefore ac-
cording TO my apprehension of the logic OF
my friend, be pro-shgsry also!
If friend Barnaby is informed on the sub
iect of the disownment of |. T. Hopper, and
the Green Plain Friends, he should, in order
to give those meetings a fair hearing, (and
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 a%nti-sla-
very members, who, if they had acted "whol-
ly" as he says, with reference to the one sub
iect, would likewise have been disowned.-
Besides, the charges in both instances were
for doing other things not necessarily connect
cd with abolitionisnl, butat variance with the
discipline. I find nti-%slavery Friends gen.
orally admit this, without justifying the acts
of those meetings. l do the same.
A b%esetting sin of mankind appears to be,
always to ascribo the worst conceivable mo-
tive to every act of an opponent.-Abolitlon-
lists understand this, yet '.pro-slaceyy' fits
their lips, about as well as do Glove OF excite
ment," thew things" "Populayity," &c.,
that of their opponents.
To be favorable to "immeiiate emancipa-
iion,'' was once the rule or test of abolition
ism. Now, thousands of that b~eliefare 'pro-
slavery"
My friend reasons thus. A Yearly meet
ing, although it petition Congress for the alb
clifton Of slavery-remonstrate with the Leg
%islature against the Black Laws, appoint an
anti-slavery committee, admonish its mem
bers against voting for Shareholders, and a.
gainst using the products of slave labor, and
refuse to correspond with another Yearly
meeting for its misusage of Anti-Slavery
Friends, (and the Bugh recognizes this as an
,
anli-slavery act,) although it does these, and
other acts which when done By The .4nt-!Sa-
very Society are called anti-slavery acts, yet
for not reading a document contrary to order,
(and which some Of the prominent members
of the o.. A. A. S. Society on tie committee
lcho eramiued Il, agreed should not be read)
and because a minority of the meeting, aboli-
tionists among them Cor HHhen called such)
refused the use of the meeting house during
the sessions of the meeting-for these causes,
and for some opposition to the Measures of alb.
olitionists by several of the mcm,e,s-the
Yearly meeting is prO-slavsy!
Although the meeting passes many direct
anti-slavery acts, my friend does not admit
that such give it an anti-savery character,
but if it pass one fourth as many, or one in
a hu -dred against an Anti-Slavery Society,
he calls it pro-slavery. He is very good at
charging but will give no credit. | trust he
keeps a more fair book than this in his SLAP.
But what makes it appear the more unreason-
able, as / have already shown, is, that oppo-
sition to the anti-slavery movement is one
thing and pro-slavery entirely another thing.
He makes them identical. 1t is strange he
cannot see that as the Society of Friends arc
so very much averse to a h%ireling priesthood
and to most Of the measures of abolitionists,
that they cannot oppose them without incur
ring the charge of pro-slavery, while he does
not appear TO perceive that the charge would
be equally, yea, much more applicable to his
Anti Slavery Society, for opposing another
Anti-Slayery Association-the Liberty party.
His idea of what constitutes pro-slavery is
such that J. r. Giddings, Gerrit Smith, Gas
sius NJ. Clay and Lucretia Mott, as well as
the Liberty party, deserve that cognomen.-
| am not sure it is not becoming an honor to
incur the appellatiOn.
Whether have succeeded in proving that
the stigma of "pro-slavery' is not applicable
to Friends, or not, | trust ] have shown tina,
the arguments of my friend fail to establish
his charge. ! cannot in the space allotted to
me begin to answer the other accusations, viz:
That Friends are contemporaries, warlike,
immoral and corrupt. will refer him to those