Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-03-06

pO5lIOn 10 II certain AHll-oldftI1 0OSAStJ'y
But he derides the logic Of my arguments,
when I show that the society by opposing
the Abolition movements, at the sam time
that it opposes slavery directIy--passing
FIVE acts against slavery, 10 ono against
those societies, is not therefore in ia
vor of Slavery. In the face of my distinct
disclaimer Of the fact, he persist Is in repre-
senting me as having admitted, that the So
ciety pass some pro-slavery acts, but several
anti-slavery ones, and should therefore be
called .7nt-Slavery!
l shall not however complain of this, Tor
/ do not wish this part Of his argument an
swered better than he has done it. He says
81 do mol chzrge the Society 1ciM being pro-
slavary according to his (my) understanding
of the worl!' The reader will recollect my
understanding of the word. 1t was, that it
meant in favor Of liberty. 7 accep, however
the explanation of my friend as entirely sat-
isfactory. He now says Friends ae not pro-
slavery; are not Sin heart nor in ~"intent"
opposed 10 the reforms. If he goes much
further he will fall into the other extreme.
l ask pardon of the reader for dwelling
upon the comparison of the sheep thief,
and for abiding to a similar one of his about
A. B. G. g. ID. neither of which have either
force or sense after the admission ofmy friend.
He calls C. Il great 'criminal," and after
comparing him TO the Society of Friends
(Which is, per his admission, guilty of an
error OF judgmeni) says this is a fair ~illustra-
ton, sc. 1t has long since been discovered,
that it was very easy for a person to suppose
a case or raise a proposition of their own,
aud then answer and refute it most triumphant
ly, and these SMILES of my friend appear to
me a fair illustration Of such instances.
]. B. repeatedly asserts that tho Soci-
ETY. is clear Of the charge of intentional
wrong, and says misunderstood him in sup
posing he considered it pro-slavcry in heart,
in intent &c. Yet in the above he has CON-
pared it to a wrong doer 1Vho is necessarily
such in intent.
J.. Barnahy's questions relative 10 ]. +.
Hopper are fully answered in my former
communications l have also explained the
Green Plain affair-sta,ing that did not JUS
tify either party in that difficulty. l have
heard no one say either party did entirely
as they should in the case. | more especial
ly regard the acts of the body as unwarrant-
able. But my friend puts the question
"Does he (B. b. d. believe they were dis
owned for any fault!" I have already said
bol;ayaJ tba, ,,oro olso in fault | Mead
s. NJ. Janney and others, say that the Greer
Plain friends offered to retract or condemn
one of their acts, the publishing Of G. f
Whites name. Will friend ]. B. say the.
did wrong where they published White
name, or when they retracted! Or were the,
right in both cases! Where | said, the fac
that ]. B. was deficient in carrying out hi
W principles, was a reason why he shoul
not disown the society for the same defect
he appears to understand me to say, that hi
defect in the Society is a reason why w
should not disown ii!
]. b. admits that he, like the Society
Friends, does notcarry out his principles; BIT
remarks that this is a reason why he should NJ
continue his connection with it. Why not! II
admits the utility of Society. lie could NJ
EXPECT a society which did carry out i
principles would admit him. AS hay
heretofore shown, by his own arguments an
conduct, he disowns the Society for follow
ing his example, or because he follows il
e~xample-neither he nor it carrying out the
principles. If he belong to a society at al
il should be one which did have these defects
and which did make high professions an
fail to carry them ont or he would be an cd
one among them. They would certainly di
own him if they disallowed the partaking
other mems sins, in the use of slave lab
products. He believes in the advantage
society, and wants one which will suit hin
There will be none composed of men sue
as ever have lived, which will carry out i
principles, and he will belong to no othe
and if there were such an one he could n
as aforesaid expect 10 be a member!
Friend Barnaby says the fact that the Oh
Am. A. S. Society opposes the Liberty pa
ty is no argument against seeding froI
Friends. / grant it. Nor did ! use tn;
"fact' to establish such a proposition
used it TO show that the arguments used b
J. b. TO prove Friends prO-slavery, prove
the Anti-Slavery Society pro-slavery alst
and my Argument on this part as well as Sc,