Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-12-18

sponsibility - these statements were made
by him when the question of the use of the
Wesleyan house for auti-slavery lectures was
distinctly presented to him, and the refusal
was made Gas I understood it) upon the ground
that Disunionists were charged with having
other objects than the emancipation of the
slave. Now Mr.. Pendleton certainly recol-
lccts that distinctly asked him (by letter.
for the use Of the Wesleyan house for our
friends Creighton and Hatch, and that he as
distinctly wrote me that it could not be had
for them, and gave as a reason 'that the re-
ports that have come here Cat the Falls)
about them, are such that the christian COM
munity do not fellowship them"
Some ten days before the time fixed for
our friend Dassett and myself to talk anti
slavery at the Falls, | wrote to friend Pen.
dleton, and also to Rev. Me-. Guy, and I am
confident that, in one or both OF those letters.
| asked for the use of the Wesleyan house.
and the cooperation of Wesleyans in getting
up a meeting to talk to. The letter which I
wrote to friend Pendleton, he handed to
Grant b. Turner, Esq. who wrote me, as
Mr.. p. states in his communication. Yet
he states that the Wesleyan house was not
asked for. | did. not preserve a copy of my
letter, so have to be guided from memory,
but | think | cannot be mistaken, as felt
anxious to talk to the W~esleyans of Cuyaho-
-
ga Falls, and so stated in those letters. |
gave them credit for the step they had taken
on the slavery question, but thought they had
another step yet to take before they were en-
titled to the claim of an onti-slayery church,
and said that thought ] could make the
case so appear if could have the privilege of
talking so TO the Ueshyans. These were
~prehaps not the words used, but l think tho
substance Of my letter both to Mr.. Guy and
Mr.. Pendleton, and this makes me so conf
dent that l asked for the Wesleyan house in
both letters.
Now as to my being able "to do honor to
the cause of the oppressed" as Mr.. P. init
mates, | make no pretentions either one way
VI tiC viz oullCG II U say MI L. mas
shown in his last paragraph that he, at least,
was willing to give me a hearing, and, so far
IS profession is concerned, would ad vance as
ar and as fast as he had light. 1t may be,
however, that friend P. and the Wesleyan
at the Falls did right under the rule
hey had adopted, as "they had been injured
y introducing those on 10 the anti-slavery
who were not qualified to do Justice
o the cause of humanity" and considering
riends Creighton, the Messrs. Hatch, Bas-
'ett, and myself of that class of lecturers, ad-
lered to their rule and kept the house closed.
Now Mr.. Editor | seek no controversy
with friend p, and am as anxious as he is,
that the closing Of the Wesleyan houses at
Cuyahoga Falls "shall appear in its cloar
light" and may be mistaken in the view l
adopted in the matters; and if so, | wish to
be set right. Butwhen (ifI am not MISTAKEN
the house is applied for to hold anti-slavery
meetings in, on two different occasions, and
refused, it does not comport altogether with
my ideas Of right, for Mr.. Pendleton to say
''The Wesleyan Church at Cuyahoga Falls
has not been closed against the advocates of
the slave" l feel that it has been closed, /
first against Creighton, II. and Leander
Hatch, and then against Bassett and myself.
all of whom claim to be the advocates Of the
slave. My own construction of this conduct
OF the Wesleyans at the Falls was, that they
had fought a hard battle with the Methodist
Episcopal, Presbyterian, Eriscopalian, and
other churches, on the question Of slavery,
and had thought that they had got about
right on that subject, and so much attached
to their sect, that they feared Disunionists
might say something that would injure their
church in the eyes of other pro-sLauery
churches, and friend P. said to me, 'sIf YOUR
doctrines be correct, then we have got this
whole field to fight over again." anil | repli-
ed to him that if they would not open their
house, and hear us, | could draw but one
conclusion, and that was, that they loved
their sect better than they did our common
humanity. If have done them injustice by
this conclusion, l regret it but one thing is
certain, friend P. is mistaken, or | am.
Yours truly,
C. W. LEFFINGWELL.
The Christians Commission