Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-08-21

Letter from Short Creek.

The meeting held here by theagenis of the
Western A. s. s. suggested some thoughts,
which | feel disposed to offer to tho readers
of the " Bugle.'
Both Parker Pillsbury and Henry Hatch
remarked, that as the Methodists were kind
enough to grant them the use of their meeting
house, they would return the favor by expo
sing their true pro-slavery character ). that
they, and others, might be benefited by the
knowledge conferred. This | think was
right. Had they have withheld anything
they believed to be true, for fear of offending
the Miethodists who had just done them a
kindness, it would have shown them TO be
capable of being bribed. | therefore have
reason to hope, that in speaking plainly of
their course and that of the society generally,
| shall not do that, which they, or others, will
regard as offensive.
At one time during the meeting, some OBJ
lection was made to the motto of the Ameri-
can Anti-Slavery Society. Some of the best
abolitionists we have thought they could not
subscribe to it without a qualification and
that it was important that a motto should be
sufficiently clear without any explanation
One suggested that it would remove the OBJ
lection by saying, " No criminal union with
Shareholders" Another, "No union with
slaveholding." This drew Parker Pillsbury
to his feet, who was too much indisposed to
take any part previously in the proceedings.
He thought there was rather an over modesty
in this objection. He compared it to a per-
son who should be in favor of marriage, but
not in favor Of men and women marrying,-
Jesus Christ, he said, did not say wo unto
hypocrisy, but wo unto hypocrites; not wo
unto adultery, but wo unto you, an adulter-
ess, &c. They who object to the motto, do
not object to calling a man, who holds his
fellow man in bondage, a STAKEHOLDER, or a
man-thief, or a robber Of all that is dear TO
the victim of his r~apacity. But they do not
wish to cast him of, and regard him as a de-
mon, utterly incapable of performing one
good act, on whom we will bestow no SYM
pathy, and with whom we will have no I'M
ion, even 10 promote a good object. When
we say "no union with Shareholders" we
wish it understood that we mean hat kind
of union that aids or assists or in any way
encourages them in their slaveholding. To
no other kind of union have we a right, as
abolitionists, to object. Although Jesus, in
unqualified terms, condemned llypocrites,
Adulterers, &C., yet think ye that he who eat
with publicaAs and sinners, would have re-
fused TO unite with sinners to perform a be-
n~evolent deed? He, or any other sensible
and good man, would be rejoiced to encour-
are one who was a sinner in other respects,
by joining with him in doing some special
work good in itself. Would Parker Pills
bury refuse to unite his physical strength and
mental effort in extricating a fellow being
from the clutches of a tiger! If a mans
house were on fire and his innocent family
about to suffer in the flames, would he refuse
to Join a half dozen Shareholders in working
an engine which the Shareholders Of themselves
could not do with sufficient power to cause
the water 10 reach the famesl Certainly he
would not, Because, in these cases, his un.