Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-09-25

~ ahtCANhhA lAgsihNNAJ
act oil Tie meeting, according to your re-
Marks | Will show, what | consider the ma
lure oil mat Transaction. There were obiec-
uons' made, not to sending a good snti-sla-
very document TO Indiana, such as Won would
gladly send 10 George McDuffe without
dreaming OF sanctioning his pro-slavery, bat
to the omission of somo more pointed rebuke
In relation TO the course of that meeting-
This is the understanding | had of the nature
OF the objections. If am incorrect, let 9TH
ers CORE ct me.
But know of no member or any other
consistent anti-slavery person who would OBJ
jcct to sending TO that Yearly Meeting such
a document as il ought 10 read. No one
would think of such an act being pro-slavery
if done by himself, for similar ones t~ranspire
daily with the appreciation of all abolition
lists. But it is not difficult to conceive in the
imagination, of an act, such as has never oc-
Cured, and then denounce its authors as hav-
ing been "wheedled" into a surrender of
principle.
The address on slavery which was directed
by the meeting to be sent 10 Indiana Y. NJ.
Dih the ep%istle, was believed by those not
inexperienced in the anti-slavery school, nor
seriously encountered with sectalian hobbies,
to be equal to any thing O.NY. Meeting could
do toward setting that body right upon the
slavery question, and infinitely better than to
have cut IF the opportunity of thus admins
iering to its wants by refusing to send in an
epistle, which would be the effect of such a
refusal.
You must have decided and given a judg-
tncnt in the matter upon ex-parte evidence
or without any evidence in the case, as you
could not have known when penning your
editorial, the contents of either of the docu-
ments sent TO Indiana.
You seem to suppose however that the
mere fact Of sending an epistle to another
Yearly Meeting, is an endorsement by those
sending it, of all the acts of the other, wheth-
er good or bad, and that in the present case
the members Of the Ohio Y. NJ. are implica-
ted in what Indiana may have done which
was wrong! If this be your position you will
utterly fail to sustain it, as | shall show next
week if necessary. If you assume any other
ground it oxonerates o.. Y. Meeting and is
a ''retrocession' of your last weeks article.
If trlth be the object you seek you will de-
sire TO be set right.
desire nothing more, and wish any state
ment | make amiss corrected by those who
are prepared to do it. You will perceive
that either you or have get considerably be-
wiide,cd.
The nine or ten points above enumerated
are nearly all cases in which, by speaking in
Advance of your information, you have created
a wrong Impression wherever you have
blown your blast, and thus subjected your
selves TO the unpleasant task of publishing
these contradictions, if you wish justice done
to a society, at least far enough on the back
ground in relation to this subject. l have
yet to meet the first anti-slavery member who
attended the Yearly Meeting who does not
consider that an important advance was made,
and that no duty of importance was omitted
nnless it be the reading of the address from
Green Plain and that that was more favora-
bly, disposed of than last year. How YOU
could know better what was done at the
meeting than your friends who were present,
is not easily imagined.
But | trust you will permit me to put a
construction on your article which the lam
guage would not seem to warrant, inasrnuch
as it appears to me to be the most charitable
view OF the matter / can give and which,
when understood by the reader, will convey
no other than a correct idea of Ohio Y. NJ.
understand you to set down an anti-sla-
very political party as DorSc than an open
pro-slavery party-you would, according to
your late article respecting ]. r. Giddings,
prefer seeing in the Halls of the nation, the
vllest propagandist Of slavery, to this eminent
defender of human rights-you oppose the
free labor movement as inimical to the inter
ests of the slave. And You find more fault
with religious societies which do something,
than with those who do nothing, for the slave.
Now according to your own position upon
these subjects, you would be glad TO see the
Blrney men become the supporters of Polk,
the Giddlngs men 60 for John b. Weller,
and the free labor men to return to S. S. Fos-
ter'S doctrines Of "%buying whatever they find
In the market without asking questions"
and this you would call an adOance,-a ',prO-
gression."
SO when you say Ohio Yearly Meeting
has progressed Backward God grant that
1t may be SO according 10 your doctrines Of
progression. b. B. DAVIS.
Ono. 20, 1916.
FRIENDS EDIToRs:
In the Bugle OF Sept. 18th, you alluded to