Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-03-06
@ o III NJ umtcattona.
FRIENDS EDlroRs:-


FRIENDS EDIroRs:--
My friend, j. Barnaby, in your
paper of the 18th ult,, in his reply to q pre-
vious article Of mine, commences by saying
he understands me to admit that the Society
of Friends ]tolerates immortality end corruption
without any attempt 10 remove them, &c.
In this he misapprehends me-and whatever
part of his arguments depend upon this sup
posed admission Of mine, loses all its force
in consequence of its defective premises.
My friend appears willing to Withdraw his
charges against the Society as immoral, cor
rupt, &c., so far as he may have been under
stood to imputo to them ''intentionalr immo-
rality, corruption, &c. Very wei, now lei US
not forget this. | mnst be permitted hers
also to define a term used by mel intended
by the use of the term "anii-ljolition'' to
imply opposition to aJohtionism, in the popu-
lar sense of that term. This would appear
clear to the reader TO he my meaning from
the whole tenor Of my article. will nc,
contend for the proPrie.y of the expression,
but simply say | did not mean ''pro-slavery"
and my friend could not so interpret me With
out overlooking the rery reason l gave Tor
not using the term ''pro-slayery." J. 3. a.
gain asserts that it is the factions not the
"inte"tions' Of the Society Of ,olieh he has
all along been sPeakingi he did no: mean that
they are corrupt, &C., in heart.
This explanation OF friend Barnaby, it ap-
pears to me-, settles an important issue be-
tween us.
He does not charge the Society of Friends
with Intentional wrong. He regards then in
the same light as I do the individual who
votes for Henry Clay for President, deal, in
slave products, or does any other act, wrong
in its tendency, but not done fer an evil pur-
pose, or with a full knowledge of its evil cor
sequences. ]. B. acqui,s the Society of the
charge ofcorruption,&c. except SO far as their
(unintentional) actions hare a bad tendency.
The charges heretofore made by friend b.
are now Invested of all their force, and have
no application, except, so far rs Friends are
informed of the consequences that must re-
suit from their actions. My friend will not,
| presume, take the position that the Socie-
ty does hn0w, that it stands in the wsy Of tho
antI-5lavcry. temperance and peace reforms.
If he assumes this ground he must assert
what the Friends deny, and dccllre that no
hHo1cs Hsir M0u-6to, and that he not then can
tell the intents of their hearts. But On the
other hand, if he declines assuming the indr-
ment-se1t NV occunvipr nj. ro.;.;.- 49,
can be no alternative left him but to recede
from his entire charge. This conclusion can
not be avoided. j. B.. will not pretend that
an action independent of "intention" or a
knowledge of its effects is any other than in
nocent. Take an extreme case; the act of
destroying human life is only criminal so fat
as those contingent circumstances render it
so, and is entirely innocent when the '.inisn-
tom was good.
Although my friend has in his frsl and Sec
oud paragraphs, entirely acquitted thu So,iity
of the charge of pro-slavory, &C., and COM
pletely destroyed the issue between us on
that point, by declaring that he did not con-
slider it an intentional eyil-docr, yet he pro-
ceeds Immediately to make the comparison
of the ''sheep theft Such is the irrelovan-
cy of this comparison, that | am ready to
charge the man of types with misrepresent-
ing him. J. Barnaby says the Society of
Friends having, t0iihout Intending to do any
thing wrong, opposed the anti-slavery enter
prise, all its anti-slavery acts, and they are
''many," do no more therefore than to place
it upon the ground as to guilt, with the sheep
thief, who, having stolen one flock passed by
several others without stealing any. Now
]. B. must know that there necer can be q
sheep thief, or any other thief, without an
Intentional UrOng. So the comparison of my
friend rests upon the flllacious ground tisata
wilful crime, and an unintentionll error are
equally base. Thus reads his article. Lest
the reader may not have the 25th number of
the Bugle before him, | will explain, that my
article, to which J. b. is replying, goes On
to show that the opposition Of Friends to the
Anti-Slavery enterprise is not prO-slavery.
Among other reasons advanced by me, were.
sundry decided .Aati-Sgvsyy acts of tho Y.
Meeting and none pro-slavery. &. B. still
oontending that pro-slavery, and opposi-
ton to anti-slavery societies and measures