Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1846-04-30

10 Rer' Miles FSSk:-As you and once abored
together on circuit, we may, perhaps, find little
pleasure, if not profit, in writing
notice, in the last Freeman an article from vour
pen, about which thought would Just speak. Twill
not say in this paper at least that any who differ from
me sought to know better" nor call upon any bodyto
"blush for such satisfaction" as either of us NAV rem
der to the other or receive from Others
|. grant that the General Conference of the NJ. f
Church did not deposc Bishop Andrew, nor intend to
do but merely expressed its sense, or Judgment of
what course he ought to take
3. grant that his name was to stand in the minutes
and discipline formerly and he was to receive his
support as the other bishops do Nothing else could
have been done in view of the previous action of the
Conference, in giving expression to its SENSE" AS
to the last resolution, regard it as declaration that
the responsibility lol acting, or not, in accordance with
the sense Of this General Conference rests on Bishop
Andrew. And pray, where else could it rest? This
understanding of the resolution is not "of any private
interpretation" but is that which has been expressed
in my hearing by Gen. Conf delegates All, there
fore, which you say about slaveholdng Bishop be-
ing IA privileged one, for fear of the dispeasure of
Shareholders" must pass forrhetorc
For your report Of the speeches made by northern
men, during the discussion in Andrews case, YOU give
an erroneous view Of those speeches. There was no
expression Of an intention merely to snake believe"-
Your language implies that they said so. deny that
it is either said implied IN ,chat tcas said If you
designed it as your comment, you unfortunate,
both in your view and in your manner of expression
grant, again. that but few of the speakers from the
north censured the Bishop as think he deserved,
while most Of them covered him over with love and
praises. ENpedjency the plea urged by most of
them But, while I am disposed to blame them for
their lack Of plainnesS in language stil wish to
put the most charitable construction upon the whole
matter which it is capable Of bearing. And this de-
sire extends TO all other cases Your own not excepted
suppose, then, that they in The spirit Of Kindness
chose to give as little offence possible to any; not
that they feared the SOUTH as the passing Of the reso-
utjon in the face Of southern delegates and their
threats q dissolution proves,
Hut yen help me tot foundation on which to build
an tmpreguable argument in favor of strong, and
even ri}HsA anti slavery power in the M. E. Church,
which you call pro slavery often as you remind us
that the action of the majority in Andrews case was
based ON eNpedency. am led to ask What consti-
mtod that eNpediency? Answer: The anti slavery
power in the church, which so far overmatched the
pro slavery power as to render it expedent to propt-
ate TITO obey with reluctance its authoritative man
date. As to the pro or anti slavery character of the
Gen. Conf it is matter which now have nothing to
do only to remind you that the more you succeed in
making their pro slavery appear the more strength
you add to the anti slavery of the church. Under
stand-the Gen. Conference is not the church.
There are some things which are little strange in
the history of the lately past. According to many in
the north, the Gen. Conf did nothing to affect slavery,
directly indirectly. But according to the south,
the action of that body strongly anti slavery,
that nothing them and the "peculiar institu
ton" but separate distinct and Independent ecclesi
astical organization Can you explain this mystery?-
B. M. HALL