Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1851-01-11
Mr., Swlsshelm and the Worcester Convention,

re oayc her credit for. At the risk Of weary
ing our readers BY what many of them will per-
haps regard as an Improbable controversy. we
shall make an effort to dissipate the fog in which
she has sought to envclop both the subject and
herself.
Mrs. s. commences her reply thus;
awe are poor, unfortunate creature! II
ia almost impossible for us TO TO take step
without getting in somebody's way. When
we are on our very best behavior we are
sure TO lAe misbehoving most egregiously.-
Me had given such serious offence by our
structures on the Salem Convention that we
de,ermiued TO be very conciliatory aud de-
cidedly clever to the Worcester meeting, aud
10 nnd behold we have hornets nest about
our ears. We have mortally insultcd the
friends of that measure, because we object
ed 10 one trord in their resolutions. We do
hone these conyentionists do not require
tbeir adhereuts to believe they have reached
that state of perfection which Billy Cohbett
thought belonged exclusively to the Pope
and The British Never did do
never can do-never will do wrong"
This plea of injured innocence is ludicrous
enough. Was not AIRS S. the aggressors Did
she not accuse the members of the Convention
of a doggcd perseverance in the wrong. ard
charge them with introducing an irrelevant
subject into its proeeedingsi Did she not as
sail them with ridicule in her story OF the boy
and his rabbit; Did she not even charge them
with breach of trusti And now when she
finds her charge repclled and disproved, what
could be more ridiculous that this whimpering
about good behavior, cancellation and clever
ness, this talk of objecting to 'only one word,'
and this insinuation that the 'convcntionists'
set up claim to perfection merely because
they didn't choose to let her accusations pass
without rcplyi If that ono word was i'm
portant enough to provoke her indignant criti-
cism and set her powers of satire in full play,
does it become her to complain that those whom
she ossailed thought her full paragraphs worthy
of some attention. And is it fitting, on such
ground, to charge them with claiming 'pertec-
ton for their plans and methods The defend
ers of the Worcester Convention do not claim
exemption from criticsm-thcy set up for it no
plea of inGallibility but they do insist that no
ono has right to misrcprcscnt its doings, to
charge it with an offence which it never COM
mitted.
But let us hear Mrs S. further:
ave objected TO the introduction of the
question of color into the Convention, MS ir
relevant to its object. Parker Pillsbury re
piled to us in n very strong nnti-slavery let
Recommending the wrongs and outuge
TO which negroes are subjected ia this coun
try, as the reason why this question was in
troduced into that Convention. He distinct
w stated that il was these wrongs and out
rages, especially the recent Fugitive Bill
which made that Introduction necessary
In other words, il was necessary TO pass alb
clifton resolutions in Woman's Rights Con
vention, because of the prescription ant
persecution to which the negroes are subject
ed. We had thought on first reading TIN
resolution, that il constituted the Convention
as much an Abolition as Woinan's Right
meeting, but we did not trust on our judg
ment and say so; but Parker Pillsbury ",
; thought good authority, and when he urget
the propriety of the matter on this ground
and this alone, we did not suppose any on
would dispute the Conventions being al
Abolition meeting. Even then, however, WI
did not say it was so, but simply reinarke,
v they had no right 10 make il AN Abolition
S meeting. II il was not so made, no righ
g even according to our view was violated
But here we have indignation letters fror
all quarters, one from Mrs. Davis, Presider
= of the Convention, charging us with sayiD
: it was turned into an Abolition meeting, an
:. thereby grossly misrepresenting the proceed
}. ings The Anii-Sluvery Bugle also in
lengthy article rings this charge, and Will
| Sl.... al
y of uniuirness Oh our part II the CONVEX
1t ton is misrepresented, it was Parker Pill
. bury who niisreprescnted il. We publish
IS ed his letter, and thuse who have read OF
N articles have read il. Why not lay the blan
OH his shoulders? But he is "one Of OF
folk" while we arc an outside barbarian"
Now this effort of Mrs S. to shield herself b
II dodsing behind Parker Pillsbury won't do
= There is not line or word in his letter to ju
Al tfy the charge which she brought against Il
NJ Convention. He explains the use of the OIL
=, word which gave Mrs. S. so much offence,
"a the resolution Of Wendell Phillips, on Il
ground that it was necessary in order to Co
ls vince the people that the Convention had
~ view the rights and welfare of colored tcomen
= Weil US Wlutes' his cnuIneIhllOn OF the WrOn
in and indignitics heaped upon the people of col
N was not presented to justify the Convention
nv entertaining the question of color, as sue
nor in passing abolition resolutions for he d
nies in very plain terms that any such thin
Tor were done. He does this in the followi
to words
D., "Mr. Phillips has ever been very watchi
to prevent any other topic from creeping
whatever platform he occupied, devoted
IT, any particular reform. And those wor
"a " dogged perseverancen look strange indie
no TO some Of us, standing in connection w
- his name and the resolution to which y
'e- have taken exception"
Again he says;
ms I" Is it strange, is it an objectionable sin
re- it dogged perseverance, TO declare in CO
,sr ven,ion called TO demand and extend
~ rights of women, that we mean women
q d.