The Ohio star. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1830-1854, 1852-11-24
Whole Number 1875


such an issue woull prove far more unfortunate
for me than for herself.
Alter sue had learned that had employed Mr..
oenJa'hin T. Butler as my counsel, she addressed
note 10 me IN nnlder tone, and this led to an
interview IN Which she admitted that she had i'm
puted TO me words and sentiments which had
not put forth. She never has shown herself will.
ing to make simple reparaton of the wrong as it
is and justfes herself by saying the language was
| imputed to me in " American Journals, aud not
denied by ne, when she knows that they were
abolition newspapers, which did not suppose We're
believed in this country. where their character
was known. Yours, truly, ]. PARKER.
| In reply to Dr. Parker's letter TO Professor
Stowe, Mrs Stowe wrote this, the last of her let
tiers in this most painful and extraordinary hstoy v
Mrs. Ston0e's closing letter to DR.. Parker
BRUNSWICK, July 2, 1852
DEAR SIR: As your letter addressed to nv Ius
band is one that can answer better than he,
shall now reply to Thy stating TO you, briefly, all
know of the matter under consideration
The card which sent to my brother contained
what then supposed and do still suppose to be
tar and ustexposton of the whole state the case
| ~ASStSA
which he stated that he had shown that card TO
you; 1hat you and he had together variousIy amend
eo ana altered 1t IN regard to expression, until you
were brought to some degree of unanimity upon it.
My brother then went to say, that he said to
you" Mr.. Parker, the wording of this does not
exactly please me, and think if you will give me
liberty to draw up form, can produce one that
will give satisfaction to both Sides" He went nm
to say, that he now sent me this form, which, if
was willing to accede to and adopt as my language.
was to copy with my own handwriting, and send
to the care of Mr.. William Harmed who would
see to its insertion iu the Era, Tribune, and Inde
pendent.
was of the opinion, at the time, that the .scara,
which l had sent was more lust and fair expose
of the subject, and should have much preferred
its publication. But I thought that if you were
willing to consent to this adjustment, ought to be
willing also' and upon consideration I came TO the
conclusion that it was the best expression which
could be given.
IN 1T you were represented os acting with the
courtesy and dignity which becomes Christian
man of honor, and expressed what sincerely
feel-a pleasure in repairing any unintentonal in
justice which might have done you.
Nothing could have been more surprising than
the receipt of your letter. You will perceive at
once that the ease lies between you and my broth
er Henry, who judging from the tone of his letter
= to me, considered himself to be acting with all
kindness, fairness, and good faith, US he aluaqs
does ac!. | think he will be equally surprised
with myself to learn that you do not consider your
self 20 have assented 10 these letters
/ NV dear sir fJ,ara or, ,c,,,, g
matter, that you krow perfectly well, for knou
that you were satisfied of them at the time we had
our interview In the first place, that the remark
as published, published in no personal unkind-
ness whatever; that it was published as a senti-
niens TO Dc replied 10 IN dramatic argument, for
everybody knows that that is the character of the
article. And your name was given, simply as the
name OF leading man who was known to have
publicly advanced that sentiment. had no possi
pie means OF knowing that the sentiment was not
yours and the very strongest evidence for believ
ing that it was since you hia allowed it in silence
to become historical document. You know. and
| know, that you have used language which; wher
u placed side by side with whet quoted, is sucl
that not one man in ten can be made to see any
II difference. knoap this, because I have trieG
earnestly and sincerely to explain to sensible mer
what you did mean by the language which you
admit that you used, and it has failed to produce
any Impression on them except this-that it is O
Jesuitlcal construction of language, by which either
q OF two opposite assertions be caimed as the
writer's sentiments according to emergencies.
can still publish the facts of the case lust as
+ wrote them-ytrst, what you did not say; second
, what you did say; third, the evidence that YOU
knew the construction which the world was putting
upon your language, and yet that you did not con.
y tradct it. But l certainly think that the whole
- matter is in creditable form to you now
), than if l should do so.
" 1 have done what / consider to be perfectly
4 honorable and fair to remove an imputation fo
If which You have given too much occasion.
q You know perfectly well, Mr.. Parker, for toll
=, yon fankly that did not consider myself to hav
acted wrong in this matter, but simply to hav
ar fallen into mistake, which your shence renderet
unavoidable, and consider myself to have said al
that you can possibly expect from me under th
circumstances. When my brother returns which
will be soon, you will probably discuss fairly witt
= him whatever strikes you as Objectionable in hi
- part of the proceeding. Yours, very truly,
Rev. MIR. Parker. H. B. STOWE.
And now it is not to be concealed that DR.. Par
ker and stand before the public at issue, upon
ry question of personal veracity. And those who d
st. rot fall upon the convenient theory of mutvo
'u Misunderstanding must determine the issue by til
IN personal character of the parties. But odiou
" necessity as this is somewhat alleviated by
IT. considerations to which | call attention.
3. /. When DIR. Parker AYERS that he agreed I
ed have the atters '',nder odrisement, and encoul
pt aged the expectation that with some mod tcato'
er might settle the matter by some such method,
at (see letter of July 81, to New York Observer)
ne has fatally entrapped himself For now have
OK in my power to show that such statements wer
to morally impossible.
nd train of events, beginning with Dr. Parker
cnnnsal not had lad seYara nriYat