Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1856-07-03
Prefaiory Note.

Prefaicry Note.
This letter designed for the columns Of the Central
Presbytsran where hoped al these discus-ons ~oald
have Appeared bat 70 sd myself right bcfcrc the readers
OF the wes, respectfully request s insertion there
q THE TWO ASSEMBLIES.
Rev. Z. H. Rr.D-Dcar S;r Ny absonoo from the
dty. when yout letter Of the - fsppesrrd prcv
ssd me hoai uniting With D'sIioseF his rpiy Of sah,
Il true sSs, Dr. Ross has sssss,sl S mn sSs %s
points OF your letter. but IL Il also ~ that che mode h
Which my name has been connected ~i,h this -hoIs i
sir, demands Of distinct .xndicafon And as thi.
letter Is designed 10 be placed b<ore many have not
had access TO Dr. Hoges letter. deem apology neccs
say Tor touching points that may think proper
whether discussed by DIR. H. not, since some would
otherwise have imperfect of the subject IL Is
true that the article 20 which you have replied was not
entirely nor mainly IRON my pen, but il expresses in
the maia my opinions willing assntnc the respen
bity OF its publication resretng deeply you
do, that Il should ever have been necessary
find that there sexerl misconceptions created by
your letter, which you could designed to pro
duce but which being produced aside before
entering on the main question. These misconceptions
such as the following win,
lst That denied you the use Of our columns to an
swer editorial OF the l4th inst This you know 60
be an error They were offered 10 you twice; IN
writing and once verbally, and rendered TO you with
the utmost sincerity We did decline publish the NJ
ority aud minority report OF your Assembly and yous
tire Southern letter. not you say because &c 'woud
have involved some labor, not because did agree
with the reaonings ct either paper but because had
not room In sheet for What did regard
~ matter and because did think that they had
any special bearing on your controversy with /
sure that our decision cannot be thought UNFAIR when
have virtually endorsed IL BY quoting these doc
unens at all in your reply ar,ics thus proving
the correctness OF position in declining publish
them. .r'H'f.
2nd, That selected from the New York pspers the
only report OF your Assembly that unfair and pub
hshed t without correction The article you refer
was selected mot by me- but by gentleman Who "a in
capable Of doing such as this iscoucepton mpes
and taken not from the New York papers but from the
Baltimore Patriot As soon member OF your Assem-
oy denied its correctness, that denial pubshed-
How tar it was really incorrect could not but
We gave our readers the full bene6t of this denial The
suppression OF this TACT gives publication of the ex.
tract an aspect that is unfair to us .-''
Sd That paper is the only that has spoken out
against your Southern letter Nearly every Old School
paper in the country has spoken as distinctly as
ours, and we did not speak until many others had
spoken that We feared as Southern paper might be
charged with want Ut aitfuness the South or our ST.
ece construed into aet admission Of the charge made
IN your circular aud fear OF ntterns public denial of
IT. Then and not until then did speak out
4th, That sssailed you FIRST and in an unprovoked
manner, and sought inure thus in the South Our
position was purely OF sedefence, and is still
We do not assert that the Southern portion of your As
sembly is unsound this question nor do we desire to
excite any suspicion against them. We simply I'M
willing TO be put an the SAME category with your Norhs
same agtStons with yourselves far a. YOU are con
cerned individually cheerfuly attest the uniformly con-
SENTATIVE position you have asays taken this question
and the thing Is OF Southern brethren
orally, far know. I would rather that NV hand
should wither than that should write false accusation
against Christian brother
The question between rs is a very simple one An
unhappy division has existed since 1889 between two
portions OF the Presbyterian family that before were one
hen the agitaons that led this division were going
on efforts we're made at the South show that We the
fha ala d.
feelings were produced from thesc and other causes
But IN the lapse Of years hoped that by-goues were
becoming bygones. and that kinder feeling grow
Ing up between the divided families. have always As
you well know, endeAyored cultivate that feeling and
hoped that it was growing stronger
At this stage, your Assembly met In New York this
year, and agated often before on the question
Of slavery and adopted report which presented the
views OF the Northern portion of the Assembly You
then elt called TO address with others letter 10 your
in the South explaining and defending this
action This your perfect right and had YOU conn-
ed yourself 10 this would have uttered word
hut YOU were your words imply afraid lest some
ni your churches might come Assembly
cape THESE slavery as1taons You, therefore stated
that though had suppressed discussion for the pre-
sent it must come in Assembly; that We had given
The strongest testimony against the system of slavery
hat We entertained the same views and were liable to
The Aaiions with your Assembly and that there
fore II forced 10 secede from your Assembly YOU would
nut unite with but form separate Southern orgauz
ion i Is true, Won saw that you made no direct
nd avowed ausiou the "od School church but en-
Dloyed circsitous and indirect expressions This how
eyer, does not to have any merit or advan.
age We knew that these various phrases of description
applied only to in their obvious intended mean
ms. In word, we knew that you by these
roundabout phrases, and il from your last letter
that right in this matter would have prefer.
rcd plain speaking at FIRST 10 these ingenious indirec
tons, since their meaning very apparent.
Now the position taken in our article and still taken
by rs Is, that this alasion to unnecessary. We
had male no aHsou to YOU, that required warranted
such an a!lusOn 10 IL unnecessary 10 avow in
this way your determination not back to us if
You seeded from your Northern associates for we had
not yet asked You to do IL surely time enough
% refuse an invitation after it made To declare your
Intention not to family, before requested to do
20, looks very much like effort make trouble be-
tween the families and pre- social intercourse
So it would be IL you published such an intention in re-
gard TO any family in this city, and il be in the
Ease before Us, by every law Of human nature Hence
such All alusion was unnecessary
IL also unbrothery The contests of former
we're fading from memory The charges made against Us
Di aboitiousm, made sometimes by New England
men, against men born in the South and identified with
' her Interests these charges forgotten forgv
en- But when you in effect renewed these charges and
connected them with avowa Of intentions as to U.S.
That was offensive 1t was natural that much OF this former
feeling should be aroused and the families put farther
apart than before. II the inevitable certainty of this
aet that gieved me sincerely when read this circu
bar letter.
am glad that you dislvow any settled antagonisni
md unaltered alienation such Inferred TO exist
u your minds. But really, / fearful that you have
either mudged the strength Of our words or Of your
ceilings. An avoWal Of your belief that position on
Lhe subject OF slavery is false and egrOeai ~ that you
e called TO utter your earning against our doctrines
On this subject; your needless, and in all kindness
say, auntiDg nsnuation that were holding pro.
perty that belongs you your further tadn II speak of
The effect Of the words, your ntenonl your tannt
about our sJciidiHg you ali this combined with your
iVo"al that you mean 70 keep on you now, and
have been doing in the past looks a good deal like
. settled antagonism, and an unatered alienation
hing that remains IN the heart for twenty wears and
: declared will remain ia the future, looks very much
ike settled and unsered thing, and il it is antsgo
lism and aienauoR,it Is something right hard define
But when you say il s not, 4 at once Withdraw the
charge, and -hall not repeat IT, these grounds
but the main question is, the Assemblies hold
ihe same views they liable to the sgtatons ON
the question Of slavery You affirm, deny. What are
your proofs
lst, That the resolutions OF 1916 strongly anti
slavery, and that easscred aud reafrmed" them in
$40, aud hence that antslavery, more ant
slavery than you | confess that was amazed shen
read your argument not you intimate, becsuse was