The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-11-05


"The Southern delegates took the position,
en- neasse. that American Slavery is sanctioned
by the Bible, and brought the battle to stand
up fight on this grouud-t. e., the Southern
delegates, without fnching, said to the North,
you SHALL take our ground, past contradictory
Notwithstanding, or you SHALL deny 1t, and
exscnd US from holding it in some direct way,
so as to make it impossible for us to meet you
again in General Assembly. This NOBLE stand
of the South in Cleveland reveals the future"
Mr.. Haskell said
" This doctrine he could not, he would not,
endorse, and this action of the Southern dele
gates he could not approve; and he felt from
his inmost heart, that to vote in favor OF the
report was to endorse that doctrine, and ap'
prove the general course and sentiments OF the
most extreme Southern men. DE wished to
pursue the original design which he adopted at
the commencement of his ministry in Wash
ington. But, in the event of the adoption OF
this report, his designs of good which have thus
far stimulated him to action would be IN
measure frustrated. If he went with the Synod
in this secession, he would be forced to give up
his own conscientious opinions, and adopt those
he believed to be radically wrong. Entertain.
ing this belief, he must oppose this report,
though the consequences of this stand might
be to separate him from his connection with the
Synod, from his Presbytery, even from his
church and congregation, whom he dearly
loved, aud to make serious inroads upon the
comfort Of his family; but, with this before his
view, he must stand upon principle, and leave
the result to that God to whom every con-
science makes its final appeal; and if this re-
port were adopted, he might avail himself of
constitutional right to present in writing his
solemn protest to the action of the Synod,
which stands out before the world as g seces-
sion In behalf of a system which he believed In
his Utmost soul to be intrinsically wrong"
DIR. Sunderland, of this city, made speech
against Pro-Slavery action. We quote para
graph or two:
"We have heard the taunt Of Abolitionism
thrown out here, over and over again, as though
every man, for any reason satisfactory to him
self, cannot see his way clear. To go the whole
length with these brethren at one leap is to be
branded with this name, which means, among
the people of the South, everything that is obi
Gus and pernicious. Well, sir, if this is the is
sue, let it come; and | tell you here, and
tell you plainly, that if to deplore enormi-
ties and denominations connected with the
system of SlsVery--if any such do exist
and if to pray for the time to come when
God in his good providence shall open the
way for its total disappearance to love free
dom more than bondage, as state for man
kind higher and more to be desired than bond
sge-and if to pray that all men may one day
have the blessings of liberty-n this be Adolf
tionism, then make the most of it. / accept
the designation, and take leave to ask where
is the man who will dare to stand up and say,
here or elsewhere, and declare in the face of
the whole Christian world, and in the middle of
this age, that he loves bondage more than free
dom? Where is that man? Let him speak out,
if he is present"
This certainly was manly, though the speak
er is by no means what would be termed an
Anti-Slavery advocate. In reference to the
action of the General Assembly, the Doctor
said:
But you say we were exscinded. / deny it..
1t is not so. Every man here knows it is not
80. The public mind, fear, has been much
misled; you were exscinded neither in form
nor in purpose there is no such thing in the
record.
swell, then, we were virtually exscinded.
This is nonsense. Excelsior is a judicial act ;
if it have not the intent nor the expression of
cutting of, then there is no exscision cut off a
man by inference-it is an absurdity: truly one
of DR.. Ross's stultifed distractions
swell, then, we were degraded by what
process did they degrade your Why, you went
there and said something about Slavery, and
they chose to differ, and said the opposite
each claiming the truth, and differing from the
other. Which was most degraded-you or
tbey2 Is the truth degradation Why, &C
! cordiDg to DR.. Ross, The Southern hight had
only just begun to shine, and now, forsooth,
when we ust had it all in our own hands, we
must fee away, to avoid the degradation.
"Yes but we could not stand the agitation
Indeed We could not, and 80 we concluded to
agitate little more, because DR.. Ross saws it
is good and to be desired, and we adopted agi-
tation to prevent agitation on this momentous
question. Yes, you got tired of agitation at
Cleveland, and now you have come here to agi-
tate US, and to stir up strife perhaps, while be.
fore we have had peace. l thought when l
came to Washington l should be on the ground
of the Union, and of the whole church, and, un-
der the broad 9gis of national capital, l
should find repose from the fierce and bitter
sectional strifes that have wasted, and are now
wasting the very life blood of our Confederacy;
but at length am here hunted out, and com
PEELED, by Southern men too, to pronounce my
choice"
DR.. Boyd replied to DR.. Sunderland. He
said:
"Now, ask, can it be possible that any man
in the South will remain in connection with an
Assembly which thus looks upon large pro-
portion of our members as subject to the disci-
pine of the church for slaveholdiDg? Are we
willing to be recognised as prinsG ,fdcie crimi-
nails for being Shareholders, and 70 ask at the
hands of the Assembly the taoor of not prose
cutting US for sustaining this relation? The
truth is, such is the public sentiment of the
. Al 81 A III: +
| the Assembly, that we must either abandon the
Assembly or the South. There is no alterna.
tive. Two of the Presbyteries of the Synod
| have already withdrawn from the Assembly.
| And we hope that our brethren of the District
Presbytery will pursue the same course. As to
the platform adopted by the Richmond Conven.
ton, we are willing that it should 90 before the
country, and be scrutinized as closely as posi-
bic. The substance of that platform on the
subject of Slavery is nOR-dgit0ti0n of this vexed
question in the iudicstories of the church. The
Convention aimed to present the subject lust
as the Bible presents it-that is, recognising
the innocence of the saveholding reation-thas
Slavery is an institution of the State, and there
fore does not properly belong to the Indicate
ries of the church as subject for discussion
and inquiry. AS we read the Bible, whilst the
duties arising from the relation of master and
servant may come within the recognisance of
the church, the relation ITSELF and Slavery, as
a cioI Institution, are not to be brought before
the church. Besides, our experience has
taught us that the introduction of this subject
into the judicatories has distracted and divided
the church. The Methodist and Baptist church
es, and now the Presbyterian church, have been
rent asunder by this unhallowed agitation"
Our readers will understand the drift of this
argument at once. All that is necessary to