The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-03-09

AASuAONUS s0st rCus Auy ACUUs
BAYARp TAYLOR, Esq.-Xr: Your lett or
Of the Sd inst. has been received.
am truly sorry that you should consider
anything in my last letter personally discour-
teous or insulting to you.
Certainly such WAS not my intention, nef
do believe that the letter, in whole or in
part, can with fairness be 80 construed.
1t Was due as we'll to yourself a. to those
tation previously given to you, should in
form you plainly OF our reasons for 90 doing.
And your letter in no degree removes or d.
mnishes the force of those reasons.
1t was not generally known in this CON-
munity that you were connected with the
New York Tribune, and the fact Of such con.
of recent events, which caused open express.
sions of dissatisfaction.
And when, in addition to this, you inform
me that you "hold the opinions Of Washing
ton and Jefferson on the subject OF slavery !"
your partial authorship Of the Tribune indi-
Gates positive sympathy with its doctrines.
Washington and Jefferson were great, but
human; they lived and died before the SUBJ
ject of slavery had been thoroughly discussed
in view of Scripture and reason, and, above
Hils tuEy 0tEu pUiuTG MuucEu nUVHLluul6IO
had commenced it's pestilential career.
Washington's opinions in favor Of eman-
cipation were moderate, and, in his time,
no. Questionable; but Jefferson went much
further.
Ii it be true that you, scholar and q wri-
ter, do notc In 1860 hold with jefferson, that
"the whole commerce between master and
slave is perpetual exercise OF the most
MAJ L. .Ah..
despotism on the one part, and degrading
submission on the othsr," and, in view OF
slavery, that you "tremble for your country
when you reflect that God is just; that His
Justice eaEncs sicep forever chat consider
ing numbers, nature, and natural means
only, q revolution of the wheel Of fortune,
an erch dnge Of situation is among possible
epents, that it may become probable by SUI
pernatural interference" and that "the Al
mighty has no attribute which can take side
with Us in such contest''-if such be your
present sentiments, then you cannot be sur
prised to find that you will not be welcome
visitor to a Virginia community.
AS to your lecture on Humboldt, have
never heard it, and as it has not been pub
lished in full, have, of course, not read it,
But certain extracts from it, and statements
Of ports Of it have appeared in the papers,
the Tribune among others, the accuracy OF
which you have not, within my knowledge,
denied. One Of these represents you as say
ing that Humboldt rarely attended Divine
service, and that he possessed an unbounded
scorn for much that 10 called religion; thai
his religious nature was perhaps too deep tt
find expression by such methods; that in q
conversation with yourself he uttered satire
upon clergymen, and to this, certain remark
of your own are added, from oil Of which
| others beside myself had inferred that yos
vindicated and approved Humboldt's reli
gious belief, although it was Deism, and no
a simple faith in the Scriptures as divinely
inspired. Whether such be your real senti
ments your own conscience only can decide
pretend not to judge you, but am bount
to draw my own differences from the indica
tions apparent, and regret that nothing il
your letter removes these unfavorable i'm
pressions.
/ You conclude with the strong words
| "Yours for free thought and enlightened
Christianity" Ina proper sense unite will
you 10 desiring these blessings; but the yer,
forms OF your expression remind me tha
with many at the North Stree thought" ha
| degenerated into Stree thinking" or infdel
| ity, and culminatsd in "fres love-" and tha
they have sought to fsenlighten" Christianit
by holding Up in the face Of tho Sun OF Right
eousness the smoking taper OF their so oalle
"higher law For such Stree thought ap
enlightened Christianity" am not, but q
Yours for Constitutional liberty, and th
Christi anity Of the Bible,
| i. 4. noWlsoN.