No more remained to be said. Wendell Phillips immediately withdrew the resolution so decisively repulsed.
Mr. Tappan commented with severity upon the “disgraceful scene he had witnessed,” and counselled a division in the Society, saying that were he resident in Massachusetts as he was in New York, he should endeavor to effect it.
A division in the Society, because the Society had determined, for the slave’s sake,to continue to exist; and had sustained its Board of Managers in their efforts for its preservation! here, then, was another layman, ready to do the bidding of the ministry in breaking up the Massachusetts Society. Hemightnot be doing it intentionally, butdoingit men saw he was, by this counsel.
The meeting separated, but not till multitudes had been disenchanted by that eight hours’ session of many a fond belief, that, till then, had stood undoubted in their minds.
The friends resolved in their inmost spirits, as they departed, to pay the utmost farthing of this pledge, notwithstanding the afflicting disclosure the Committee had made of their motives for having all along refused harmonious co-operation for its redemption.
This day had been a painful one for the Massachusetts Board; but they knew that they had done right, and therefore felt no anxiety as to the result.
They were sustained by the abolitionists of the State, and they rejoiced at it; not for themselves, but as a proof of the fidelity of their brethren to the cause. They had been sustained against the most determined hostility. A statement of the case, in the form best calculated to injure the Society, had, previous to the meeting, been scattered broad-cast over the State, under the direction of Mr. Stanton. It was matter of astonishment that so much effort to do injury should not have produced a greater effect. Truth was mighty, and had prevailed, to strip the difficulty ofoneof its disguises—the cloak of the meredun, and show it in the attitude of the assassin.
The effect of the meeting was magical. The friends, in all parts of the State, rallied together and mulcted themselves afresh. How prompt were their donations, how fervent and brotherly their expressions of confidence, how painful their solicitude at the developments made by the New York Committee, how forbearing their course with regard to its doings, the resolutions and correspondence of that period, testify. The Committee returned to New York, still keeping in the field, at the public expense, the agents who had been creating a division. The work went vigorously on, notwithstanding the drawback this occasioned. All thisimbrogliohad been caused, in the first instance, by men of the orthodox Congregational sect, and it was fitting that the honor of that sect should be vindicated by the laborious fidelity of others of its members. That the money was raised,—five or six thousand dollars in the space of two months, for the most part in very small sums, so that the State Treasurer was enabled to authorize the draft of the N. York Committee before the final payment became due, was owing mainly to the self-devoting labors oforthodox Congregational licentiates, of the Theological Seminary at Andover. From that sect came the bane—from that sect came also the antidote.
At that moment of general and anxious effort for the payment of the pledge, private circulars were issued by Mr. Phelps, in behalf of the publishing committee of the new paper, in which he urged men to devotealltheir funds to its establishment, for this, among other reasons, that they wouldthenknow what became of their money. This showed the origin of the rumors which had been circulated, that the Massachusetts Society fraudulently permitted its funds to be used to sustain the Liberator; and that it paid an editorial stipend—(“a fat salary” as the term was,) to Mr. Garrison. These reports, false as they were, came with an ill grace from those who, it is to be hoped unknowingly, received from Mr. James Boutelle, one of their agents, money entrusted to him for the payment of the pledge, but who appropriated it to the “Massachusetts Abolitionist.”
All these labors were in vain.—The pledge was redeemed, against all opposition.
Next came the Annual Meeting of the National Society, where men from all the States met to consult for the good of the cause.
In full National Assembly, they resisted the idea that a difference of mind respecting forms of government was a disqualification for membership in the Society. They preserved inviolate the ancient broad foundation. They resisted, as the Massachusetts Society had done, any attempt to deprive women of their constitutional and inalienable right “to know, and utter, and to argue freely,” in this National Council. A resolution was also reported by the financial committee of the Society, that thirty-five thousand dollars was as large a sum as could be advantageously placed at the disposal of the Executive Committee during the year; as they deemed that more could be effected for the cause by a local than by a central expenditure.
The Society also earnestly requested the Executive Committee to send no agents into the States, except with the advice of the State Societies. This salutary measure was strenuously opposed by those connected with the new paper in Massachusetts. Previous to the meeting, they labored personally and by correspondence, to secure the attendance of such as would co-operate with them for the exclusion of women, and of the non-resisting members. The Executive Committee, too, were, some of them, no less active to thesame effect. Mr. Birney issued an article in the Emancipator, the organ of the whole Society, and sustained from its treasury, in which he asserted not only that a part of the members were unfitted, by their religious principles, for a place in the Society, but argued the merits of their principlesper se, representing them as identical with those of the bloody and licentious Anabaptists of the sixteenth century.
These labors all fell short of their aim. Still, as at first, the Society continued odious by the presence of its founder:—he, into whose heart God had put strength not to deny his individual principles, though their sacrifice was demanded by those whose love and approbation had heretofore been so dear, and who, through four dangerous and toilsome years, had stood with him, shoulder to shoulder, in the forefront of the battle against slavery. Oh that evil tongues and times had not been too mighty for their integrity! May every one of them yet be enabled to see that any infringement of the principles of Freedom, is a hindrance to the emancipation of the slave, not to be removed by thousands of gold and silver, or the mightiest physical array. May God of his infinite mercy grant us, as aNationalAssociationof Americans, for the redemption of our country from slavery, the grace to see, that, as we can never give what we cease to possess, so our labors for the emancipation of the slave must be in vain, after the insulted angel of freedom has departed.
The Massachusetts Board of Officers met immediately after this meeting, and decided to raise five thousand dollars, for the year 1839-40, as the proportion which ought to be borne by their State, of the thirty-five thousand dollars specified by the Financial Committee, as the proper appropriation to the central treasury. They notified the Executive Committee of this pledge, upon the understanding that all money raised in Massachusetts should be credited to its redemption, and that no agents of the New York Committee should labor in the State without the concurrence of the State Board.
To this communication, Mr. Stanton, in behalf of the committee, replied, that they had still two agents in the field, (Mr.St. Clairand Mr.Wise,) and he inquired whether any objection would be made to their remaining in that capacity!!!
The New England Convention followed quickly upon the tread of the National Meeting. Thisoccasion had ever been, among abolitionists, a hallowed festival, to which each came to receive from all the rest whatever they might be able to give of comfort, and of knowledge, and of cheer, and to bid them all be sharers in his own full jubilee of heart.
Here they had enjoyed their last earthly communion with the early-called and tenderly-beloved, who had been caught up out of the thick of the battle into heaven; and, therefore, the returns and the memories of this day,
——“Like spots of earth where angels’ feet had stepped,Were holy.”——
——“Like spots of earth where angels’ feet had stepped,Were holy.”——
——“Like spots of earth where angels’ feet had stepped,Were holy.”——
——“Like spots of earth where angels’ feet had stepped,
Were holy.”——
A shadow marred the customary brightness of the day, to those who had witnessed those workings of the spirit of treachery and intolerance, which have been traced in the preceding pages.
Their forebodings were justified. This spirit made one more attempt to rend them as it departed; but, failing in its purpose, it deserted the foundation it had been unable to destroy. The intention of forming a hostile Society had frequently been charged home upon the members of the publishing committee of the new paper, and as often strenously denied. Yet, here it stood, at length, anew organization in Massachusetts, giving, as its reason for coming into existence, the recreancy, i.e. the tolerance of the old. That it differed from the old Society, in not seeing that every real interest of mankind must be universal, and necessarily gather up all men in the prosecution of its march, wasnarrow,short-sighted,unfortunate. That its founders had notopenlyannounced themselves at the time when Dr. Hawes consulted withleading abolitionistsnearly a year before, and that they had ever since been carrying on a concealed warfare upon the old Society, in the mask of friendship and brotherhood,must be very differently characterized.
Elizur Wright, Jr., so well known and loved of abolitionists, in days that were past, was carried away in the toils—another layman, in the clutches of the power that constitutes in New England the strongest obstacle to emancipation. He became a Secretary of the new organization, and the editor of the Massachusetts Abolitionist, and immediately strove to justify his course by asserting the recreancy of the Massachusetts Society. He was like the child drifting from the shore, after having un-moored his little bark, who cried out thatthe land was rushing backward, as the treacherous wavesbore him swiftly away. In the New England Convention of 1836, he had deprecated division, in a church so corrupted by slavery, that nothing but division could save it from destruction. In 1839, he was wrought upon by the circumstances with which the corrupt leaders of that same corrupt body had surrounded him, to labor on their behalf, for a division in the anti-slavery ranks. Those who recollected his course then, possessed a key to his present proceedings.
Some of the leaders of the new movement appeared in the N. England Convention, after their secession, and gave reasons for their conduct. The reason of the Rev. John Le Bosquet was, that they felt conscientiously obliged to impede the free and conscientious action of women in the anti-slavery cause. The Rev. Mr. Trask said that they wished to afford an opportunity for men of name and influence, in church and state, to come and take the conduct of the anti-slavery enterprise;—men who now took no interest in it, and never would do so, unless they were made officers. Elizur Wright thought the new organization needed, because the old Society had refused to pronounce the act of voting at the polls a fundamental principle—a test of membership—Christianduty. That ninety-nine hundredths of the Society actually and conscientiously went to the polls, was nothing so long as those remained members, in as good standing as himself, who conscientiously refused to go. The Rev. Mr. Torrey’s reasons wereallthese, with “others which had never yet been given by any one.” Mr. Garrison, deeply pained by the wounds inflicted on the cause, had said, with much feeling, “I could weep tears of blood over this division, if it would avail to stay its evils.” Mr. Torrey, ridiculing his emotion, remarked that, “to see the gentleman weep tears of blood, would indeed be a curious physiological fact.”
Disconcerted as the exclusive councils of the framers of the new organization had frequently been by the intrusive “common people,” they took, from that experience, a hint in modelling their new constitution. Not every one who signed it was to be permitted to vote in theirSociety, however strictly his vote might be required of him at the polls. Only one gentleman for every twenty-five members was to have the privilege of uniting with the officers and agents of the Society in the transaction of business.
Of the two chief pretences for such anorganization—the first, that the subject of women’s rights to sustain civil and ecclesiastical offices &c. had been “dragged in,” and “hitched on,” (as the phrases were,) was an entirelyfalsepretence, that subject never having been introduced in the Massachusetts Society. Women had, indeed, persisted in exercising the rights and duties of members, which they could not be prevented from doing without a violation of the letter and spirit of the Society’s constitution, and if the necessity of a new organization was grounded on this circumstance, its contrivers were plainly hypocritical in striving to make it auxiliary to the National Society, which also admitted women. They intimated, that they hoped to be able to make that Society recede from its groundnext year;—buthonestlybigoted minds,conscientiouslyopposed to women’s acting in the anti-slavery cause on their own responsibility, would surely never begin their course of opposition by the sin of co-operation for ayear. The second pretence, that the old Society had become a no-government society, was without a shadow of foundation. The strongest political resolution it had ever adopted, to which Mr. Stanton’s resolution in 1837 was feeble, had been passed this year. But, then it had refusedto cast out Mr. Garrison: “ay!there’sthe rub!” This exclamation of the Prince of Denmark, whenhismind was occupied with the question, “to be or not to be,” conveys, in this connection, a summary of the reasons which decided the new organization “to be.”
The New England convention decided that such an association, so gathered, so founded and so organized,could not give aidto any organization upon the old basis, which it haddesertedandcondemned; and they notified the Executive Committee at New York of the same. The hostility of its founders to the Massachusetts Society—the difference it had made as to the fundamental principles, the exclusiveness of its foundation—its mathematical position, working the same derangement in the anti-slavery system as a new planet in the orbit of the earth might do in the solar system,—all forbade it fraternal greeting or long life.
The course the New York Committee should take in action, would be the measure of their own worth to the cause. So opposite were these two Societies, that one or the other must needs be unworthy of the affiliation. If the New York Committee should, after their well-remembered wont, think neutrality possible, still to be neutral wouldbe to spare the criminal; and “Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur.”
From the new organization thus formed, it was planned to send out division unto every local Society. Mr. St. Clair, and Mr. Wise, who had been theSwissof this warfare, at one time during the year, the agents of the Massachusetts Board, at another, of the new paper, at another, of the New York Committee, were now made the agents of the new organization, for completing the work of division.
Thishaving been done, Mr. Stanton no longer delayed to intimate to the Massachusetts Board “that it would be the aim of the New-York Committee tocomply, as far as they could conscientiously, with the advice of their constituents as to agents.”
What was the new organization, then, in reality?—men asked themselves. Its designs were unmasked by abolitionists in Massachusetts, as the Annual Meeting, the Quarterly Meeting, the Bristol County Meeting, the Essex County Meeting, the Plymouth County Meeting, the Worcester County Meetings, the Middlesex County Meeting, and the multiplied meetings of town Societies had conclusively proved. It was but anagent of the New York Committee, under the name of an organization. What would be its effect? to fulfil the wishes of pro-slavery divines, by multiplying nominal abolitionists of its own spirit, as millstones about the neck of the cause. May the New-York Committee dare to claim credit for veracity, if they but
“Keep the word of promise to theear,And break it to the sense?—”
“Keep the word of promise to theear,And break it to the sense?—”
“Keep the word of promise to theear,And break it to the sense?—”
“Keep the word of promise to theear,
And break it to the sense?—”
When, at the Judgment, they shall stand up face to face with the New England band of early abolitionists who so loved and trusted them, what more can each one of them say than this:—“Mymouthhas never lied to thee!”
What is the attitude of the contending hosts of freedom and slavery in Massachusetts, at the present time—the summer of 1839? The unfaithful have turned to flight, overpowered by the subtlety and fury of a pro-slavery church and ministry;—have dishonored their Master, by conceding that such a church and ministry arehis;—have forsaken and betrayed the faithful, offering them up as a propitiation to this ecclesiastical pro-slavery;—have devised a new anti-slavery organization on hypocritical and false pretences, behind which to disguise their apostacy for a season.
The faithful, undismayed by treachery, undeterred by obloquy and persecution, unshaken by abuse, strengthened by experience, relying neither on a pro-slavery church, government, or ministry, but on GOD, andthemselvesas his ready instruments, have bound themselves more firmly to the cause and to each other, and are laboring with increased ardor in the promulgation of the truth which alone can save this slaveholding people.
[5]The following resolution, submitted to the business Committee in the hand-writing of Mr. Stanton, will explain the use which was to have been made of Mr. Garrison’s answer, had the plot succeeded. “We shall thus,” said one, “get rid of the Non-Resistants and the women.”
“Resolved, That every minister of the gospel is bound to preach against slavery; that every member of a Christian Church is bound to have no fellowship with this unfruitful work of darkness; that every ecclesiastical body is bound to purify itself of these abominations; and that every person entitled to the elective franchise, is boundnot only to refrain from votingfor persons as national and state officers, who are unwilling to use all their authority for the immediate abolition of slavery, but isBOUND AT EVERY ELECTION, TO REPAIR TO THE POLLS, and cast his vote for such men as will go to the verge of their official authority, for its instant annihilation;and that every member of an Anti-Slavery Society, who refuses, UNDER ANY PRETEXT,thus to act morally or politically, or counsels others to such a course, is guilty of gross inconsistency, and widely departs from the original and fundamental principles of the Anti-Slavery enterprize.”
“Resolved, That every minister of the gospel is bound to preach against slavery; that every member of a Christian Church is bound to have no fellowship with this unfruitful work of darkness; that every ecclesiastical body is bound to purify itself of these abominations; and that every person entitled to the elective franchise, is boundnot only to refrain from votingfor persons as national and state officers, who are unwilling to use all their authority for the immediate abolition of slavery, but isBOUND AT EVERY ELECTION, TO REPAIR TO THE POLLS, and cast his vote for such men as will go to the verge of their official authority, for its instant annihilation;and that every member of an Anti-Slavery Society, who refuses, UNDER ANY PRETEXT,thus to act morally or politically, or counsels others to such a course, is guilty of gross inconsistency, and widely departs from the original and fundamental principles of the Anti-Slavery enterprize.”
[6]Those women of the Boston Female Society who had long seen a tendency in the conduct of the New York Committee to injure the Massachusetts Society, had taken pains to have their customary annual appropriation to the cause pledged through the Massachusetts treasury, in anticipation of this very contingency. Their surprise was proportionately great at the ingenuity with which their contribution was made discreditable to the Massachusetts Society and to themselves, by the incorrect assertion that it had been made inconsequenceof Mr. Stanton’s labors.
[7]Most of the business of this Society had, from the beginning, been transacted inSpecial Meeting, and almost the only power granted to the Board of this Society by its Constitution, is this, of calling meetings. The Constitution expressly states that “the President and other officersARE AUTHORIZEDto call special meetings,” while there is not a syllable which authorizes them to refuse.
[8]Speech of Samuel Reed, of Abington.
CONCLUSION.
We know the arduous strife, the eternal laws,To which the triumph of all good is given,High sacrifice, and labor without pause,Even to the death:—else wherefore should the eyeOf man converse with immortality?Wordsworth.
We know the arduous strife, the eternal laws,To which the triumph of all good is given,High sacrifice, and labor without pause,Even to the death:—else wherefore should the eyeOf man converse with immortality?Wordsworth.
We know the arduous strife, the eternal laws,To which the triumph of all good is given,High sacrifice, and labor without pause,Even to the death:—else wherefore should the eyeOf man converse with immortality?Wordsworth.
We know the arduous strife, the eternal laws,
To which the triumph of all good is given,
High sacrifice, and labor without pause,
Even to the death:—else wherefore should the eye
Of man converse with immortality?
Wordsworth.
Friends and co-laborers for freedom! We have now a new and indispensable, though painful duty to perform. Our foes have hitherto been without the pale of the associations: we have now found the most deadly within. It misbecomes us to talk of “dissensions amongbrethren”—of “quarrels amongourselves,”—of “dreading the strife of tongues,”—of “hiding ourselves till this calamity be overpast.” Without our most strenuous exertions, it will never pass, but as the remorseless sea passes over the sinking vessel. If we would free the slave, we must meet and conquer a tyrannous influence and spirit, in the shape that it hasnowtaken, as we have done in all itstransformations in the times that are past. We must disabuse our minds of the idea that all are brethren in the cause, who call themselves such.
“Do you love freedom?” is the question we have startled our age withal; and we have begun to judge men—of all classes and conditions,—by the reply their lives make to it. Class after class have thus been tried and condemned. In earlier times, we have bound ourselves steadfastly to the truth which condemned them. Its might made riches a reproach, and “gentlemen of property and standing” a by-word. All our band joined their voices to the oracular one of truth, whenthesesinners were tried by their own principles of action, and found wanting. Why is it thatsomenow cast aside the inspired maxim, “by their fruits ye shall know them”—when another class of men—the ministry, are found recreant to the cause of humanity?It is because they have become like unto them.
We are not without experience of the facility with which men add hypocrisy to wrong. Let the professions of such be to us, from henceforth, as though they were not uttered; their past good deeds, registered with those of Lucifer before his fall. This and this only, in this emergency,is allegiance to the God “whose word is truth—whose will is love—whose law is freedom.”
When, in earlier days in the cause, some of us foresaw the present state of things, we submitted our souls to the prospect of its painfulness. We said, “thy will be done,” in thus keeping our instrumentality effectual and pure.
“May the numerous unpopular questions with which the anti-slavery cause is connected” (thus ran our prayer) “continually come up with it as it is borne onward. So that, up to the final triumph, the act of joining an anti-slavery association may be, as it has hitherto proved,—atest-act.”[9]
And so we pray still; for still and forever,Truthis one and indivisible. All moral questions are by their nature inseparable, in any other than a mechanical sense, and while we sedulously keep them thus mechanically separate, because to do otherwise would be a sin against the freedom of others, and a betrayal of their confidence, we feel it to be no less a sin against freedom for others to impede any man’s course with reproach, on account of this eternal decree of God’s providence.
We have all preached emancipation bypeaceful means; and now some are amazed that the attainment ofallright, in like manner, should have suggested itself to men’s minds! We have all denied that might makes right, and asserted the supremacy of moral power; and yet some are standing in terror-stricken astonishment that the “woman question” is stirred in every heart; and “other some” are persecuting and forsaking their brethren, because the examination and application of principles, though limited in the anti-slavery society by the terms of association, cannot be stayed in men’s minds or individual lives. The time has come for men to look their terrors for the future in the face. A little thought will show them thus much at least;—that it is no sin against an anti-slavery society, to apply, in another association, the peaceful principles by which it is proposed to abolish slavery, to the sins involved in existing governments or sacerdocies. If institutions, religious or political, are unable to stand the test of such an application, that, in the opinion of some, is the fault of the institutions. With this opinion, anti-slavery societies have no more to do than with the question sometimes started, of the duty of urging prayer upon the unconverted, whose prayers God pronounces an abomination.Discussion of collateral subjects is often salutary and necessary in our associations; but to adecisionupon them, by which new tests of membership are introduced, no anti-slavery society is competent. It ceases to be an anti-slavery society from the moment it assumes to decide upon opinions respecting governments or churches.
No man is required, as an abolitionist, to endorse or oppose governments or church establishments. But every thoughtful and honest mind, whether its anchor have “entered into that which is within the veil” or not, feels called by its allegiance to freedom, instantly to resist any attempt to make one man accountable to another for the progress of his mind. This same allegiance to the foundation principle of inalienablehumanrights, warns a man against laboring to prevent woman from standing upon it, if such should be her determination. She may, in his opinion, be sinning against propriety—sinning against Paul, by acting in anti-slavery societies: but he himself sins against freedom in striving for her exclusion; and any act against freedom, is treason to the slave.
Men whose principles, thus imperfectly developed, are at war with each other, will, in all probability, become worse in their last state thanin their first, especially if they are yielding not so much to their own convictions as to the pretexts in which a publicabstractlyopposed to slavery, is fain to clothe its hatred to arealopposition. If they are striving to pacify the foes of freedom by these outrages upon her principles and her advocates, their case is a desperate one, and affords but little probability of repentance.
Surrounded as we are by the smoke and dust of the hottest conflict, we must keep all these considerations in mind, if we would avoid perplexity and doubt. Let us, from time to time, survey the field from a higher point of view, and take careful note of the divisions of the battle, and the nature of the ground on which the hosts are encamped. What do we discern, as we ascend the mount of vision and of difficulty? We perceive hatred and malignant opposition occupying the same post as when we first roused them from their apathy. We are ever contending with our old opponents, under new names, and with every change of name and pretext, some whom we have loved and trusted, are “carried away by their dissimulation.”[10]
At the beginning, they were “as much Anti-Slavery as any one, but hated Mr. Garrison.” What are they now? Even “more Anti-Slavery than any one, but hate Mr. Garrison.” Through all their various phases of Colonizationists, American Unionists, Clerical Appellants, new organizationists, their moving spirit is the same;—hatred of the freedom that defies their control. Even while professing to be laboring for emancipation, they have always been careful to express their hatred of thefree spiritin which abolitionists carry on the enterprize. It must needs be so. There is eternal enmity between the spirit which prompts a man to strive for the mastery, and the spirit which calls no man master. It is an eternal truth, that he who wishes to rule, is unfit to serve.
From this point of observation, we may notice not only the timidity and treachery of some, but the touching fidelity of others. A single individual was once exalted by our opponents into a symbol of faithfulness to liberty and humanity. Now, the whole associated host of a State areassailed with slander and contempt for a like fidelity.
In this symbolic sense, an association is endowed by the enemies of truth and freedom with a notoriety and importance not its own. In every such case, we have a finger of Providence, pointing out to us the course we should pursue with respect to it. Identifying ourselves with it, we listen for the voices that have been wont to cheer the onset. The soul that is now silent is self-condemned.
Let us enlarge our horizon by ascending still higher, so that we can at a glance command the present and the past; for so come many instructive lessons to the mind. We behold far back in the distance, days like those of Wat Tyler, of Wycliffe, of Knox, and Luther and Washington. On closely observing any such era of accelerated progress, we perceive great bodies of men, unaccountably to us, giving back at a critical instant—thrown into confusion by circumstances which we, at this distance of time, discern to have been of but the smallest moment; and, seeing how the speedy and triumphant success of the right is thereby prevented, we suffer a sort of pain that we are unable to cast upon their path the light of ourknowledge. “Had they but known what we so readily discern,” we exclaim, “how different would have been their course!” and we marvel that they were unable to break the spell that bound them, and which one added glance of foresight or of faith would have shivered.
We forget that, besides the natural obscurity of the hour unilluminated by the future, there is ever a shrinking terror on men’s minds, which forbids them boldly to face the phantoms of their own times:—a spurious charity for wrong, which, prompted by a vision ofoneselfin a similar condemnation, is not forgiveness, but treachery to Right. We overlook the obvious consideration that those transition periods were, like our own, infested with the treacherous and the selfish, whose fancied interest it was to suppress facts, circulate falsehoods, make up false issues, apologise for wrong, palliate crime, veil baseness under “decent pretexts,” exalt profession into performance, and by any and every means delay impending change.
This reflection should remind us that such light as we are fain to cast upon past times in our impatience of their blindness, is the same as duty binds us to communicate to our own. When weobserve the importance of small things in the world’s history; it should point us to the cheerful discharge of so lowly a duty as to record those in which we have been engaged. Let us not deem any of them so unimportant as to refuse to draw from them lessons of wisdom, nor strive to persuade ourselves that aughtcanbe trifling, which is wrought into the great page of the past. “To serve the nineteenth century we mustknowthe nineteenth century:” therefore, nothing is without consequence which helps to illustrate our times. Facts, warnings, rebuke, encouragement, consolation, advice, labor,—whatever the times demand, let us give as we have power and opportunity, and we shall soon be made to knowwhat it wasthat kept so great a distance between the words of lonely warning that have risen prophet-like upon the past; andwhy, at some periods, there could be no “open vision” or corresponding energy, but only the feebleness and incertitude of ignorance and fear. Custom is never, by her nature, the handmaid of freedom; and therefore in a struggle for the extinction of slavery, if we speak only according to custom, we shall lose the unhesitating distinctness which the occasions of the cause demand. The occasion nowdemands, in an especial manner, the plain directness of the very palace of truth.
Let us, however, avoid the mistake of supposing that we can find in the past, the exact parallel of the present, in any other than a spiritual sense. Truth—Love—Freedom—are ever the same; but the outward signs of their presence, and the manner of their workings upon society, will, at different times, be far unlike. The problems they present, may be wrought out by different processes, though the results are the same. This reflection will enlighten us as to the causes of the convulsive terror now manifested by the body of the ministry and their dupes—the clerical politicians. We shall learn how it came to pass that the latter were desirous of disjoining themselves from the abolition host, while they yet claimed the name of abolitionists. We shall see on what temptations they have
“fallen awayLike water from us, never found again,But where they mean to sink us.”
“fallen awayLike water from us, never found again,But where they mean to sink us.”
“fallen awayLike water from us, never found again,But where they mean to sink us.”
“fallen away
Like water from us, never found again,
But where they mean to sink us.”
At the outset, they were encouraged by the comparatively quiet progress of abolition in England, to believe that our own would necessarily follow the same course. Strong as was the agitationthere, it effected its work, without shaking the ponderous establishments, civil and ecclesiastical, which bore down upon the land with their “weight of calm.” Here, on the contrary, the lighter yokes of church and state are so shaken by the contest, as to convulse those hearts with terror for their existence which lack the honesty to acknowledge the worse than uselessness of a church or a government which sustains slavery, and the humble faith in God to say,
“Whatever fall—whate’er endure,I know thy word shall still stand sure.”
“Whatever fall—whate’er endure,I know thy word shall still stand sure.”
“Whatever fall—whate’er endure,I know thy word shall still stand sure.”
“Whatever fall—whate’er endure,
I know thy word shall still stand sure.”
When such lose their confidence in the identity of the principles of freedom, with those of order and Christianity, they are disunited in soul from those who are pressing forward with undiminished confidence; and to disguise their change of feeling they sacrifice their integrity.[11]
In our grief at their conduct, we undergo strong temptations to palliate and conceal, when we ought to expose and condemn. The greater need, therefore, that we often ascend the mountof communion with theHIGHEST, there to strengthen our vision and our hearts.
“Weak eyes on darkness dare not gaze:It dazzles like the noontide blaze,But he who seesGod’sface, may brookOn the true face of sin to look.”
“Weak eyes on darkness dare not gaze:It dazzles like the noontide blaze,But he who seesGod’sface, may brookOn the true face of sin to look.”
“Weak eyes on darkness dare not gaze:It dazzles like the noontide blaze,But he who seesGod’sface, may brookOn the true face of sin to look.”
“Weak eyes on darkness dare not gaze:
It dazzles like the noontide blaze,
But he who seesGod’sface, may brook
On the true face of sin to look.”
“Some natural tears we shed” over those who have turned back from the van, and are trampling down the ranks they once cheered onward; but thus strengthened and enlightened, we shall not long indulge a useless sorrow. We shall cease to be impatient when those whom we yet believe true, are slow to see and to act, in an emergency requiring promptitude. We shall but redouble our own laborious vigilance;—we shall but make more intense our own fervent endeavor. We are laying the foundations of manygenerations; and need not to be disturbed by the discomposure of such as comprehend us not. What though, to our human weakness, the end to be attained seem farther off, as faithfulness rouses indifference into opposition, or converts spiritual terror into treachery? yet is the day of redemption nearer than when we believed. What though, in future and severer perils which weKNOWbeset the path we must go, we should, for a season, be deserted of all in whom we trusted for aid in this work of redemption? even our Savior was left to “watch alone one bitter hour,” before any comforting angel was sent of heaven to strengthen him.
Truth—Love—Freedom! evermore must their victories for humanity be won through suffering—but they shall beWON. “Forever, Oh Lord! thy word is settled in heaven.”
[9]Right and Wrong in Boston, written in 1835.
[10]See Paul to the Galatians, from which epistle it appears that the Christian cause had then reached a stage in its progress where it was beset with the same difficulties as the anti-slavery cause at present meets. It had so diminished the trust in the existing institutions, and so strengthened the reverence for principles, that manyprofessingChristianity, were driven back into Judaism.
[11]Better, far better, said the organ of the clerical appellants in 1837, that slavery should remain perpetual, than that the existing institutions with which it is so intimately interwoven, should be disturbed. To most minds comes this moment of distrust of the principles of righteousness—want of faith in God. Orange Scott, who then stood firm, has in this last crisis, deserted the cause, moved by the same temptation. When he sees Church and State shaken by the advent of righteous and free principles, “upon the earth distress of nations with perplexity—the sea and waves roaring—men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming upon the earth,” he says—“Slavery is the least evil of the two.” With propriety might he be asked, with what feelings would the slave of the Louisiana sugar cauldron contemplate the utter destruction of the civil and ecclesiastical arrangements by which he is crushed, soul and body? Wouldhesay better, far better that slavery should remain perpetual as “the least evil of the two?” Yet we are commanded to remember those in bonds as bound with them. However deep may be our attachment to institutions, we must doright, in the faith that righteousness can destroy no good thing.
The following letters are selected and subjoined as specimens of the secret correspondence of this period.
[CONFIDENTIAL.]Salem, Dec. 7th, 1838.Rev. S. J. May.Dear Brother,—I presume you have been consulted on the subject named below; but my anxiety on the topic, leads me to write you. We found, some time ago, that the admission of other subjects into the Liberator had entirely destroyed its circulation, in many parts of this County, and others were gradually dropping it, while a large proportion of our most efficient abolitionists were uneasy, and took it only because they must have the local Anti-Slavery news of this State. As a paper more generally circulated and exerting a better influence was felt to be necessary, to advance the cause in this County, we attempted to start a local Anti-Slavery paper here. But some were afraid—a few loudly opposed; and thegreat expense, (far exceeding our first estimates,)finally deterred us from the undertaking. Still the conviction of the necessity of a paper,devoted to Anti-Slavery alone, which might circulate without objection, among all classes of our friends, has daily gathered strength—and many who opposed our project then, alarmed at thedemoralizing doctrines now promulgatedin the Liberator, say wemust havea paper, at all events. I have no desire to injure Mr. Garrison. His services in the cause entitle him to something more than gratitude. But the Liberator will, of course, remain under his control, and will continue, no doubt, to pursue the same course it has for a year past; and itcannot, therefore, continue to be the Anti-Slavery paper of the State, without avirtualendorsement of its doctrines. Nor will it have a free circulation among the large portion, the immense majority, of the Anti-Slavery community, who dissent from its new views. Now the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Societyis a pretty considerably large and somewhat important body—and why should it not have anofficial organ, of communication with the public, to be devoted toAnti-Slavery alone? I am not particular about the editor. If Mr. Garrison would edit such a paper, anddevote his whole time and strength to it, instead of leaving it to printers’ boys and every body, as he has the Liberator for two years past, I should be perfectly pleased to have him editor,though of course he would not consent. Quite a large number of our old and steadfast friends, who have been consulted, are favorable to the thing. It will be brought forward by me, at the Annual Meeting, if it is found that ourdiscreet friends generally approve of it. Please communicate your views to me freely and confidentially (if you wish.) I have no time this morning to say a word on other topics.With respect and affection,Charles T. Torrey.
[CONFIDENTIAL.]
Salem, Dec. 7th, 1838.
Rev. S. J. May.
Dear Brother,—I presume you have been consulted on the subject named below; but my anxiety on the topic, leads me to write you. We found, some time ago, that the admission of other subjects into the Liberator had entirely destroyed its circulation, in many parts of this County, and others were gradually dropping it, while a large proportion of our most efficient abolitionists were uneasy, and took it only because they must have the local Anti-Slavery news of this State. As a paper more generally circulated and exerting a better influence was felt to be necessary, to advance the cause in this County, we attempted to start a local Anti-Slavery paper here. But some were afraid—a few loudly opposed; and thegreat expense, (far exceeding our first estimates,)finally deterred us from the undertaking. Still the conviction of the necessity of a paper,devoted to Anti-Slavery alone, which might circulate without objection, among all classes of our friends, has daily gathered strength—and many who opposed our project then, alarmed at thedemoralizing doctrines now promulgatedin the Liberator, say wemust havea paper, at all events. I have no desire to injure Mr. Garrison. His services in the cause entitle him to something more than gratitude. But the Liberator will, of course, remain under his control, and will continue, no doubt, to pursue the same course it has for a year past; and itcannot, therefore, continue to be the Anti-Slavery paper of the State, without avirtualendorsement of its doctrines. Nor will it have a free circulation among the large portion, the immense majority, of the Anti-Slavery community, who dissent from its new views. Now the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Societyis a pretty considerably large and somewhat important body—and why should it not have anofficial organ, of communication with the public, to be devoted toAnti-Slavery alone? I am not particular about the editor. If Mr. Garrison would edit such a paper, anddevote his whole time and strength to it, instead of leaving it to printers’ boys and every body, as he has the Liberator for two years past, I should be perfectly pleased to have him editor,though of course he would not consent. Quite a large number of our old and steadfast friends, who have been consulted, are favorable to the thing. It will be brought forward by me, at the Annual Meeting, if it is found that ourdiscreet friends generally approve of it. Please communicate your views to me freely and confidentially (if you wish.) I have no time this morning to say a word on other topics.
With respect and affection,Charles T. Torrey.
Salem, Dec. 19th, 1838.Dear Brother May,—I dont know but my mentioning the objectionssomefelt to the Liberator, led you to think of the project of a new paper, as a sort ofopposition lineto the Liberator. But this is far from my idea of the matter. True, the character and contents of that paper exclude it from circulation in this county so extensively, that it does not answer the purpose of advertising our County Meetings even. Nor will its circulation increase. In some of the strongest Anti-Slavery towns, where most is done for the cause, scarcely a single copy is taken, or can be got in. So it is all over the State. I suppose not more than half the circulation of the Liberator, (probably not one third,) is in Massachusetts. Nor will this state of things, in that respect, be materially changed at present, in my judgment. I think it certain that papers from New York or elsewhere, cannot do for our State to act efficiently. And that there are thousands of abolitionists, and others who need, and would take a paper, wholly devoted toAnti-Slavery and published at Boston, admits not of a question. It would have five hundred to one thousand subscribers in this County,at once. Now, I think the good of our causedemandsof us, that such a paper be started, and a small monthly, like “Human Rights,” besides. And if it is done as our official State paper, there can be no ground for considering it as in opposition to the Liberator. Whereas, if individuals start a paper, the case will be just the reverse. It will then be a rival to the Liberator, and will materially injure its circulation. Now, a State official,confinedto Anti-Slavery exclusively, will not cross the track of the Liberator scarcely at all. I have, so far, heard of not a syllable of disapproval but from yourself, from any part of the State. I do still hope, on reflection, you will think differently of the thing. There can be no evil, or warfare, it seems to me, unless those who like the Liberator insist that it shall be, virtually,the State Paper, while not so in form, and choose to claim the whole of the vast unoccupied field, in this State, as its own. But if they resist and successfully, the measure proposed,thenall peace or compromise will indeed end. A new paper will, no doubt, be started, as an individual enterprize, and it will not spare the peculiarities of opinion, etc. manifested in the Liberator. It is true, it is open to controversy on peace, etc. But, on that very account, it has no claims to be theAnti-Slaverypaper of Massachusetts, and to circulate as such, among those who reluctantly take it for its localnews, while they cannot endure its sectarianism.Now, my dear Brother, I have written very plainly what I think. Do consider the matter again and maturely. Our causemustbe prosecuted at all hazards and sacrifices, but that of principle, and I do think duty to our cause requires a new paper wholly anti-slavery. If those who like the Liberator cannot then sustain it, what will it prove, but the absolute need of a new paper?Yours, as ever, for the slave, andwith much affection,Charles T. Torrey.
Salem, Dec. 19th, 1838.
Dear Brother May,—
I dont know but my mentioning the objectionssomefelt to the Liberator, led you to think of the project of a new paper, as a sort ofopposition lineto the Liberator. But this is far from my idea of the matter. True, the character and contents of that paper exclude it from circulation in this county so extensively, that it does not answer the purpose of advertising our County Meetings even. Nor will its circulation increase. In some of the strongest Anti-Slavery towns, where most is done for the cause, scarcely a single copy is taken, or can be got in. So it is all over the State. I suppose not more than half the circulation of the Liberator, (probably not one third,) is in Massachusetts. Nor will this state of things, in that respect, be materially changed at present, in my judgment. I think it certain that papers from New York or elsewhere, cannot do for our State to act efficiently. And that there are thousands of abolitionists, and others who need, and would take a paper, wholly devoted toAnti-Slavery and published at Boston, admits not of a question. It would have five hundred to one thousand subscribers in this County,at once. Now, I think the good of our causedemandsof us, that such a paper be started, and a small monthly, like “Human Rights,” besides. And if it is done as our official State paper, there can be no ground for considering it as in opposition to the Liberator. Whereas, if individuals start a paper, the case will be just the reverse. It will then be a rival to the Liberator, and will materially injure its circulation. Now, a State official,confinedto Anti-Slavery exclusively, will not cross the track of the Liberator scarcely at all. I have, so far, heard of not a syllable of disapproval but from yourself, from any part of the State. I do still hope, on reflection, you will think differently of the thing. There can be no evil, or warfare, it seems to me, unless those who like the Liberator insist that it shall be, virtually,the State Paper, while not so in form, and choose to claim the whole of the vast unoccupied field, in this State, as its own. But if they resist and successfully, the measure proposed,thenall peace or compromise will indeed end. A new paper will, no doubt, be started, as an individual enterprize, and it will not spare the peculiarities of opinion, etc. manifested in the Liberator. It is true, it is open to controversy on peace, etc. But, on that very account, it has no claims to be theAnti-Slaverypaper of Massachusetts, and to circulate as such, among those who reluctantly take it for its localnews, while they cannot endure its sectarianism.
Now, my dear Brother, I have written very plainly what I think. Do consider the matter again and maturely. Our causemustbe prosecuted at all hazards and sacrifices, but that of principle, and I do think duty to our cause requires a new paper wholly anti-slavery. If those who like the Liberator cannot then sustain it, what will it prove, but the absolute need of a new paper?
Yours, as ever, for the slave, andwith much affection,Charles T. Torrey.
Salem, Jan. 7th, 1839.Dear Sir,—I write to urge the importance of a full representation of your society at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, on the 23d and 24th of this month. Measures of very great importance to the progress of the cause throughout the State will be brought forward, particularly the establishment of a new paper, of high character, to be devoted to Anti-Slavery only; and to be under the official control of the State Society; one which will urge political action as aChristian duty, in accordance with our original principles of association.Other thingsof equal moment to the onward progress of our cause, will be presented—probably on thefirst dayof the meeting; other and obvious considerations will show the great importance of having a full representation, from two to twenty from every Society. Let every one who can attend, do so. Let none be chosen who will not attend. Select the most judicious and tried friends of the cause, and let them be there at the opening of the meeting, at ten o’clock oh the 23d, and be prepared to stay two days.If your Society meets to choose delegates, let there be an expression of opinion about the new paper, (to be purely Anti-Slavery, and nothing else; to oppose nothing but slaveholding and doughface-ism) and let the vote be embodied in the instructions of the delegates.Please to see the officers of your Society, and have your delegation promptly appointed.Yours, for the slave,Charles T. Torrey.Rec. Sec. Essex Co. A. S. Society.
Salem, Jan. 7th, 1839.
Dear Sir,—I write to urge the importance of a full representation of your society at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, on the 23d and 24th of this month. Measures of very great importance to the progress of the cause throughout the State will be brought forward, particularly the establishment of a new paper, of high character, to be devoted to Anti-Slavery only; and to be under the official control of the State Society; one which will urge political action as aChristian duty, in accordance with our original principles of association.Other thingsof equal moment to the onward progress of our cause, will be presented—probably on thefirst dayof the meeting; other and obvious considerations will show the great importance of having a full representation, from two to twenty from every Society. Let every one who can attend, do so. Let none be chosen who will not attend. Select the most judicious and tried friends of the cause, and let them be there at the opening of the meeting, at ten o’clock oh the 23d, and be prepared to stay two days.
If your Society meets to choose delegates, let there be an expression of opinion about the new paper, (to be purely Anti-Slavery, and nothing else; to oppose nothing but slaveholding and doughface-ism) and let the vote be embodied in the instructions of the delegates.
Please to see the officers of your Society, and have your delegation promptly appointed.
Yours, for the slave,Charles T. Torrey.Rec. Sec. Essex Co. A. S. Society.
Boston, April 2d, 1838.Dear Brother,—I understand that —— has left, or is about leaving you, and that you are on the lookout for a successor. Permit me to recommend to you, ——.And now a word in respect to abolition. You are aware of the collision between the State and National Societies—have seen, I suppose, thestatement of the case in the “Christian Journal, Extra”—and know that your County Board have taken supervision of the field within your County, and invited in the agents of the American Society, thus virtually taking sides with that Society. Well, your County Society is to meet soon in New Bedford, at which time and place, I have no doubt an effort will be made to undo what the County Board have done, and to pass resolutions sustaining the State, and condemnatory of the County and Parent Boards; and what with the Quakers and colored people in New Bedford, it will not be strange if the attempt succeeds.What your views on the matter in dispute are, I know not, nor is it of any importance for me to know, so far as it concerns what I wish now to say to you. I will only say, then, as I cannot go now into the matter in detail, that I regard the Parent Committee in the right. They ought to be sustained. Nor do I believe that the State Board would ever have sent out their protest but for certain “ulterior measures” which they wished to accomplish thereby—one of these is to crush the Massachusetts Abolitionist, by shutting out of the State, the Agents of the Parent Society who are generally favorable to it, and where they can do it, without interfering with the duties of their agency, are in the habit of getting subscribers for it—another is to make the Society Anti-Orthodox in its influence—and another, by having the entire control of the cause in the State, to take advantage of it for the promulgation ofnon-resistance, no-government, &c. &c. I can give you facts when I see you that will bear me out in all these positions. The truth is, Garrison and the Board are themselves guilty of the very things they are charging on others. They are just in the attitude of the man who cries “Stop thief,” that he, under cover of that cry, may make off with the stolen goods. I hope to see you and converse with you at length on these subjects by and by. Meanwhile, if you agree with me that the Parent Committee ought to be sustained, I hope you will see that the meeting at New Bedford is not a packed one, but that those who think with us, as well as others, are on the ground prepared to hear the case, and take proper action thereon, should it come up. Remember me affectionately to your family.Yours truly,A. A. Phelps.P. S. Brother —— is a good abolitionist—but wise and prudent at the same time that he is firm and decided on the subject. Of course he would not make ahobbyof it.
Boston, April 2d, 1838.
Dear Brother,—I understand that —— has left, or is about leaving you, and that you are on the lookout for a successor. Permit me to recommend to you, ——.
And now a word in respect to abolition. You are aware of the collision between the State and National Societies—have seen, I suppose, thestatement of the case in the “Christian Journal, Extra”—and know that your County Board have taken supervision of the field within your County, and invited in the agents of the American Society, thus virtually taking sides with that Society. Well, your County Society is to meet soon in New Bedford, at which time and place, I have no doubt an effort will be made to undo what the County Board have done, and to pass resolutions sustaining the State, and condemnatory of the County and Parent Boards; and what with the Quakers and colored people in New Bedford, it will not be strange if the attempt succeeds.
What your views on the matter in dispute are, I know not, nor is it of any importance for me to know, so far as it concerns what I wish now to say to you. I will only say, then, as I cannot go now into the matter in detail, that I regard the Parent Committee in the right. They ought to be sustained. Nor do I believe that the State Board would ever have sent out their protest but for certain “ulterior measures” which they wished to accomplish thereby—one of these is to crush the Massachusetts Abolitionist, by shutting out of the State, the Agents of the Parent Society who are generally favorable to it, and where they can do it, without interfering with the duties of their agency, are in the habit of getting subscribers for it—another is to make the Society Anti-Orthodox in its influence—and another, by having the entire control of the cause in the State, to take advantage of it for the promulgation ofnon-resistance, no-government, &c. &c. I can give you facts when I see you that will bear me out in all these positions. The truth is, Garrison and the Board are themselves guilty of the very things they are charging on others. They are just in the attitude of the man who cries “Stop thief,” that he, under cover of that cry, may make off with the stolen goods. I hope to see you and converse with you at length on these subjects by and by. Meanwhile, if you agree with me that the Parent Committee ought to be sustained, I hope you will see that the meeting at New Bedford is not a packed one, but that those who think with us, as well as others, are on the ground prepared to hear the case, and take proper action thereon, should it come up. Remember me affectionately to your family.
Yours truly,A. A. Phelps.
P. S. Brother —— is a good abolitionist—but wise and prudent at the same time that he is firm and decided on the subject. Of course he would not make ahobbyof it.
Such efforts and accusations as the above letter Mr. Phelps did not hesitate privately to put forth against his brethren of the Board, though he never intimated to them, personally, that any such imaginations darkened his mind. And even on resigning his seat with them, one month after thedate of this letter, he did not intend that his reasons for doing so should be made public. His own testimony, respecting similar allegations presented as reasons for the formation of a new Society only a year previous, is true now. At the moment that this letter was written, the Massachusetts Society had eight Orthodox Agents in the field, and but one of another belief. True, the Society could not, without violating its principles, become an Orthodox Societyexclusively; but the Society did deem it a fortunate circumstance that Orthodox pro-slavery should be met and exposed by Orthodox anti-slavery.
Who that reads Mr. Phelps’s testimony, Jan. 1838, as given below, but must deeply compassionate the struggle and concealment and weakness of soul which afterwards completely overpowered him, notwithstanding his better knowledge, and dictated his course during the remainder of that year, up to the formation of a new organization, in 1839, and until, as the climax of his course, he submitted to be examined for installation as pastor of the Free Church, by the well known pro-slavery divine, the Rev. Hubbard Winslow.
Mr. Phelps’s Testimony in 1838.
“And last, not least, there must needs be a new organization, and a withdrawal from the Massachusetts Society, because, “both the organ and management of it are under anti-orthodox influence.” True, there is not as much orthodoxy in either, as I wish there was, and as I think there ought to be; but it is not the result, so far as I have seen, of any trickery on the part of those who are not Orthodox, nor of any disposition, on their part, to make Orthodoxy or Anti-Orthodoxy a test of membership or office. And as it is, full one half the officers and managers of the Society are Orthodox men; this “Anti-Orthodox influence” has chosen and is sustaining an “Orthodox” Agent, and one that is sent for sometimes to repair the mischief done by agents of the American Society: this Society, at its public meetings,has“passed resolutions recommending that ministers and Christians, in their public meetings, should pray for the slave;” its own public meetings have been “opened with prayer;” its agent, (to say nothing of the liberty of its organ,) and its members have always had liberty to plead for the slave, in as “orthodox” language, and by as “orthodox” arguments as they pleased; and, in fine, the society has every one of those characteristics, by virtue of which, the Spectator declares the American Society to be“practically orthodox;” and yet, strange to tell, the American Society looks upon the difficulties that have sprung up here out of these things, with which itself, by its agents and otherwise, has had as much to do as any one, as a mere personal and family quarrel; andthe friends of the new organization, on the other hand, cannot endure the Massachusetts Society, to be sure, but are for going into most cordial and hearty auxiliaryship to the American!A.A. Phelps.”
“And last, not least, there must needs be a new organization, and a withdrawal from the Massachusetts Society, because, “both the organ and management of it are under anti-orthodox influence.” True, there is not as much orthodoxy in either, as I wish there was, and as I think there ought to be; but it is not the result, so far as I have seen, of any trickery on the part of those who are not Orthodox, nor of any disposition, on their part, to make Orthodoxy or Anti-Orthodoxy a test of membership or office. And as it is, full one half the officers and managers of the Society are Orthodox men; this “Anti-Orthodox influence” has chosen and is sustaining an “Orthodox” Agent, and one that is sent for sometimes to repair the mischief done by agents of the American Society: this Society, at its public meetings,has“passed resolutions recommending that ministers and Christians, in their public meetings, should pray for the slave;” its own public meetings have been “opened with prayer;” its agent, (to say nothing of the liberty of its organ,) and its members have always had liberty to plead for the slave, in as “orthodox” language, and by as “orthodox” arguments as they pleased; and, in fine, the society has every one of those characteristics, by virtue of which, the Spectator declares the American Society to be“practically orthodox;” and yet, strange to tell, the American Society looks upon the difficulties that have sprung up here out of these things, with which itself, by its agents and otherwise, has had as much to do as any one, as a mere personal and family quarrel; andthe friends of the new organization, on the other hand, cannot endure the Massachusetts Society, to be sure, but are for going into most cordial and hearty auxiliaryship to the American!
A.A. Phelps.”