Miscellany: Letters From Michigan: Number VI

I know not how I can betíer convey to yoi a correct view of the nature of theamislavery feeling in Michigan, than by a brief notice of the discussions at the Anniversary of the State Society, uith such oheervations as mny occur. There are several kinds of Abolitioniste, who differ mnch frorn eacrïdther. Tliere 5s the old fashior.ed Quaker kind, (1 mean no tlisrespect) who npprovc of no antislavery mensures which may make disturbance, btit but content themselvrs vvith hearing testimony ogainst the sin. Thcre are the Garrisonians, who muke war upon the churches, ministers, and slavery togelher. There ore the Do-nuthing Aboliüonsts, who talk and pray againsi Slavery, and then vote for Slaveholders for Presidents, and for the highest ecdesiastical offices. The fourth class oppose the institution wherever it presonts jtself, in churcli or state. Henee this class are opposed by all the others, as you will see by the proceedinga on this occasion. As fioon as the Annual Report of the Executive Committec had been read, Rev. Air. Ruusn, agent of the Americnn Ti act Society, arose and snid that he was well known to be warmlyattached t.o the antislavery cause. Tlipse wlio kriëw In'ni would nol distrust bis sincerify5, ho vever he tnight differ with them as to particular mensures; The first antislavery note was sounded by Garrison, and the whole tenor of his conrse had involved a continued criminution of the c!crgy,and a warfare on the organized churchea. Many antislavcry men con ld not; npprove of these thingp, nnd were compelled to stand alonf. - His business had been such chat for many years he had pooscbsed uncommon facilitirs for knowing the real seutiments of a greni number of ministers nd leá'ding ohurch members on this qoestion, and he wished them to be distinctly understood and considered by this Society. When convereiiifr with them by their firesides, their Iangungo was substantially üke this: 'I love the cause of the Slave. nnd would be glnd to act for his d-füvoniuce, but I cannot act wilh the Leading abolirionists. I slioud hegldd to read and circuíate the ontislavery papers, for there is mnch that is valuable and' excellent in ihem, but I cannoltnke upone for a moment without meeting with a thrust at ministers or at the Prosbvtery, or the Geneeral Assembly, or thè Bible Society, or the Board of Foreign Mission?. They are denounced 'a the most positive rn-mncr bccause they wil i no.t pa.s resoltitions npr'ainft slaverv, nnd exfhide nll slnvoholders from their fellowship. The chu.chos St ecclesinsrical bodies are continua IJy {radecl on to act ion, and held tip to scorn, if they do not aof. as prominent ub. litiöliists wish. I love 1 he cnuse, but when I my brethren insist that [ shall co-opnrnte wiih them in these things, nnd undertke to prescribe to me hoto I shall act, ï must keep aloof from the cause." Mr. R. saidthatby thiscontinual goading and spurring, ministers were much , fretted in their feelings, and were prevented from uniting wiih others 'm the common cause. He did not say that this feeling in ministers was right. He did , not apologize for it, or justify it. lie spoke of it as a act. Ministers may be , reached as individuáis, but when you j touch their organization?, you louch that ( which they love better than they do 1 slavery. But this continual finding fault ; with ecclesiastical bodies was not only bad in its results, but was not warranted i by the facts of the case. Suppose a t bytery should vote against Slavery in any way you please, it amounts to notbing ( praetically. It is a mere expression of 1 opinión which feinds no body. So of the i General Assembly. A great outcry had i been raised against this body, because 1 they had not passed resolutions against t ■slavery. Supposing they had done so, they would not have been binding on the t smallest child A war had been kept up t for years against the American Board, 1 because they admitted slave-holders to : ïembership, and solicited contribuiions 1 from them. Mr. R. conceived this h fare upon these drganizations was unwise, li becanso we could do more against slavery n through these organizations than we could t without them. As the Report to which f he had just listened, contained some I sages strongly censuring certain b nations for not acting against slavery in nn organizedcapacity, he moved that if be; { referred to aselect committeó of fivefor p revisión. . l Mr. Fostbr, Secreteuy of the Society, sY wished to say a few words in explanatior n before the vote was taken. He though: )y the charge of -'Garrisonism" could not be properly brought against the Report. 3. or the Executive Committee from whom it emanated. That Committee, with one exception, were all members of Chrisian lf churches, and they would be far from Bl sustaining a crusade against their own de,_ nominations. But he could say for himself, and he believed also for the rest of e the Committee, that he had very little attachment to that religión which makes property of human beings - of those for i. whom Christ-died, and sanctions their sale as brute beasts. Others might admire stich a religión, and praise its excellens cies, but under whatever name it might appear, it was the very reverse of that p which Christ taught. He believed it was ! of the Devil, and had no fellowship for it. With Rev. Mr. Rouse he had some aci quaintance, and was pleased to hear him express his objections to the Report with his usual frankness and candor. He wish1 ed the points of difference among gentlemen might be fully and kindly discuss ed. Rev. Mr. Bacox, of Brooklyn, was an Abolitionist, but was opposed to such indiscriminate censure of the churches. He was for a revisión. Mr. A. M. Baker, a lawyer of Adrián, was in favor of a revisión on another ground. That Report endorses the whole ground of political independent nominations. There were many Abolitionists in that county who differed from others in reference to the measures to be pursued. They could not subscribe to the confession of faith to which they had just listened. Let it not, however, be inferred that they were lukewarm in the cause of the slave. There were more than twenty refugees from slavery then living in that county, and he believed he might justly say, that the whole united power of the South could not carry back one of thern to slavery. (Applause.)S. B. Treadwell, of Jackson, had lis tened attentively to the remarles of gen tlemen, and he raust say, with all due res peet, that their arguments were stale anc unprofitablc. Itwas thefirsttimein thret ycars that he had lieard political actior against slavery repudiated by one whc cal led himself an Abolitionist. He hac no fellowshfp for those who preach and talk and pray against slaveiy, and then vote for it. This Report seemed to be treatcd as the antislavery cause had always been. The church sends us to the politicians because it is a political question, and they send us back to the church because it is a moral question. Thusit is kicked about between them both, not being holy enough for the church, and top holy for the politicians. As to the objection of Mr. Rouse, that ministers are "f reit cd" because we blame chnrehes for their inaction, he had only to say, that iL ministers were fretted because the truth was spoken in love, he was sorry for their condition. He approved of the Report as it stood. Rev. Mr. Tomlinsost, of Adrián, had not discoVered such objectionable imputations as others had seen. He was, however, desirious of having it referred to a cominittee. Rev. Mr. Rouse thought his zealous brethren did not fake the best way. Their course, instead of attracting, repels. Churches were not to be reached as ordained bodies, nor were ministers to be made to co-operate in their official capacity. As individuals, their aid might be secured. But when a minister opensan antislavery paper and finds that the General Assembly is thrashed because it does not do just as the Editor would wish, and every bene vol ent association is served in the same manner. he will not co-operate with such men, nor will he read such papers. While this courso is pursued, ministers must lie on their oars till better times. Rev. Mr. , of Brooklyn, objected especially to the'sentiment so prominently set forth in the Report, that the American churches are the buhvark of American Slavery. He believed that much might be done for the Antislavery cause, through the organizedchurches. Mr. Foster observed that Mr. Birney, the candidate of the Liberty party for the Presidency, when a delégate to the World's A. S. Convention in 1840. had publishedapamphlet with this title- "The American churches the buhvark of American Slavery." Henee tl#sentiment had spread through all the antislavery papers, and he supposed was an admitted truth, until he heard it questioned on this floor for the first time in several years. -' If the sentiment were erroneous, it should be stricken from the Report. , The next day the committce to whom it was referred brought in the original Report with amendments, which wero tried ane by ont. Some were adopied, and somo were rejected, but on the whole the5n document was improved, without compr ht mising any of its principies. Some ( ot the remarkson adopting the amendmeni rt, were quite characteristic. m Mr. Halset, a lawyer of Adrián, a ie though not a member, asked leave to sug m gest an amendment. In the Report, slavt m holding churches were spoken of as Chrisi ian churches, thus acknowledging them t ■ be such. This he thought a reproach t 3f Chrisianity. Christ's religión did not sane tion property in man. He proposed to in ís sert "professed" before "christian church r es" which was agreed to. ir In one place, slaveholders were callee e "robbers." A debate sprung up on sub stituting "slaveholders" for "robbers."- it This brought up the whole question aboui ■t usirig denunciatory language, which hai s been discussed so much, and wiíh so liltle ■. profit. - Rev. Mr. Barrows, of Franklin, said (i the original Report was objected to bei cause it had an edge to it. He did not - wish the edge tobe taken off. He believ- ed in plain exhibitions of truth. All re- formers had used plain language. The politician says, '-Smash away through i the ecclesiastical bodies, but let us alone!" - The ecclesiastic says, "Smash awav 3 through the political parties, but let mir churches alone!" He believed in speak, ing the plain truthof both. r Rev. Mr. Rouse objected to the slang 5 of the expression. ' He spoke of it as a - Garrisonism - it was a slap at ministers i - a cudgel to ielaior ministers. While i such expressions were used, they would be afraidof anti-slavery men. The word "robbers" was expunged. In the evening, Rev. G. Beckley int resolution declaring that the ! American churches were the buhvark of slavery. In support of this, he showed : that in all the large denominations, slaveholders are received into the churches, ■ they are received without rebuke, they are retained as good brethren in the Lord, they are promoted to the highest ecclesiastical honors, they are made oiïïcers of Bible, Tract, and Missionary societies, and every attempt to censure or exclude them is steadfastly resisted by the ecclesiastical bodies. Thus the American churches asa body, interposedthemselves as a bulwark and a defence between slaveholder and public opinión. Rev. Mr. Barrows, of Franklin, had lived at the South, and could bear testimony to the fact that ministers were permitted to hold slaves. The duty of Christians was to remember the slave as though they were in the same condition. He intended to do it - to pray for him,to plead for him and ío vote for him. He was not afraid of having one idea. To accomplish much. men must have one idea, and must pursue it with untiring energy. Rev. Mr. Bacon, of Brooklyn, was opposed to the resolution. He thought it was too indiscriminate. He had no doubt the church at the South were all corrupt on this subject. He did not regard the churches as the bulwark. The institution had other defences. He wished it to read that the churches were one of the pillars that supported it. This resolution would give joy to the politicians, because it takes the responsibility from them. They would say that they were exempt from all accountability for it. Rev. Mr. Egerton, of Jackson,inquired if Northern churces did not sustain slavery? They fellowship slaveholders, and vote for them. The great majority of the northern churches are not with us, but with the slaveholders. There might be other pillars, but this was the main one: because no legislation against slavery would go ahead of the moral sentiment of the people. Rev. Mr. Curtís, of Adrián, considered this resolution an instance of unauthorized general ization. The precise tenor of lus remarks was not apprehended, but he was understood to say, that the resolution looked strongly towards Garrisonism. The implication was that if the churches be the buhvark of slavery, the bulwark must be destroyed before the evil can be reachod. He did not deny but that the Northern churches were in some degree responsible for slavery. But whence did , the anti-slavery influence emanate? Was it not from the same churches? i Rev. Mr. Joxes, of Grass Lake, said ' the church of Jesus Christ, as sucb, is far ( from sustaining slavery. But she has ' parted from the line of her duty, and ' placed herself as a shield of this great f iquity. It did not follow that we must therefore deslroy the church. t ly necessary that she assume a right B sition- an attitude of hostility, not to i oJition, bui to slavery. i The resolution was adopted. ' The fourth resolution asserted that f srty mer could see no difference between Í :he two great political parties, so far as l 3ur objects were concerned. D. C. Jackson, of Adrián, sheriff of 5 Lenawce county, said he was a member i- of the first anti-slavery association in thi f Sfate. Píe disapproved of the third partj 3 because it could accomplish nothing c moment if it should suceeed. Suppos ■ Birney to be elected, what could he do What has this party done already ? Noth ing except to weaken and divide antislave ■ ry men, and sow dlssensions in churches 1 Moral suasion was amply sufficient to ac 1 complish the work. We can petitior Congress, and make our influence fel; there, and get slavery done away. Be sides, there are other great interests deserving attention. These should not be neglected for the sake of securing one. Mr. J. O. CoitfsTOCK.of Adrián, thought the resolution incorrect. There was a diflerence between the parties. The Whigs support the right of petition, while the Democrats go against it. Adams, Slade, Giddings &c, go as far in promoting anti-slavery views as the Constitution will permit. We do not do well to abuse our friends. He was an abolitionist, and had been for years, but did not approve the third party. The President, C. H. Stewart, asked why the Whigs re-established the Gag when they were in power? He read from the Detroit Advertiser, the leading Whig paper in the State, showing that it took ground for the reception of petitions as the best nieans of allaying the anti-slavery excitement, but was opposed to granting the prayer of the petiiioners. This was a mere mockery. As to Mr. Giddings, he only advocates a part of the Liberty principies. He supports HenryClay for the Presidency. He has publicly declared that he had done more to use up the Liberty party in his District than any other man. Would tbTe Whigs vote for a half and half man? Would they sustain a Democrat for Congress who made his boast of having done more to use up the Whig party than any other man? - Far from it. Yet Liberty men were asked to act in this absurd and suicidal manner. Dr. Gallup, of Gencssee County, contended that Legielation was indispensable to the preservaron of Liberty. Slavery is sustaiuel law. We cannot buy up all the. slaves, bcca'ise the pnce would rise in proportion to the demand. Butsuppose we could set ihem all free by moral suasion, we should st;ll need legilation to prevent the re-establishuenl of slavery. Henee legislation is indispensable: and we need to elect men who vi!l legishte right. He supposed the case of a moral -suasion Whig, who was a whig in sentiment, bui was opposed to carrying it into politics. He was in favor of estoblishing a U. S. Bank by mora i suasion, but was opposed to all political action, ond should thcrefore vote for a rank Democrat. Equ.illy inconsistent would it. be in Abolitionists to vote for those who are for retaining the slave lawe. There was one encouraging circumstance about the Liberty enterprize- lts principies were confesfedly right, and the only quesfion remaining was one of expediency respecting the best method of carrying tliem out. A. M. Bakkr then spoke at considerable lengíh, and with candor and abiliiv. He wished to speak only his own opinión, and he must do that without premeditation, as he bad come to hear rather than to speak. - [t is assumed by Liberty men that iegblation, boih State and National, is nacessary to the abolition of Slavery. This is an indispensable requisite: the next question is, how shall it be attained? Two wiys are proposed: sy nominaiing and ultimately eleciing1 men who will abolish slavery, and by indoctrinating heNorth vvith anti-siavery sentiments,so that ,he Whig or Democratie Jegislators will doit. Hiere are two methode of doing the same :hing. Are they alike unobjectionable? - Fiiey are not! The former is neither the uickest nor most appropriate mode of ataining the desired end for the following rea;ons: 1. You take from the old political parties l portion of ihose who would urge the parties o acL against slavery, and the remainder of hose parlies lose the Ímpetus of action. L. To go on by political action, you must hange the moral asocia'.ioii into a polilical me, and thus lose time, forcé, and vigor. 3. The present poliiical party will be like ither political parties, ruled or" ridden by poitical demagogues. You cannot rnske apoitical party puro and holy. [t will be the lobby of demagogues. 5. It will not attain the proposed end, be:ause it is tbunded on a single principie, irhich is not a platform broad cnongh to build party upon. 6. This third parfy organization would reuh in a unión of church and State. Why 'ere the anti-slavery societies formed? Bcause men were oppresed and enslaved. They riginatud in moral principie, nnd Liberty men ïeinselves say that thoir present movetnculs 1 re carried out by religious mc-n. Here, in lis Society, ministers and thcir churches i ave come in, and nnder the name of an an i -slsvery society, they are led into a political c ssociarion, without being dircctly sensible of [ . This society admits no anti-slavery c on to be genuino that is not coupled with po iica! action, and sits here and colls on eccleastical bodics to join if, and pronounces idgment on them. This state of things l roaches very near to a political church. - % 'o show thnt this result was nmeh nearer in Tew York, he read from a cali for a recent K yracuse Convention, in which the Jeading t iiberty men of New York declare that the rChristian Ciiurches are unworthy of thei counlenance and fellowabip, and cal] on Abolitionists to establish a new church on poJiti cal principies. It is there also thattnej preach politics on the Sabbath . But it is saic to be on the moral principies that Gerril Smith pieaches: yet the f act demonstatec the intímate unión of politica! and church matter3. And it followed from the very constitnlion of the anti-elavery organizatioii, that they o'erived thcir strength chieflv from church. It was said that a Christian man ought to carry his principies to the polls. He admitted it, but it eshould not be done under the dictation of any society. Mr.' Baker then recnpitulated the preceding points, and concluded by expressinj? his cordial concurrence in the objects sought by antj-slavery men, while he difièred only in the manner of attaining ihem. Rev. G. Becki.et said that the first American Á. S. Society, in common with all others Bince, had publicly declared thcir intention ofusing moral and politica! oction acainst slavery. The only difference betvveen nntislavery men now and formerly, is. that now we organize, then we did not. We are on the same platform. We still return mornl and politica! Wlion. We still retain all our moral suasion. But moral suasion, as Mr. Baker well know, would never créate or nbolish a Bank or a Tariff, neither will it extineruish slavery, which exists only by force of la w , Preciscly the ssme reasons which induces Mr. B. to resort to political acticn to control Banks and Tariñí?, induces us also to uee it for the abolition of slavery. As to Gcrrit Smith's prejfbhing politics on the Sabbat h, it hnd not been fhown that Mr. S. had preach - ed any but Bible politics on that day.Mr. F. Millerd, of Adrián, said he would assign one reason why he could not join the third pnrty. They poslpone the very end they have in view. In pursuing this one object, they lose eight of all others, and pass fromthecalm field of mural action into the stormy sea of politica! intrigue, where succoss as a party will be to them unatioinable. Political action in itsHf is force - incipienl force, "to be fully applied in the end, if neces6ary. This Liberty action will excite tho hostility of s'aveholders, and make them stenly adhere to their peculiar iustitution. One fact in proof of tius. Before politicnl action commenced, slavery was a sinking institulion. The great men of the South were favorable to abolition, and it was seriously (3iscus?ed and almost adopted by the Virginia Logislature. But these fair prospecta we;e blighted by the irritafioh coneequent on the political acfion of a'jolilionistsithe spirit of emancipahad been checked, and the whole cause put back fifty years. G. Beckley replied, that this discussion in the Legislature of Virginia took place in 1831. Tliis was itnmediately consequent on the Southampton insurreclion, in whicn about si.xty white persons were killed. After discussing the question, the Legislature determined by a majority of six votes, not to take any action for the abolition of-SIavery. The first American A. S. Society was not formed till 1833, an dthere was no general excitement till 1835, and the political organization to which Mr. M. referred was not established till 1840. Now, he would thank that gentleman to show hirn how it was possible for a political organization established in 1840 to hinder the Virginia Legislature from abolishing slavery if? 1831. A. J. Comstock, of Adrián, did formerly claim to be an abolitionist, but he had been read out of Church, because hc did not sustain an organized party. What had been the course of the third party? Had they givcn Adams and Giddings credit and support? They had denounced and found fault with them. Is that the way they supported their friends? Was it not justly said that the whole organization was a unión of politics and church action? Here, on this very floor, they had denounced all who did not agree svith them? Could they deny it? S. B. Treadwe&l, of Jackson, wished all gentlemen who were disposed to abolish slavery by moral suasion only, to go on and do it. He certainly would not stand in their way. He was not dissosecl to say to opposing gentlemen, 'stand by." But we were driven to inde"jendent action from the very nature of :hings. Slavery is an evil - a curse - ' xth moral and political. We went to ' he church es with it as a moral evil, they ' eplied, " Begone, it is a political ' on." When we urged upon our '] :al parties the political evils of slavery, hey answered, tJBegone, it is a moral uestion - carry it to the church!" - I Thus we are too pure for the political ' larties - too impure for the church. He lenied that any anti-slavevy society withu his knowledgs had ever been ■ zed on moral power alone; and his f uaintance was pretiy oxfensive. It had : een asked What the Liberty party could s o if it should sucecod. ITe answered, liat it could abolish all national slavery, u nd subscquently abolish the :' ion for slaves. Gentlemen who wore icre politicians were apt to overlook the rodigious moral iníluence of our cause, j Havery would soon be abolished in Kenicky, Tennessee, and other States. The il Dcent demonstrations made by C. M. siClay indicated the tone of public feeling. r But gentlemen placed much reliance on moral suasion. Whatdid they mean by the term? Is it moral suasion to talfé one way and act another? To preach against swearing, and then swear profanely - to preach against stealing, and then pilfer your neighbors propcrty? No more was it moral suasion to advocate liberty for the slave. and then volt for ita continuance according to law. Gentlemen contend that to act politically necessarily involves corruption. It was truc that on account of the corruption of the old pariies, our best citizens had staid away from the polls, and lefl the nominations to the vilestpart of community. Now, when they see a good Christian man come to the polls to vote a liberty ticket, the politicians cry out, "Ah, the dirty waters of polUicsl Is it po.ssible you will dabble in them!" But if he will vote for one of the old parlies, they exclaim, "Behokl a partiot, and a friend of his country!" There are no "dirty waters" then! To vote their tickst is not dabbling in them! Were there any dirty waters among Whigs and Democrats in 1840? No, sïrlMr. Stebbins was an Abolitionist in feeling from his earliest years - had acted with them. He had not changed. Eut now he found himself excluded from their fellowship, and vas not even allowed fo vote in this society. Gentlemen come here and tell us that theirs are the principies of eternal justice. If so. he would ask if these cannot triumph witliouta resort to the ballot box? Mr. C. II. Stewart said he would answer by quoting the opinión of Gen. Washington, the Father of his country, whose age, experience, abiliíies, and knowledge ofslavery certainly entitled his sentiments to someconsideralion. He said, "Iknow of only one proper and effectual mode by which the abolition of slavery can be accomplished, and that is ly legtslaiivc acticn; and so far a? my my suffrage will go, it shall never be wanting." The Liberty men stand on precisely the same ground with Gen. Washington. All the moral suasion in the world, in itself will not alter a law, and slavery cannot be exíinguished exespt by the repeal of the laws which authorize it. Obr ingratitude to Gidáings had been referred to. He is not with us. He publicly opposes us. He is a decíded political opponent. He is trying toput íhe slaveholdcrs in power. At the top of his principies are Bank and TarifFand Clay, while his abolifion is made subordinate. We go for Anti-Slavery at the top, and make financial questions subordinate.Rev. Mr. Morse, of the Methodisi Protestant Church. asked if Christ ever instructed his disciples tocarry their mat'tersto the ballot box? The insufficiency of moral action had been dwelt upon. - How absurd! Just look at the progress of Christianity in the first centimes. - The early Christianshadno political party. They never asked for political action. (?) They kept away fcom all foul political' parties. If we will do so. and will go with earnestness and faith to a Thronè of Grace, we shall surely prevail. It will be seen that Mr. Morse took the same ground that Garrison does - that a Christian should not vote at all, but Icave the government of the vorld entirely to the wicked. Here the discussion closed. It was interesting to the philosophical observcr, because it dcveloped the workings of the common mind on this subject, and how much remained to be accomplished. On this, as well as upon all oiher questions of vital interest, the niass of community grope their way, step by step; and it is as painful to an intelligent philanthropist to behold the tardiness of their progress, as it is for a person with sound eyesight lo watch the slow and devious sleps of the blind. We have this consolation, however, in the intellectual march of mind, that each step is one in advance of the prcceding, one step ncarer to the perfection of human nature, and tfhen once taken, it. wil] nfever be retraced.