V , » • •> 
 
 "*. .** .'.fife.-, t,^^^« ..^., \^^,' 
 
 •X 
 
 J*. «? ^ '^ 
 
 .0^ -••J.**, o. 
 
 
 
 
 jp"*. .- 
 
 
 
 • '^^ A^ **^ 
 
 
 'ir<>' 
 
 
 i^-r^ 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ^•^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 .0 ^^ 
 
 
 >$> 
 
 
 
 
 

 rMniiftT. 
 
 

DEBATE 
 
 OV 
 
 " MODERN ABOLITIONISM," 
 
 IN THE 
 
 GENERAL CONFERENCE 
 
 OP THE 
 
 METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, 
 
 HELD IN CINCINNATI, 
 May, 1836. 
 
 WITH NOTES. 
 
 CINCINNATI: 
 
 PUBLISHED FOR THE OHIO ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 
 
 Corner of Main and Seventh streets, 
 
 1836. 
 
■ ■■*■ •, 
 
 i943 
 
 
 ■hi. 
 
The First and Third parts of the following pamphlet were 
 prepared for publication, by the editor of the Philanthropist, 
 assisted by a friend who attended the sessions of the General 
 Conference, whenever Abolition, in any form, was the sub- 
 ject of discussion. When the editor and his friend were both 
 present, they, both, with a single exception, took brief notes 
 of what was said by the different speakers. It is believed, 
 there was no material discrepancy in their notes. Some- 
 times, but one of them being present, reliance was, of neces- 
 sity, placed, singly, on his notes. 
 
 The Sketch here given of the discussions is believed to be 
 in the main, as accurate as such sketches usually are. Whilst, 
 in many instances, the fierce and reprehensible language of 
 the slave-holding members, and of others who supported their 
 side of the question, is given in the words they used, great care 
 has been taken to guard against any exaggeration of what 
 would do them the smallest injury. Influenced by this tem- 
 per, where neither the notes, nor the memory of those who 
 took them, could be entirely relied on — the words of the 
 speaker have not unfrequently been reduced from, what is be- 
 lieved to have been, their original offensiveness. In addition 
 to this, an assurance, clothed in friendly and respectful terms, 
 was'publicly given by the editor of the Philanthropist, that any 
 error into which he might have fallen in his Report, would — 
 when pointed out — be corrected; — and that he would publish 
 fuller reports, than he had given, of the speeches, if it should 
 please the speakers to furnish him with them. 
 
 Notwithstanding the confidence entertained by the publish- 
 ers in the general accuracy of the Reports, as published in 
 the Philanthropist, it is but fair to notify to the public, that the 
 editor of that print — whilst quietly sitting as a spectator of 
 the proceedings of the General Conference — was charged to 
 his face, by some of the speakers, with "ungentlemanly" con- 
 duct in having reported the Jtrst debate ; was called an "incen- 
 diary" — ^"the vilest miscreant," &c. &c., that a motion was 
 made (though not put to the vote) in effect, to exclude him 
 
(4) 
 *rom the house, because, he had already made one Beport, and 
 was tlien taking notes, to enablehim to make another LtYyli the 
 Philanthropist was spoken of in the hottest terms of southern 
 mvective-and the Report itself characterised, in .eneml 
 terms, ^B false, garbled, incendiary, &c. &c. However so 
 lar as IS yet known, no instance of inaccuracy, sufficiently 
 material to call for correction, hasjbeen specified. Mr Wi 
 nans, in sustaining the resolution against Mr. Scott, referred to 
 the report of his speech in the Philanthropist, for the purpose 
 of correcting, by its superior accuracy, what he considered a 
 mis-statement of Mr. Scott. Whilst he was not called on 
 by the course of his remarks to speak of the report of his' 
 speech as a whole-wh^t he said was commendatory of its 
 correctness, m the part especially referred to. 
 
 Mr. Crowder acknowledged in the presence of the editor 
 that his speech was fairly and accurately reported in the' 
 Philanthropist, with the] exception of a single instance 
 where he thought the form of expression ambiguous. Even 
 this, he did not think of sufficient importance to call for for- 
 mal connection. 
 
 The Second part of this pamphlet is the production of Mr 
 Orange Scott, of the New-England Conference. To him al- 
 so are the publishers indebted for a revision, (in the Third 
 part) of most of his remarks, made in defending himself ac^ainst 
 the charge imbodied in the Resolution of Messrs Winan^'s and 
 Stamper. 
 
 It becomes us to say, however, that the revision was some- 
 what hasty, inasmuch as Mr. Scott was hurried by the ap- 
 proach of the period for the adjournment of Conference 
 We state this, not because either he or the publishers believJ 
 there is any material inaccuracy in his speech as reported, 
 but to explain, why the report of it is not so full as mi^rht be 
 desired. ^ 
 
FIRST PART. 
 
 \ 
 
 General Co7iference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 DEBATE. 
 
 '" May 12. This morning, Mr. Roszell, of the Baltimore 
 Conference, introduced (with some slight amendments,) the 
 following preamble and resolutions. "Whereas, great excite- 
 ment has pervaded this country on the subject of modern ab- 
 olitionism, which is reported to have been increased in this city 
 recently, by the unjustifiable conduct of two members of the 
 General Conference in lecturing upon, and in favor of that agi- 
 tating topic; — and whereas, such a coui'se on the part of any of 
 its members is calculated to bring upon this body the suspicion 
 and distrust of the community, and misrepresent its senti- 
 ments in regard to the point at issue; — and whereas, in this 
 aspect of the case, a due regard for its own character, as well 
 as a just concern for the interests of the church confided to 
 its care, demand a full, decided and unequivocal expression of 
 the views of the General Conference in the premises — There- 
 fore, 
 
 1. Resolved^ — By the delegates of the annual Conferences 
 in General Conference assembled, that they disapprove in the 
 most unqualified sense, the conduct of the two members of 
 the General Conference, who are reported to have lectured in 
 this city recently, upon, and in favor of, modern abolitionism. 
 
 2. Resolved^ — By the delegates of the annual Conferences 
 in General Conference assembled, — that they are decidedly op- 
 posed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, 
 wish or intention, to interfere in the civil and political relation 
 between master and slave, as it exists in the slaveholding states 
 of this Union. 
 
 [The following statement will serve to explain the particular 
 occasion which gave rise to the first resolution. A regular 
 weekly meeting of the Cincinnati A. S. Society was held on 
 the preceding Tuesday evening. At this, Mr. Storrs and Mr. 
 Norris, of New England, members of the General Conference, 
 and well known as abolitionists, were present. They, each, 
 made some remarks which were very well received — and the 
 result was, the addition of fifteen members to the society. — Ed. 
 Phil.] 
 
 The character of the resolutions, the circumstances, which 
 occasioned them, together with the stern gravity of Mr. Ros- 
 zell, produced no little excitement. "The blood of the south- 
 erns was up," as the phrase is. Many violent, denunciatory 
 1* 
 
( 6 ) 
 things were said by them, which, inasmuch as we have no notes 
 we shall not attempt to repeat. Some amendmentlwere ore! 
 posed One moved by Mr. Wright, Book Tgenrof X 
 Church m Cmcmnati, was, that the^number of individuals al 
 luded o m the preamble be specified, that the pubHc mic^ht 
 ■ su 1 coZr H^^'^'"?^ ^"^'"-^^^^ -- ^i-Vable'with 
 
 ^^0 insened <^ II " ^''^"r "' '^'? "^^"P^^^ ^^^^ ^he number 
 two inseited. btill, the delicacy ol the Conference was un- 
 
 dear its;]^?" ^'^ V'' ^^"^ ^^ '''''^^^'' public favor, and 
 dear Itself from so odious an act. Somebody_we are un- 
 
 be ameZT f" ?'''7~r''^ that the first liolution shouM 
 be amended, by insertmg the names of the guilty individuals 
 Much discussion ensued hereupon. It was thought by some 
 tla such a measure If adopted, would subject ti.e offendbl' 
 biethren o no little danger. Their persons might be assai ed 
 
 ^v e^e Otir ^"' "' ?rf''\ '' ^''^ ^' ^11 -'-ts need" sly 
 S .n?' ? f' '"f''*^^ ^^'^^t't^^e Conference ought to be reliev- 
 tilTl/r^ '^'' ^^^"'" «f such conduct-that public cen- 
 suie should be located just where it was merited- hat the in- 
 dividuals, themselves, would, no doubt, feel honored by sud 
 
 en e w^: ff'' ^''' ^^l' ^-•-' ^^ ^he Philadelphia ^onfe - 
 ence, was if we remember aright, particularly desirous that 
 ^s amei^dment should' be passed kev. Mr. Smith, oRch- 
 niond, Virginia, advocated it strenuously. This gentleman 
 lose under great excitement and spoke most veSen enX 
 We remember explicitly one of his sayings-utteied w h 
 
 he ofeh7^';f ^P"\^"^g ^^ ^'- P-P^-'y °f designa'ng 
 the ofFending brethren-'^Ze^ ^/^em," said he 4e brouJt forth 
 
 ^n cd the length and breadth of their bamnii^o iNiauiTTf'' ^ 
 majoiV.""' "''''' ^'''' '°^'' '^^ ^^^'^^«' by a considerable 
 
 tlJe'in^?!? J'^'fr" ^'^''' T'""'- '^ ^"^'^ ^'' '""''^ session, at 
 tons were fr''?'' ^'^J^^^'^^d. All the while the resolu- 
 Snp.L-r 1^' /'«C"^S'on, great excitement prevailed. 
 
 Imf t me"^'::;^ ""^'"^' '^« '\ '^''' ^'— S the ffoor at the 
 same time; and no space was left for the brethren accused 
 much less for a single abolitionist, to speak a word! ' 
 
 .nd I '"'^"''^ met agreeably to order in the afternoon, 
 and the same scene was re-enacted for the space, we believe of 
 
 E:idalT;r"\"'""r^^-^">"^^' ^^^^- Mr.^Sco'tt "f t nIw 
 SiTnotes o fr '^' '.^'"''? '^'' ^'''' We forbore taking 
 any notes of this gentleman's speech. There were no less 
 than four several attempts or moie, to put him dZn, by out 
 
 cl^rw}' '" ''??^V"' ^" ""^ '^'^^ ^"«^ -stained b^the 
 nes .nd^plf ''''°' ^"'^ 'VT'!,' °"^' admiration of the cool- 
 emhnrr. '^^^'^'^''^'''^^ ^f Mr. Scott, under so vexatious and 
 embarrassing circumstances. 
 
(7) 
 
 AFTERNOON SESSION. 
 
 After the reading of the resolutions and the amendments 
 which had been offered in the morning — 
 
 Mr. Light, of Missouri, moved to refer the whole to a Com- 
 mittee, to report in the morning. He thought the proceed- 
 ings in which they were engaged were of great importance; 
 that they ought to be acted upon without undue excitement. 
 He thought the state of feeling already too high for that de- 
 liberate action which was called for. He knew of brethren, 
 who had made up their opinions on Abolition — who would be 
 willing to speak out on it boldly in its condemnation, who yet 
 could not subscribe to every expression of the resolution. 
 
 Mr. Leigh, of Virginia, opposed the reference. He feared 
 tliat more time would be consumed in arguing this incidental 
 motion, than ought to be consumed on the main question. 
 
 Mr. Grant, of New York, was in favor of the reference. It 
 was too late to say, there were not two sides to this question. 
 The abolitionists had unhappily taken that, which was most 
 effectual for the disturbance of the church. He had made it 
 daily the subject of earnest prayer. He yet believed, that 
 some means, satisfactory and safe, could be adopted. He could 
 not find it in his heart to grind the abolitionists down. He 
 was not disposed to say they were less honest than himself — 
 or, he than they. He had, also, a good opinion of the breth- 
 ren from the slave-holding states. It would be no advantage 
 to the brethren in the slave-holding states, to have the ques- 
 tion determined in the manner contemplated by the resolu- 
 tions, or to wound the feelings of the brethren from the North. 
 It was, by far, the most important measure, that had ever been 
 before the General Conference. He desired it should be set- 
 tled, so that there should be produced an entire reciprocity of 
 feeling in the members living in the North and South. He 
 could not suppose, that any thing else was desirable to the 
 brethren. He said this in reference to the twofold cause of 
 excitement known to exist. First, the misrepresentations 
 which had been made of the South, in the treatment of their 
 slaves, and the manner in which slave-holders had been held 
 up before the world, in the "pictorial representations," so prodi- 
 gally distributed by the abolitionists: Secondly, the misrepre- 
 sentations to which the Abolitionists had been subjected, as 
 to their motives, designs and ultimate objects. Whilst he dis- 
 approved of any language which was not conciliatory toward 
 these who differed from him, yet he was an anti-abolitionist, 
 and an advocate for any measure for putting an end to every 
 thing, that would retard or interrupt our Zion. 
 
 Mr. Roszel, of Maryland, (the mover of the resolutions,) spoke 
 with much spirit in opposition to the reference. He had on 
 
(8) 
 
 a former occasion, attended a Camp Meeting — some disorderly 
 persons came to disturb the congregation. The disturbers 
 were reasoned with, mildly and kindly — their reply was 
 rough and insolent — "you must not hurt our feelings — nor 
 touch our characters — nor wound our honor — nor assail our 
 rights," &c., whilst these same trespassers, did not hesitate to 
 wound the feelings, and trample on the rights, of the five hun- 
 dred or thousand persons making up the congregation. Of 
 such a character was the conduct of the abolitionists. 
 
 He would not call in question the motives of any brother — 
 he would not say that any abolitionist entertained a bad mo- 
 tive, in urging on this miserable and agitating subject — which 
 had disturbed the whole work committed to the charge and 
 placed under the care of the Methodists, on this continent, 
 more than any other question that had arisen. But whilst he 
 did this, he was not one of those who would use butter and 
 honey with them. He would take a strong and decided course 
 with the abolitionists. Nothing else would do for such peo- 
 ple. For they had pledged themselves in the most sacred and 
 solemn manner to prosecute their object; and they seemed by 
 their earnestness, to think they were doing God service. He 
 felt satisfied that no language in the resolutions was any too 
 strong for them. It was due not only to the General Confer- 
 ence, but to the citizens of this place, and the people else- 
 where, to reprobate what they had done, and what they were 
 doing, in the strongest terms — the stronger the language em- 
 ployed the safer the course. 
 
 The public already know the sentiments of this Conference 
 — that it was strenuously opposed to abolition. A milk and 
 water course., w^ould not do. It would be almost as well to 
 say nothing as not to speak in the strongest language of re- 
 probation. He would not boast of what he had done in for- 
 mer days — nor would he speak, now, of what had been his 
 opinions and his elibrts on the subject of slavery in by-gone 
 times. They were known to all. His opinions had under- 
 gone no change. 
 
 [Mr. Roszell, probably had in his mind, his strenuous and 
 uncompromising course, a short time back, against slave-hol- 
 ders. We have been informed, that, till lately, he was a 
 thorn in the side of slave-holders — and in all ecclesiastical 
 meetings, conferences, &:c. among the foremost in assaulting 
 what he then seemed to consider, as the crying iniquity of the 
 church. — Er. Phil.] 
 
 Whilst he entertained them, he could not but look with en- 
 tire reprobation on the doings of the abolitionists, those dis- 
 turbers of the whole country who were fixing the yoke more 
 firmly on the neck of the slave — who were injuring and dis- 
 tracting the churches — and destroying the souls of the slaves. 
 
( 9) 
 by hindering the access which they had heretofore had to them, 
 so long as they (the Methodist Ministers,) had been identified, 
 in no measure, with the abolitionists. Let this General Con- 
 ference, said Mr. R. only come out on this subject — let every 
 man in it, speak out boldly in opposition to abolition; and one 
 hundred times more good would be done by the Methodist 
 Church in relation to this subject, than she had ever yet done, 
 and no church would occupy a higher place in Christendom 
 than she. 
 
 He professed not to be unduly warm or excited by the sub- 
 ject under discussion. Nevertheless, the brethren who at- 
 tended the abolition meeting had brought on the General Con- 
 ference, severe and injurious reflection. The citizens knew 
 all about it, and there was a great excitement among them. 
 He had been told, since the adjournment of the forenoon, that 
 they knew the individuals who had acted so improperly, as 
 members of the General Conference, in attending the aboli- 
 tion meeting. Here Mr. Roszell threw out a strong intima- 
 tion, that there might probably be some personal danger to 
 the guilty individuals, in walking the streets — so exasperated, 
 had he been persuaded, were the citizens against them. He 
 further said, that he knew them, and that if it was denied, he 
 could prove, who they were — he could furnish the Conference 
 testimony, conclusive too, of their having lectured at the 
 abolition meeting. Their lecturing indeed was publicly talk- 
 ed of in the city — every body knew it. Besides this, he 
 knew, and he could prove, that the abolitionists, belonging to 
 the conference had, by no means, confined themselves to lec- 
 turing publicly on this agitation subject — but they had been 
 lecturing privately, and repeatedly bringing it up in conversa- 
 tion with individuals. They seemed indeed to be fearless of 
 all consequences. They had introduced their petitions here, 
 signed by great numbers — many of whom were woman 
 and girls. Whether even their names were properly to the 
 petitions, and whether some of them were not children at the 
 breast, he would not assume on himself to say. He had 
 once heard of a dead man's name, being signed to an impor- 
 tant paper — the pen having been put into his hand, and direc- 
 ted by the hand of the living man. But would they mention 
 the numbers who had signed memorials and petitions in favor 
 of abolition? Had he tried to obtain petitions against it, 
 there would have been not 10 or 20, but 500,000. — In con- 
 clusion, why refer the resolutions, said Mr. R? They were 
 right in principle, and sufficiently respectful in language. He 
 hoped, they would not be refered, but be acted on with that 
 promptitude which the nature of the case and the state of 
 public opinion, demanded. 
 
 Mr. Clarke of New York, spoke in favor of the reference. 
 He did not hesitate to say, he disapproved of what was in- 
 
(10) 
 
 tended to be censured. Yet, he thought that the resohitions- 
 in tlieir present form, embraced more than the circumstances 
 of tlie case before them, called for. It was very desu'able, 
 that unanimity should be arrived at, as nearly as possible. 
 The resolutions, as they stood, would not, he apprehended, 
 pass with that unanimity, which was necessary to give them 
 then- full effect. It was our wish, to satisfy the community 
 around us — the American community — the Methodist connex- 
 ion that this Conference disapproved of abolitionism. To do 
 this, with full effect, as near an approach as possible to unani- 
 mity was greatly to be desired. 
 
 He regarded the southern brethren very highly. We [of 
 the north,] had been much misrepresented to them — as more 
 averse to the south, than was true. He was happy in becom- 
 ing more intimately acquainted with the brethren in slave- 
 holding States. He had begun to find on hearing their views 
 more fully, that we were not so far apart as had been suppos- 
 ed. They had explained a great many misrepresentations of 
 the state of things, connected with slaver^^ in the South. 
 [will Mr. C. state what some of them are. — Ed. Phil.] 
 They had, to be sure, their peculiar views in relation to slave- 
 ry, yet it was found, that mutual explanations had a strong 
 tendency to bring them nearer together, as brethren. He 
 could not but be aware of the difficulties in which the breth- 
 ren of the south, were placed — he felt for them — yet, he trus- 
 ted, this would interpose no obstacle to that unanimous action 
 which was so greatly to be desired. 
 
 Mr. Paine, of Alabama — Began his remarks, by suggest- 
 ing the propriety of exemption from every thing thot partook 
 of passion in the discussion of a subject, containing in itself, 
 such strong element of excitement. He intended to observe 
 this temper himself — not to be unduly moved. The South, 
 indeed, had, thus far, shown herself, calm, silent, unaggressive 
 — and he doubted not, she would continue to be so. He was 
 proceeding to answer an objection taken by some one, who 
 had preceded him, (Mr. Clarke, we believe, as to the power 
 of the General Conference, to pass a censure, such as was 
 demanded by the resolution — saying it had been gravely de- 
 nied, that the General Conference possessed that power. 
 He spoke with no suppressed animation, saying — and can' it 
 be possible, that such authority can be denied to the General 
 Conference — the highest tribunal of the Church — having con- 
 trol over the whole Church — to censure the conduct of its 
 own members, when that became offensive — criminal? [Here 
 Mr. P., was called to order, by Mr. Sanford, of New York, 
 on the ground, that such epithets, ought not to be used against 
 brethren.] 
 
 Mr. P., spoke of the excited state of feeling, which exis- 
 ted in this city, against the two brethren, who had attended 
 
( n ) 
 
 the abolition meeting. He had been asked for their names — 
 he refused to give them, out of regard for their safety. The 
 indignation at their course, was felt by the whole community. 
 He believed, it would meet the disapprobation of all the 
 members in the Conference. [Mr. Scott, said audibly, "not 
 
 ALL. "J 
 
 It was but the other day, brethren had said, they were a- 
 ware of the condition of things at the South. But what has 
 been doing, and to what purposes are Methodist ministers 
 converting their office? Are not itinerant preachers carrying 
 about with them petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Dist. 
 of Columbia? Do they not employ themselves in obtaining sub- 
 scribers to memorials to Conferences on the same subject — ^and 
 in lecturing to Abolition Societies all over the land? Where 
 are we, sir? asked Mr. Paine, I am glad, sir, we are in the State 
 of Ohio. And even here, in this free state, what would be the 
 consequence, if an abolition meeting were now advertised to 
 be held at the Court-House in this City? If such a thing 
 were projected, even here, you would see the indignant 
 crowd, gathering in the streets, and presenting a dark and 
 dense mass, making its way to the appointed place, to pour 
 out its vengeance on those, who might be rash enough to en- 
 gage in such a scheme. 
 
 It would seem, sir, that nothing can cure them, [the aboli- 
 tionists,] — they stop at nothing — still they persist, notwith- 
 standing the impediments, which they are continually encoun- 
 tering in popular hatred and persecutions. They persevere in 
 aggravating the slave-holder — using against him reproachful 
 terms — injurious epithets. Not satisfied with the extent of 
 their operations in the North, they are here, in the West, lay- 
 ing their train, &c. 
 
 He could not go back home, identified in any way, with 
 this Conference on the subject of abolition. He concluded 
 by asking unanimity in the rejection of the amendment, and 
 in the support of the resolutions. 
 
 Mr. Elliott, of Pittsburgh — rose to propose an amendment, 
 declaring it to be highly imprudent, for any of the members 
 of the General Conference, to deliver lectures on Abolition, 
 during its session. Mr. E. trusted, that the action of the 
 General Conference, would be of such a character, that all 
 tlie brethren who had joined abolition societies, would be in- 
 duced to forsake them — that others who had not joined them, 
 would be persuaded to abstain from doing so, and that Meth- 
 odism, instead of abolitionism, or any thing else, would be the 
 great object on which they would all unite. He strongly 
 disapproved the publications of the abolitionists — they unjust- 
 ly misrepresented southern brethren, and exaggerated the un- 
 happy state of things in the slave-holding States. Methodism 
 
( 12) 
 
 had greatly suffered from its influence — and so far as aboli- 
 tionism was connected with Methodism, he wished to pass on 
 it, in the strongest terms that ought to be used, the disappro- 
 bation by this Conference. The zeal of Mr. E. in behalf of 
 Methodism, so far outstripped any that had yet been display- 
 ed, that, joined to his peculiar manner, it occasioned some lit- 
 tle merriment among the spectators, and even among the 
 members of the Conference. 
 
 Mr. Levings of New York — opposed any substantial altera- 
 tions of the resolutions. He would assent to none, except 
 such as were merely verbal The sentiments expressed in the 
 resolutions met his approbation. Ever since the commence- 
 ment of the Conference, the abolition brethren had sought to 
 bring the subject of abolition into it. There had been a 
 recklessness in their course, that seemed to spurn all customa- 
 ry restraints — a determination to argue this agitating subject, 
 that set at defiance all the usual admonitions of prudence. 
 Those of them who attended the meetings had been previous- 
 ly spoken to, and advised against it, by their brethren — and 
 even the Bishops themselves had spoken to them with the 
 same object, and had warned them of the consequences which 
 would follow, — consequences which were now so apparent. 
 
 As to the reference, he was opposed to it. It is true, 
 
 a committee on slavery had been appointed. But why refer 
 it to them? What advantage will they have in discussing this 
 matter? Can they present it in a more tangible form? No: 
 A course of this kind would only enable the abolitionists to 
 press forward into still greater prominence — to further notice 
 by this Conference — and this '•miserable'' question would derive 
 from it a large additional amount of importance. The lan- 
 guage of the resolutions was not at all too strong for the cir- 
 cumstances and the occasion to which it was to be applied. 
 The Conference had an undoubted right to take notice of the 
 official conduct of its members whilst in session. Having this 
 right, it was clearly his opinion it ought to be exercised o»< 
 the present occasion, for putting an end to this matter. 
 
 Mr. Young, of Ohio — was opposed to the amendment. 
 He was in ordinary cases, opposed to harsh language — but 
 the present, he conceived, was a case which, so far from call- 
 ing for mild and gentle words, ought to he marked with asperi- 
 ty. As to the publications of the abolitionists and their lec- 
 tures on abolition, — he had never read any of the first, and 
 he had nothing to do with the last. They were Hmiplements 
 and utensiW that he did not wish to have about him — he had 
 no desire to handle them, nor to touch them in any way. In 
 no fashion had he, or did he desire, any knowledge of them. 
 A great deal had been said about Roman Catholicism, but he 
 thought that there was no comparison. The Roman Cath- 
 
( 13) 
 olics believed all that was deemed essential to salvation 
 The objection to them was, they believed a little too n^uch a 
 httle more than was necessary. He thought there was no 
 analogy between Catholicism and modern Abolitionism. The 
 latter was at war with all sense of decency, it outra^eTl all om- 
 notions ot good order and propriety, and was, in its'everv fea 
 ture ut erly intolerable. He was opposed to any 4^end 
 ment. Instead ot allaying the public excitement now e'^^^^^^^^ 
 ing, and blown up bv the unjustifiable conduct of th^e who 
 
 tt^Jd^tTT "T^'f^^ '\7'''^ '^^'y tend to ri;': 
 t still highei. If v^e should adopt this amendment, we would 
 
 become responsible tor the protection of their persons t?om 
 
 Sf nnhl ■'^"•. ^'' "^ '^^"' ^y P^^^i"^ the resolution allay 
 
 sll^e^inlafetr"""' " "' ''''' ''''''''' '''''''''' '^' 
 [We scarcely know how it is that such a phantom should take 
 possession of the minds of the several intelligent men who 
 seem o have entertained it-in view of the ilct, that there 
 IS m this city an Anti-Slavery Society of nearly one Ldred 
 
 TaUhe™^^^ 
 
 that they use no concealment as to their abolitionism— thit 
 
 hey pursue their business as other citizens, withoTb^hc/dis 
 turbed-andthatan anti-slavery newspaj er has" for e'ver 'l 
 weeks, been in operation in Cincinnati alid no atVemnt h^ 
 been made to mtertere with it. The abolitionists in hrOen- 
 eial Conterence, who attended our meeting a few evei^n^s 
 smce are, we believe, as secure in their persons, whilstZl 
 ing the street as is Mr. Young, or any other, equally dec ded 
 EdI'p^L] ^^'""'"'^ ^^ '^' '^'''''^^ ^' ^"t of ?he chur^- 
 Mr. Crowder, of Virginia-spoke in opposition to the 
 a^iendment. He contended if we rightly re nember the drJtY 
 of his remarks, that the Conference iSd full j\ir sdiction ove^^^ 
 the conduct ot its^nembers, whilst attending it, in discC^e of 
 olficial duties The n.ain subject-slave?y in the sS-- 
 was one m which the North had no interest, and of course no 
 right to interfere with in any way. The course of the aboH 
 TT:i 'T T'.'^T^^''^' "^i^^T to the slave, in draW 
 more hopeless. It also, prevented the spread of the Gosnel 
 
 tf:^^^tZT '""^1?^" eni:>yedbytheMe?ho: 
 aist ministers, to the slaves. The masters, now, iealous of 
 the preachers generally, excluded tVom the r sla^efMetho 
 dist preachers, as well as others. Believing it alto^eti ei- im 
 portant to the most beneficial disposition of the whole le^- 
 tion that the resolutions should pass in their presen form he 
 deplored every thing that went to defeat that object bT us 
 taming the amendment. -^ ' • ''^^'" 
 
 2 
 
( 14 ) 
 
 Several other gentlemen made brief remarks before the 
 question on the amendments was taken. Among them, Mr. 
 Storrs and Mr. Norris, the two members who were referred to, 
 though not named, in the first resolution. They said, that 
 the persons who attended and spoke, at the Cincinnati Anti- 
 Slavery Society, had, at that time no official duty to perform 
 — they had not been appointed to preach, nor were they call- 
 ed to do any business on committees. Besides, it was a regu- 
 lar meeting of that Society. They had delivered no formal 
 lecture. Notwithstanding, had the sentiments of the their 
 Delegation, in relation to their attending the meeting, been 
 as- well known by them before they had pledged themselves 
 to be present, as it was now, they would have taken a differ- 
 ent course. 
 
 After a few remarks from the mover, Mr. Roszell, the vote 
 was taken, and the amendment lost. 
 
 Mr. Roszell again made some spirited remarks in favor of 
 the resolutions, and urged on the Conference their immediate 
 adoption. He appeared a little testy at the delay occasioned 
 by discussion. 
 
 Mr. Scott, of Massachusetts, obtained the floor, and com- 
 menced a calm and dispassionate examination of the resolu- 
 tions. He began by asking the patience of members, as he 
 would probably do the principal part of the speaking on behalf 
 of the abolitionists who were in the Conference. We will 
 not now give the speech of Mr. Scott — trusting we shall be 
 enabled to publish, before long, a sketch of it from his own 
 notes. It was a noble and lofty effort; calm, dignified, gen- 
 erous, christian. He shcwad no waspishness, nor petulance 
 against those who difiJered with him, and who had been so 
 prodigal in their reprobation of abolitionists. He was sever- 
 al times interrupted by his impatient adversaries — yet his 
 calmness and self-possession were in no measure disturbed, 
 even for a moment. The dignity of the experienced debater 
 — understanding his subject in all its aspects — calmly taking 
 up the admissions of his opponents and routing tliem with the 
 very weapons, their own unacquintance with the subject and 
 their intemperate passion had so abundantly supplied; direct- 
 ing them all, with consumate skill — yet with the kindness and 
 forbearance of the christian: in all these essentials of reli- 
 gious discussion, Mr. Scott presented himself in striking and 
 honorable contrast with nearly all, if not all who supported 
 the resolutions. He had proceeded about an hour in his 
 speech, when the Conference adjourned. 
 
 Friday morning. 
 
 Bishop SouLE, previous to the renewal of the discussion, 
 said, that, in his opinion, the best service the Conference 
 could render to the church of Christ, their own church, and to 
 
( 15 ) 
 
 the country, would be to abstain from all interference with 
 the principles of the constitution; with relations between the 
 States, and between them and the General government, and 
 tlie political relation of master and slave. He did not wish, 
 however, to trammel the deliberations of the General Confer- 
 ence, only he did hope they would discuss the subject with 
 calmness. 
 
 Mr. Bangs rose to a point of order; — Slavery was not the 
 question before the Conference; it was the conduct of the 
 brethren who were reported to have delivered abolition-lec- 
 tures. The chair decided that Mr. Scott, was in order; and 
 he then continued the argument for about two hours. 
 
 Mr. Crowder, rose to reply to the last speaker. He laid 
 down the proposition, that there were difficulties which for- 
 bade the occupying of the ground taken by Mr. Scott, (thi.- 
 was that Slavery was morally and always wrong.) The dif- 
 ficulties were, first, of a Scriptural sort, and here the speaker 
 took occasion to observe that slave-holders had evidently been 
 unchristianized by the brother who last spoke; for slave-hold- 
 ing was a sin, of course slave-holders were criminal. Mr. 
 Crowder failed to notice the distinction between motive and 
 action, the morality of a system and the morality of men. 
 He referred to Leviticus, 25th chapter, where we learn that 
 the Jews were permitted to buy servants of the heathen 
 round about and hold them as such forever. Abraham, too, 
 the Father of the Faithful, bought and held slaves, and the 
 Centurion who besought Jesus that his servant might be heal- 
 ed, was also a slave-holder: and yet, Jesus, so far from rebuk- 
 ing him for his conduct, said he had not found so great foith, 
 no, not in Israel. 
 
 The Apostles, at the beginning of their mission, found slave- 
 ry, of a far worse character than Southern slavery, existing 
 in the Roman Empire, and yet in no case did they intermeddle 
 with it. If thou mayest use thy liberty rather; but let every 
 man abide in the calling in which he is called. And there too 
 was the case of Onesimus, he was a slave; still St. Paul ac- 
 knowledged the right of his master and sent him back. No 
 other example than that of our Lord and his Apostles is obli- 
 gatory on us. He, Mr. C. was on experimental man — would 
 not contend with abstractions, abstractions were mere nonen- 
 tities. 
 
 There were difficulties arising out of the history of slave- 
 ry and the movements in relation to it. In the days of 
 Wesley there was no crusade against slavery. Watson was 
 som.e time hesitating before he would connect himself with 
 an abolition society. Great Britain and the United States, 
 held different relations to slavery. A wide Ocean separated 
 the former from her colonies; here we are all together. Be- 
 
( 16 ) 
 
 sides, no coynpensation is proposed to slave-holders by abok- 
 tionists. 
 
 The abolition movements, moreover, were directly opposed 
 to the interests of that most noble society — the Colonization 
 society. 
 
 When a Dutch vessel first disgorged a cargo of slaves in 
 Virginia, that state protested against it; but England imposed 
 slavery on the colony, and men of the New England States, 
 especially citizens of Providence, were engaged in this slave- 
 trade. 
 
 There were difliculties of a political character. By the 
 compact of Union, Slavery was put beyond the control of 
 the North. At a celebrated meeting in Boston, Mr. Otis had 
 publicly contended, that in as much as slavery was known to 
 exist at the time the states became one confederacy, and as 
 the northern states nevertheless formed a Union with the 
 South, the agitation of the question now, was in fact a breach 
 of the contract they solemnly made. The question was em- 
 phatically a political one: religion forbids ministers of the 
 Gospel to intermeddle with political rights or privileges. 
 Their work was, to save souls. They must be subject to the 
 powers that be; but how could this be the case, so long as they 
 would intermeddle with such questions. The question can- 
 not be made any other than a political question. These socie- 
 ties assailed directly our compact of union— principles and 
 relations established by most solemn engagements and oaths. 
 
 We were sometimes accused of cruelty— of hugging the 
 evil to our bosoms. Slavery was amongst "ourselves^ Tt should 
 be handled by ourselves. He was born in its midst— his 
 father was a slave-holder— he would not have slaves, when 
 his father offered them to him: he prefered money. He mar- 
 ried a lady whose father owned slaves. The father deceased 
 and he fell heir to a number of slaves. He wished to be 
 cleared from them: proposed they should go to Liberia; onlv 
 one consented. He then told them he could not keep ihem- 
 they must get other masters or go out of the state. Thev ffot 
 other masters. He had preached to slaves-met with them b 
 Uass. Slaves were rarely treated with cruelty; they loved 
 their masters, they were bound up in their masters and the ir 
 n^asters, in them. He ought, however not iool^tnZtio^n^ 
 one circumstance connected with his own case wE 
 
 them, to this he had consented, and these two he owned vet 
 They had wept on his departure for the General CoTifeience 
 He was in the habit of calling them to the fire-side and exnhin* 
 ing to them the word of God. He meant no in^ilt t? 
 northern brethi-en-but his Cook dLSl^we ri any ^f 
 the wives ot those brethren. They were not depriv^!i of 
 
( 17 ) 
 
 privileges; although kidnapped — stolen from their own coun- 
 try, thousands of them have been converted by the religion 
 of Jesus Christ. Thus has God brought good out of evil. 
 
 Abolitionism goes to break up missionary operations in be- 
 half of the slaves; and wherever cruelty exists, it aggravates 
 and confirms it. 
 
 Slavery had no tendency to produce amalgamation. In 
 proportion to the number of people, there were as many, if 
 not more, mulattoes in the north than in the south. 
 
 The Gospel forbade adultery, fornication &c., in express 
 termSj but not slavery. [Nor gambling, nor theatres. — Ed.] 
 
 Modern abolitionism tended to destroy the fairest prospects 
 of the republic — and blast the hopes of surrounding nations, 
 who are looking to us eagerly for the solution of the problem, 
 whether man is capable of self-government. Let this cru- 
 sade against the compact of our union go on and the union is 
 severed — the church is severed. Then will the chances of 
 political aspirants be increased; and despotism will be the re- 
 sult. Civil and religious liberty will be destroyed, and tlie 
 hopes of nations will perish. Modern abolitionism tended to 
 such results. Look at the epithets used — murderers, robbers, 
 thieves: the whole vocabulary had been ransacked for oppro- 
 brious epithets. He therefore would vote for the resolution, 
 disapproving the course of these brethren. He would also 
 with his whole heart, unqualifiedly give his voice for the pas- 
 sage of the second one, denouncing abolitionism. 
 
 Mr. Winans said, that he did not intend to confine his re- 
 marks to the first resolution — he v^'ould reply directly to 
 brother Scott's argument. He would preface what he had to 
 say by a few remarks, which might appear egotistical. He 
 was from the extreme south. He arose wuth perfect calm- 
 ness, v/ithout agitation, without a single angry feeling towards 
 any bi other. But occupying the situation he did, feeling his 
 responsibility to his God, to the church, and to the interests 
 of humanity, he could not be without strong emotion. 
 
 He would meet the brother on the fundamental ground of 
 his argument — would examine his strong moral views of sla- 
 very. It had been assumed, that slavery was wrong in some 
 circumstances, in no circumstances or in all circumstances. 
 Now he designed to prove from the brother's own admission, 
 that slavery was right in all circumstances. Jehovah had 
 permitted — had regulated slavery: would he permit — would he 
 regulate that which was morally wrong? Could there be a 
 blinding influence, strong enough to induce any one to charge 
 God with sanctioning crime? It would be needless to refer 
 to particular scriptures; but many passages did exist whicli es- 
 tablished beyond controversy that God did permit perpetual 
 — hereditary slavery. This admitted, it was plain, that cir- 
 2* 
 
 /I 
 
( 18 ) 
 
 cumstances might deprive slavery of an immoral character* 
 He would have opposed slavery in its origin. It was as clear 
 as the morning smi that slavery in the abstract is wrong. But 
 is it wrong no win tiie Southern States? This is the point in 
 dispute between abolitionists and a/i^i-abolitionists. Have we 
 not seen, that circumstances justified it in the case of the He- 
 brews? If circumstances can justify it, he thought they exis- 
 tjed in the South. Another question would arise — ought chris- 
 tians to endeavor to change these circumstances. He had 
 no doubt, they ought — that it was obligatory on them to do 
 so. But was the course of abolitionists right? clearly not- 
 It was most unpropitious, most injudi'-ious — and calculated to 
 effect precisely what was most opposite to their purposes. 
 
 [This paragraph of Mr. Winan's speech is by no means a 
 meagre presentation of the argument as he would call it, by 
 which he attempted to answer one of the most simple and 
 comprehensive demonstrations that we have heard, prov- 
 ing that slavery is right in no circumstances. Mr. W., we have 
 no reason to doubt, thought it very triuinphant — without 
 seeming once to suspect, that he had fallen into the blunder 
 so common with unskilful reasoners, and passionate declai- 
 mers, of "begging the question" — taking for granted the 
 thing to be proved — the very matter in dispute. Now Mr. 
 Scott might deny altogether, that slavery — property in maiu 
 with its concomitants — ever existed among the Hebrews, 
 with the approbation of God. So far from this, Mr. S. could 
 easily demonstrate from the history of that people, that even 
 a remote approximation on their part to oppression., in the 
 form of slave-holding, was followed by the severest, national 
 punishments. Again, — if according to Mr. Winan's ethics, 
 the peculiar circumstances of the South justify or excuse slavery 
 there, why — on every principle of sound reasoning, provided 
 slavery be a convenient and profitable institution — ought 
 these justifying or excusatory circumstances to be altered? 
 or why, is there an obligation, resting on christians to do 
 away with circumstances that excuse or justify a course of 
 action they are pursuing? To a mind capable of comprehend- 
 ing the plainest process of reasoning, it would seem wantonly 
 wicked, to remove or alter circrimstances which alone are re- 
 lied on, to excuse and justify., whilst the subject, or course of 
 action around which they exist, acknowledged to be in itself, 
 incapable of justification or excuse, is left untouched and un- 
 altered. The more the justifying circumstances are removed 
 from the unjustifiable subject, the deeper, it appears to us, must 
 be the guilt of those engaged in the one, whilst they continue 
 in the other. 
 
 We have never yet heard an argument from the advocates 
 of southern op]ijcssion, on A^vhat k now bo. '.ming to be call- 
 
( 19 ) 
 
 ed the Bible view of the question, which did not satisfy us, 
 either that their scriptural investigations had been culpably 
 superficial — or that the pr'actice or the advocacy of oppres- 
 sion superinduced over their minds, an influence as blinding 
 to the truth in their case, as that created be Jewish prejudice 
 against the lowly character of our Saviour, and which led 
 them to reject him as the Messiah, and crucify him as a male- 
 factor. Yet do they rush into the argument, as a horse into 
 battle, and generally meet with the overthrow to which their 
 nakedness and thoughtless alacrity expose them. 
 
 If there be on the side of oppression, any position which 
 is impregnable, we do not believe, it has yet been occupied 
 by its champions. Beside this, their armor is fragile — the 
 blow of a pigmy shivers it. The Babylonish garment — the 
 wedge of goldhidden in their tent unnerves them. Norlet them 
 expect anything but discomfiture, till they can attack with the 
 animation of men who have prayed much, have studied the word 
 of God much, and have resolved to do the will of God however 
 diverse it may be from their preconceived notions. Even this 
 preparation, perfect as it may seem, by no means does away 
 with the necessity of some knowledge to be acquired by a feiA 
 hours attention to the elementary rules of Watts' or What.e- 
 ly's Logic. — Ed. Phil.] 
 
 He was not born in a slave state, — he was a Pennsylvania^ 
 by birth. He had been brought up to believe a slave-holder 
 as great a villian as a horse-thief; but he had gone to the 
 South &,c., long residence there had changed his views; he 
 had become a slave-holder — a slave-holder on principle. 
 There was suspicion abroad in the South. To obviate such 
 suspicion and gain free access to the slave, so as to do him 
 good, it was highly advantageous for a minister that he himself 
 should hold slaves; and he could see no impropriety, but ad- 
 vantage, in members, preachers, presiding elders and even 
 bishops, being slave-holders. Yes. said Mr. W., however no- 
 vel the sentiment may be, however startling it may be to ma- 
 ny, I avow this opinion boldly, and without any desire to con- 
 ceal it. 
 
 The brother admitted that congress had no power of legis- 
 lation on slavery jn the states. The only influence, there- 
 fore, abolitionism could exert, was moral in its character — 
 must be exerted over mind. Now the legislatures of the 
 slave states only, could abolish slavery; therefore this moral 
 influence must be exerted on them — he affirmed that abolition 
 in its influence on those bodies, was directly opposite to that 
 which its friends designed. For the ten years, preceding the 
 last three years, there was a constantly increasing disposition 
 to meliorate the condition of the slave. The abolition excite- 
 ment v/as got up. In one moment, a paralysis was felt in 
 every nerve of the South — in all those influences, lookin" to 
 
( 20 ) 
 
 the emancipation of the slave. Though a slave-holder himK 
 self, no abolitionist felt more sympathy for the slave than he 
 (jid — none had rejoiced more in the hope of a coming period, 
 when the print of a slave's foot would not be seen on the soil. 
 His heart sank within him when he contemplated the incen- 
 diary influence of abolition. They were incendiary, for they 
 had kindled a flame upon the dearest hopes of the African. 
 
 He and his brethren in the south were to act on this ques- 
 tion — not others for ihejn. Abolition was considered a mur- 
 derous scheme at the South — [here the speaker became so. ra- 
 pid and vehement, that we found it impossible to note accu- 
 rately what he said.] We remember, however, that his fruit- 
 ful imagination pictured, "murdered wives," "massacred chil- 
 dren," "burning towns," "cities and habitations rendered 
 desolate," "slaves freed to be impoverished, to stave, to die," 
 — consequences which it was belived would result from the 
 success of abolition doctrines. Southern legislatures, he said, 
 would never listen to such doctrines — they were deaf, they 
 would be deaf as an adder. The South already looked upon 
 the people of the north as their enemies — thirsting for their 
 blood. A few knew that the body of the north was opposed 
 to such schemes — regarded them as fanatical. And the most 
 favorable view he could take of abolitionists was, that they 
 were carried away by fanaticism. 
 
 The brother had said that abolitionism had an intimate con- 
 nexion with our missionary operations. It had; but in a very 
 different sense from what the brother meant. He would 
 state a case to illustrate his views. A brother was sent last 
 year to a circuit on the Mississippi coast, comprising three 
 parishes. No sooner were the abolition movements known 
 at the north than public meetings were called in two of the 
 parishes, and it was decided in them that Methodist preachers 
 should preach no more: because two Conferences in the north 
 had avowed themselves in favor of abolition. The third par- 
 ish was not so hasty — had a little more common sense. A 
 public meeting was called in this, but owing to the influence 
 of one man, no such prohibitory measure was adopted. This 
 man pledged his honor, his property — his life in defence of 
 the purity of the preacher's character and motives, and he 
 was allowed to preach amongst them. In the two parishes 
 where so violent measures were taken, the most of the resi- 
 dents were slaves — and preachers had never before been 
 questioned. Let abolitionists proceed, and they would ef- 
 fect nothing better in the South. In the north they might 
 raise a flame, and call it a holy flame, but in the south it would 
 be the fire of hell. 
 
 Methodists had two sets of fathers — one set, abolitionists. 
 Bishop Asbury's name had been introduced — Bishop Asbury, 
 
( 21 ) 
 
 before his death, was decidedly an anti-abolitionist. Bishop 
 Asbuiy, at first was a believer in the doctrines of abolition 
 and he acted on the belief. Experience convinced him of his 
 error; and his course was changed. It would be amusing, 
 were not the subject so important, to hear brethren talk of the 
 great additional light of modern times. They had said it was 
 too late in the day to put back this question. They supposed 
 a flood of light had been poured on this subject. The modesty 
 of brethren was great. The fathers of Methodism were 
 thrown into the shade by the increased light of this day. The 
 speaker declared emphatically; — from the North or Great 
 Britain, we will not receive, we do not want, aid or advice to 
 help us to rid ourselves of slavery. We will sit in judgment 
 on our own case, we will follow our own course." He would 
 not censure the North for its high assumptions. Neither Great 
 Britian nor the North, however, occupied positions from 
 which they could help the South. The greatest service they 
 could do it, was, to let it alone. The question was a political 
 question with which none but the South had any thing to do. 
 
 In the sight of Heaven this was their only proper course. 
 It was important to the interests of slaves, and in view of the 
 question of slavery, that there be christians, who were slave- 
 holders. Christian ministers should be slave-holders and dif- 
 fused throughout the south. Yes sir, Presbyterians, Baptists, 
 Methodists, should be slave-holders — yes, he repeated it bold- 
 ly, there should be members, and Deacons, and Elders, and 
 Bishops too, who were slave-holders. For if slave-holding 
 were a valid reason for excluding a man from office, it was a 
 valid reason for exc;luding him from membership. The South 
 should be heard — should lose nothing from him. Hear it or 
 not — that was not his concern, it was the concern of the Con- 
 ference. 
 
 He did not wish to be misunderstood in relation to the first 
 resolution. There was great indelicacy, great indecorum, 
 great disrespect to the Conference, to the city, to public 
 opinion — in the conduct of the brethren, proposed to be cen- 
 sured. He had no doubt as to the propriety of censure. 
 They merited reprehension. Abolition movements should be 
 reprehended; for they were evil, and only evil, always and 
 every where. It had been insinuated that he wanted milk 
 and water resolutions. This was, as to himself, a novel ac- 
 cusation. He had commonly been charged with too much 
 boldness— too much severity, but never before accused in this 
 fashion. He knew not how much animal courage he might 
 possess — but to moral and political courage he avowed his 
 claim. Indeed a distinguished politician of the South said of 
 him, that he would make an excellent politican, only he had 
 too much candor. His character must indeed be essentially 
 
( 22 ) 
 
 changed, if he could keep back the truth, to concilate the good 
 opinion of any. 
 
 Mr. Sandford thought it due to the delegation with which 
 he was connected, that it should be heard. 
 
 They occupied a middle ground, as they thought, between 
 two extremes. They were no abolitionists, but held their 
 peculiar sentiments. On the abstract question of slavery, 
 their opinions were no other than such as are expressed in their 
 Discipline : they were Methodists in this particular. They re- 
 gretted the existence of slavery; but it was beyond their 
 power — they could not prevent its existence. He regretted 
 the measures of abolition, as being, in their tendency, injuri- 
 ous. He was a warm and decided colonizationist. That in- 
 stitution had been productive of much good — numerous slaves 
 had been emancipated by it, but its operations had been retard- 
 ed by abolition movements. These movements had done 
 much evil and very little good; and had prevented the accom- 
 plishment of the good that might have been wrought, in view 
 of the interests of the slaves. The people of the north de- 
 plored abolition movements. They abhorred slavery, but be- 
 lieved it morally wrong to agitate the question in the north 
 to the injury of the south. It would only rivet the chains 
 upon the slave. So strong was public feeling against aboli- 
 tion, that in a certain place, the people, suspecting a preacher 
 of holding abolition sentiments, declared they would not hear 
 him preach. The speaker said a few other things, by way of 
 disclaiming all connexion with abolitionists; for which he re- 
 ceived little or po credit from Mr. Smith, who here interrup- 
 ted him, on a point of order, and said, if we remember right, 
 that the brother seemed to be one of that class of men who 
 neither did harm nor good. 
 
 Mr. Roszell said, had he known beforehand, that so much 
 extraneous matter would have been introduced into this dis- 
 cussion, he would not have offered the resolutions to the Con- 
 ference. It would be idle, he thought, to attempt to answer 
 the argument of the brother. [Scott] If the resolution had 
 had the confluent small-pox, these arguments had not come 
 near enough to catch the infection. He then read the resolu- 
 tions. He said, that untrammeled by this unhappy excitement, 
 many of them, before abolitionists were born, were engaged in 
 meliorating the condition of the slave population. Whenever 
 the consequences of any measures for the removal of an evil 
 were worse than the evil itself, the prosecutors of such mea- 
 sures stood charged before God as criminals. Abolitionists 
 reminded him of Herod — when Herod had promised the dam- 
 sel with an oath to give her whatever she might ask, and she 
 had asked for the head of John the Baptist, the king, rather 
 than break his promise would commit murder. Abolitionists 
 
( 23) 
 
 had prevented them from acting. They knew nothing about 
 them. In the South, they had been successfully engaged in 
 freeing slaves, but abolitionists had shut up the way. Houses 
 of worship had been burnt; religious privileges taken away, 
 and the houses of their colored people mutilated in Baltimore. 
 Never had one individual been benefitted by abolition. 
 
 Dr. Capers of South Carolina, rose to state some facts, with 
 which he was personally acquainted. Methodism had been 
 introduced into South Carolina, under very favorable circum- 
 stances. The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, by repen- 
 tance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, unless the Baptists 
 formed an exception, was not, at that time, preached in South 
 Carolina. The community was in an unprejudiced state. 
 They soon formed a society in Charleston, composed of as 
 respectable and worthy people, as ever entered into the com- 
 position of an)' church. The church, to be sure, labored un- 
 der some disadvantages; but under none as connected with 
 slavery. He would narrate a little anecdote. A preacher 
 stopped on Cooper's river, at the house of Mr. Ball, one of 
 the foremost planters in this state. When evening came, and 
 the period of work was over, the preacher proposed, that the 
 negroes should be assembled, in order that he might speak to 
 them on the subject of religion. The proposal was immedi- 
 ately responded to, and information forthwith sent off to the 
 neighboring plantations; so that a congregation of from one 
 to two thousa,nd was speedily assembled. Mr. Ball was so 
 well pleased, that he desired to retain the preacher as his 
 chaplain, and that he might preach to his negroes. This, the 
 speaker intimated, was then the state of things. They had 
 free access to the plantations. As much was done as could 
 be done. Dr. Coke, about this time made his first visit, but 
 passed hastily through the country. On his second visit a 
 different aspect was exhibited. The South had then but lit- 
 tle participation in the affairs of the church. It came to pass 
 that in 1806, the general Conference, composed, three fourths, 
 of northern brethren, was induced to take those measures, to 
 which the brother from the New England Conference referred 
 in his speech. Those measures were reprobatory of slavery 
 and slave-holding, and were accompanied by an exhortation, 
 to get up memorials on the subject of slavery to the legisla- 
 ture. George Dorrel, representative from the South Carolina 
 Conference, protested against these measures. The matter 
 leaked out — the jealousies of the people were awakened — 
 Methodist preachers became objects of suspicion, and were 
 in fact considered dangerous to the public peace. The lar- 
 gest planters, and of course the mass of slaves, dwelt in the 
 low rich countries. From these, Methodist preachers were 
 excluded, and driven back into the interior. What was the 
 
( 24 ) 
 
 result? In Charleston, one of the purest and most noble of 
 their ministers, George Dorrel, was dragged, like a felon, to 
 the pump, and only rescued at the point of the sword. Metho- 
 dist preachers could not save themselves— they were put 
 down. There were not many noble then, not many rich, not 
 many high; they were reduced to the most pitiable condition. 
 A re-action ensued — they began to be pitied — persecution 
 ceased. Their meeting-houses began to be crowded. The 
 black people, without them, deprived of gospel privileges, be- 
 gan to enjoy them again. The galleries of the churches were 
 filled with them. Again and again, were the brethren inter- 
 fered with, and repeatedly taken from the pulpit, because of 
 the number of blacks present. In 1811 they had little or no 
 access to the blacks. An instance would illustrate. Brother 
 Donnelly, wishing to preach to the colored people in a certain 
 place, and baptize some among them, had to set out at mid- 
 night upon his benevolent enterprize. Another instance; — 
 about 12 miles from Charleston was another place, where it 
 was desirable to preach to the colored people. They had 
 never before heard Jesus Christ preached. But one house in 
 the neighborhood could be occupied for this purpose, and that 
 was a grog-shop. It was resolved, however, to preach there, 
 bv some means it came to the ears of the neighboring slave- 
 holders. They determined to prevent it. A mob was to be 
 raised in grand style; the negroes were to be punished, and 
 the preacher ducked in a duck-pond hard by. The time came 
 and it fell to Jiis lot to go — but there was no disturbance. 
 That very spot was the place of his nativity — he was well 
 known there ; and also it was understood that his conexions 
 were of such a character as to secure him, to a certain ex- 
 tent, against any personal violence. But that preaching 
 place was abandoned, for Methodist preachers were under the 
 ban. At length, people began to consider tha-t many of them 
 were slave-holders — why should they be insurrectionists? 
 This single circumstance went far to raise them above sus- 
 picion. 
 
 Dq. Capers narrated some other circumstances, but our 
 notes are here deficient. These, together with the iaets he 
 had adduced, he brought forward to show, how delicate was 
 the question of slavery; in what peculiar, perplexing circum- 
 stances it placed the southern brethren; how much injury 
 had been done to them, as well as to the slaves, by northern 
 interference, and how much more injury would inevitably re- 
 sult in the same way, from the eflbrts of abolitionists. He 
 called upon his abolition brethren to beware — to pause before 
 they proceeded farther in their misguided efforts. Whilst he 
 was narrating what difficulties the Methodist ministers had 
 labored under — what they had endured, both of privation and 
 
( 25 ) 
 
 persecution for the slave — the affection and gratitude of the 
 slaves, &c. &,c., many tears v^ere shed by the slave-holding 
 members of the Conference. Their emotion was great, while 
 the Doctor, a slave-holder himself, as we are informed, was 
 spreading before them the picture of their many afflictions, 
 and their eyes were imploringly directed at times towards 
 the place where their abolition brethren sat. 
 
 The amount ol" all we could gather, was, that ministers of 
 the gospel, in the south, if they did their duty foithfully, were 
 liable to persecution. 
 
 After Dr. Capers had concluded, the Conference had a re- 
 cess till 3 o'clock, P. M. 
 
 AFTERNOON SESSION. 
 
 May 13th. — There was much small talk. We have notes 
 of only one member's speech. We think this was delivered, 
 on the offering of an amendment by Mr. Scott. The debate 
 hcd been generally gotten through with, and it seemed to be 
 understood that the resolutions would pass. The question 
 was about to be taken, when Mr. Scott moved to amend the 
 second resolution, by inserting immediately after the words, 
 'Abolitionism in whole and in part,' the following — 'and that 
 we also disapprove of slavery. ' This gave rise to some re- 
 marks, when a member suggested that it would be better to 
 amend, by inserting the words of the Discipline in reference to 
 slavery, which are 'that we are as much as ever convinced of 
 the great evil of slavery. ' Mr. Scott immediately agreed to 
 adopt this, and offered it in the place of his original amendment. 
 An animated discussion now arose on the adoption of this a- 
 mendment. The majority were doubtless a good deal embar- 
 rassed. One, in his simplicity said, — he did not conceive how 
 any brother could object to incorporating into the resolution, 
 a sentiment which they had already avowed, as a church. 
 But he evidently mistook the mark. There was great abjec- 
 tion. Southern members soon placed the matter in its true 
 light. The incorporation of this sentiment in the resolutions, 
 would neutralize entirely the original design and tendency of 
 them. If the amendment were adopted, the resolutions could 
 not be sent to the south. The amendment would be constru- 
 ed as designed to cloak the real opinions of the Conference. 
 That body would most certainlj^ be charged with abolitionism. 
 Mr. Winans, of Mississippi, begged leave to state a flict, which 
 would sho■v^i how unpopular, under present circumstances, 
 would be any such amendment. The particulars, we are una- 
 ble to recollect, but this was the amount. An excitement had 
 been occasioned in New Orleans agajnst Methodists. The 
 Mayor of the city had been informed, by some interested per- 
 son, of the article in the discipline, in relation to slavery. 
 3 
 
( 26 ) 
 
 From this it was inferred, that the Methodists were genuine 
 abolitionists. The excitement was not allayed, until a cler- 
 gyman of' another persuasion, took the Discipline, went to the 
 mayor, showed him the article, and explained to him, that it 
 had been mserted in the early period of the church, and that it 
 w^as not a new thing. We are at a loss to give the precise 
 words of Mr. Winans; but the impression made on us was, 
 that the article in relation to slavery, was introduced, when 
 the circumstances of the church were difterent from what 
 they are uow^: — that noic,, the article is in fact a dead letter. 
 
 The members from the free states, when they saw the stand 
 taken by their southern brethren on the subject, were gener- 
 ally in favor of rejecting the amendment, — not, they asserted, 
 because they did not adhere to the sentiments of their disci- 
 pline; but the object was now, to allay the excitement of 
 abolition, and satisfy the public n:iind of their opposition to it. 
 With regard to slavery, their opinion was already expressed, 
 and stood out in their discipline to the notice of the W'Orld. 
 Mr. Scott thought, that, if it were necessary, on the one hand 
 to guard against abolition, it was no less necessary on the oth- 
 er, to guard against slavery. He thought this was indeed an 
 alarming period,' — when Methodist ministers shrunk from 
 openly declaring, what they avowed in the discipline as their 
 creed. He did hope that brethren would not reject the 
 amendment, and thus virtually abrogate a part of their own 
 Discipline. He made many other forcible and eloquent re- 
 marks, in the midst of which he was called to order by Mr. 
 Holmes, of the Pittsburg Conference, who supposed, that the 
 speaker had violated one of the rules of order, in speaking 
 twice on the same subject. Mr. Scott was pronounced by 
 the chair in order, because, before^ he had spoken to the ori- 
 irinal resolution; noic^ he was speaking to the amendment. 
 Mr. Holmes manifested a disposition to persist, which, how- 
 ever, not being encouraged, he sat down. 
 
 Not long after Mr. Scott had concluded, Mu. Smith, of Vir- 
 o-inia, — began by professing to be a 7na?2, a christian a gentle- 
 man' As a man, he had feelings which had been whipped and 
 goaded on every side during this debate; as a christian, he 
 disavowed, before God and the Conference, harboring any un- 
 kind s&ntiments towards his abolition brethren. He could 
 not entertain harsh feelings towards any man. Reflections 
 had passed through his mind, while considermg the unfortunate, 
 situation in which those brethren had placed themselves, 
 which brought tears to his eyes. 
 
 He was sorry for the course his southern brethren had ta- 
 ken in relation to these resolutions. The abstract question of 
 slavery, they ought not to have discussed. Indulgence in 
 such discussions was lowering their dignity — prostrating them 
 
 \ 
 
( 27 ) 
 
 before the American nation. Slavery was to be looked at, 
 not in the abstract, but the concrete, as it was in fact. Abo- 
 ition was fraught with the most mischievous consequences. 
 He here read an extract from, we presume, an abolition paper 
 — to this amount, that any American citizen who holds anoth- 
 er as a slave, is guilty of a crime irreconcilable with the spirit 
 of Christianity. He remarked, that the inference from this 
 was, that the slave-holder was no christian. ' Must such 
 men,' said he, 'whip in hand, booted and spurred,' ride over 
 our feelings? As we live — ^as God lives — it becomes breth- 
 ren to pause. Modern abolitionism proclaimed her own con- 
 summate folly, when, in the same breath, on the very heels, 
 of the declaration, that slave-holders are criminals against 
 God and man — guilty of the most God-provoking crimes, she 
 turns round and tells them that she does not unchristianize 
 them. 
 
 Here Mr. Scott rose and asked explicitly whether the 
 speaker had any allusion to him — for if so, he was misrepre- 
 senting him. Mr. Smith turned towards him, and exclaimed, 
 'I have no more to do with that brother, than if he did not ex- 
 ist;' and with great heat he added, 'I wish to God, he were in 
 Heaven, ' He added soiuething in an under tone about wish- 
 ing all abolitionists there, and himself if ever he should be- 
 come one. Some remarks were here made by the chair; 
 when Mr. Smith said, he had so often been called by these 
 men, a man stealer, &c. that by this time he was perfectly 
 used to them. That brother (alluding to Mr. Scott) was per- 
 fectly sincere, but he knew nothing more about abolitionism 
 than he did about slavery. 
 
 He then read another extract from the same paper giving 
 as he said, another feature of abolitionism. The amount of 
 it was, that slavery should be renounced now and forever. 
 The objection to it, was, that it was impracticable. The at- 
 tempt to do such an act, would array against them all the feel- 
 ing of the south. If success chanced to attend the measures 
 of abolition, all those consequences would inevitably follow, 
 which had been depicted by the brother, who had spoken in 
 the morning. 
 
 Modern abolitionism was to be seen in what it did, rather 
 than what it professed. In its effects, it was inflamatory in 
 the north, and incendiary in the south. Its withering influ- 
 ence had been felt in the church — in the Quarterly meeting — 
 in the class room. The blight of heaven had followed, wher- 
 ever it prevailed. Brethren from the north would testify to 
 this fact; if they would not, he would upon oath. He knew 
 the societies — the associations in which this effect was mani- 
 fest. 
 
 Modern abolitionism was a great political and religious 
 
( 28 ) 
 
 heresy. Its design was to array all the moral and religious 
 feeling of the people against the political institutions of the 
 land; and it was in direct contravention of the book he held,, 
 in his hand, [the New Testament.] The Apostle Paul, when"' 
 he went forth to preach the Gospel, found slavery in the- 
 v/orld, and recognized it. He relied on preaching Christ cru- 
 I'ified, as the great means for remedying every evil. He/ 
 formed no abolition societies. He [Mr. Smith,] and his breth- 
 ren of the south, expected, by preaching Christ, to accom- 
 plish all that could be accomplished. These abolition breth-. 
 ren, are for interfering with the political institutions of the 
 land. They had engaged in a crusade— h-'^'angues, petitions, 
 memorials, addressing political assemblies — nothing was left 
 untried. In all these respects, they had departed from the 
 example of the Apostles. The Discipline of the Church, 
 moreover, authorized no interference with the political institu- 
 tions of the country. 
 
 They, of the south, entreated of their brethren of the 
 north, just to let them alone. If they would not hear to this, 
 why then they must part. Either abolitionists w^ould have 
 to separate from them, or they from abolitionists. Such ine- 
 vitably would be the result, unless the brethren should change 
 their course. 
 
 After a little more discussion, the question, was called for, 
 and on the votes being counted, it was found, that 1 23 voted 
 against the amendment — against incorporating in the resolu- 
 tion^ tliat^'-'-they were as much as ever, convinced of the great 
 evil of si aver y.^^ The members of the New England and 
 New Hampshire Delegations, fourteen in number, voted for it. 
 The vote was then taken on the resolutions themselves- — 
 they were both carried by large majorities. A resolution was 
 also introduced to have them published in the city journals 
 generally. This, we understand, was afterwards reconsidered 
 and recalled — the publishing order being limited to the Wes- 
 tern Christian Advocate. 
 
 SEQUEL. 
 
 Saturday morning. — We have been told, for we were not 
 present, that on the meeting of the Conference, Mr. Crowder 
 remarked, that it had been thought by some, that his remark 
 on the preceding day, asserting that his cook, one of his 
 slaves, dressed as ivell as the wives of the northern brethren., 
 was offensive. He intended by it nothing offensive to ihose 
 brethren, for he was willing to include his own wife with theirs. 
 Indeed, he and Mrs. Crowder, when they determined to retain 
 the two slaves, mentioned by him ,before, had resolved that 
 the slaves should dress as well as they (Mr. and Mrs. C.) did.. 
 
( 29 ) 
 
 fie repeated that nothing injurious to the feeling of others 
 was intended. However, said he, if it is the desire of the 
 Conference, I will take back all my remarks relating to this 
 part of the subject. 
 
 Note. — The editor of the Philanthropist, having been informed 
 that many members of the Conference were anxious to see the sketch 
 of the Debate, as it would be published in that journal, addressed the 
 following note to that body: — 
 
 To the General Conference of the M. E. Church: — 
 
 In the Philanthropist — of which the undersigned is editor — there 
 Avill be published, this week, a sketch of your late debate on Slavery. 
 Should it be agreeable to your body, fifty copies of it, or more, will, on 
 publication, be sent to the Conference room, without charge, for the 
 use of its members. 
 
 Very Respectfully, 
 
 JAMES G. BIRNEY. 
 Cincinnati, Thursday Morning, May, 18, 1836. 
 
 [from the philanthropist.] 
 
 We are sorry to report, that the above offer, made in the spirit of 
 kindness, met with a very unsuitable response from the body to which 
 it was directed. On the reading of the note, by the presiding officer, 
 some member — we are not informed who, and we were not present — 
 moved to lay it on the table. This was carried, as it were, by acclama- 
 tion — Ml'. Roszell remarking, that he regretted this motion was made, 
 as he had intended to move, that the writer have leave to withdraw 
 his "note. 
 
 ■Notwithstanding what has passed, any member of the Conference 
 -Can be supplied with a number of the Philanthropist, containing the 
 Debate, by making known to us his desire to have it. 
 
 3* 
 
SECOIVD PART. 
 
 An Addi'ess^ to the General Conference of the Methodist 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
 [by a member of that body.] 
 
 Fathers and Brethren — 
 
 I have listened with deep attention to the discussion of the 
 subjects of slavery and abolition vv^hich occupied nearly two 
 days of your time last week. I had expected these subjects 
 would come up for investigation at the present session of our 
 General Conference. It is fit and right that these great mat- 
 ters should be examined — and that we should express a senti- 
 ment both on slavery and abolition, at the present time.. 
 These subjects are now fairly before the American people — 
 and in them w^e are deeply involved, both as a church, and as 
 a nation. 
 
 The great question now pending- — is the justice or unjiistice 
 of the claims of more than two millions of our American 
 citizens, to the inalienable rights of freemen! A matter of 
 such vast moment should not be looked upon with indiffer- 
 ence. It is no time to make a compromise between trutJi 
 and error? The sentiment which our General Conference 
 expresses, and sends out to the world o.t its present session, 
 will either retard or hasten the deliverance of the slaves. 
 Great, therefore, is our responsibility? Any interference of 
 thi^General Conference, or any of its members, with the po~ 
 liticdl relations of master and slave, would be, both inexpedi- 
 ent and improper. But the subject of slavery involves greai* 
 MORAL I'RiNciPLEs, and with these, as Christian ministers, we 
 p.ave something to do. 
 
 Slavery takes away the key of knowledge — withholds the 
 Holy Scriptures — crushes the intellect of God's intelligent 
 creatures — exposes to insult without protection, a million of 
 the females of this land — separates husbands and wives, pa- 
 rents and children — places all the religious privileges and do- 
 mestic enjoyments of millions of our fellow citizens beyond 
 their control, or at the disposal of their masters — and often 
 compels to labors and hardships which are inhumanly wasting 
 to health and life. — And is this wuohhY a political subject? 
 Are there no great 7noral principles involved in this system? 
 Is there nothing that ought to excite the sympathy, prayers, 
 and exertions of Christians and christian ministers? Ought 
 
( 31 ) 
 we not to "remember those in bonds as bound with them?" 
 Is it nothing to christian ministers, that the Bible is withheld 
 from one sixth part of our entire population in this country ? 
 And that there are hundreds of thousands of pagans in the 
 midst of us? And must we connive at this bloody and cruel 
 system, because forsooth, it is a very delicate subject? Will 
 it ever be less delicate? 
 
 We censure, and very justly, the Papists for withholdmg 
 the Scriptures from the common people, and yet we withhold 
 not only the Bible, but the knowledge of letters from the 
 slave population of this country! The laws of the slave 
 holding states, in general, prohibit the teaching a slave to read 
 or write, under heavy penalties. A second oflence of teach- 
 ino- a slave in some of the slave states, is punishable with 
 de'ath. We admit, that in despite of all law, in some few in- 
 stances, slaves are taught to read, but these spots are so few 
 in number, and so distant from each other, as only to make 
 the mental darkness the more visible. The great mass, I may 
 say, the great whole of the slave population are entirely des- 
 titute of all means of instruction. The tree of knowledge, to 
 them, is guarded by a flaming sword pointing every way. The 
 master's interest and security are both intimately connected 
 with the ignorance of his slaves! 
 
 However great the insult offered to the slave, however cru- 
 el the treatment he receives, he has no, redress— he may not 
 be a witness against a white man in any way! There is no 
 eye to see his suflerings, but that eye which penetrates all 
 hearts. The slave has no adequate protection for his person or 
 friends. Every hour the parent is liable to be separated from 
 the child, and the husband from the wife, to meet no more on 
 this side the grave! We admit, that in buying and selling 
 slaves, there is, in some instances, a disposition manifested to 
 avoid separating families, and yet the most heart-rending sep- 
 arations often take place! But this is a political thing; minis- 
 ters of the Gospel have nothing to do with it. Indeed! Tell 
 it not in heathen countries! 
 
 Permit me, dear brethren, to call your attention to some ot 
 the principal arguments, on both sides, which vvere brought 
 forward in the late discussion of slavery and abolition. This 
 appears to me the more necessary, inasmuch as the argumerits 
 of brother Scott, were scarcely noticed by the speakers on the 
 other side— and inasmuch, also, as he was not permitted to 
 speak but once on tiie question, and of course could not re- 
 ply to their arguments. And as the arguments of the speak- 
 ers who followed brotner Scott, were not replied to by any 
 one, it may be profitable to us to make a short reply; and to 
 take a summary view of ihe whole discussion. About e/em?. 
 hours were consumed in tl.e discussion— two of which were 
 
( 32) 
 
 occupied by brother Scott, and about one by other brethren 
 on the same side ; leaving eight to our slave-holding, and anti- 
 abolitionist brethren ! 
 
 When brother S., commenced his speech, he stated, that he 
 felt it his duty to let the Conference know what mof/erw abo- 
 litionism was, before it should be condemned by the passage 
 of a resolution which was then pending. He then assumed 
 the position, that the principles of slavery, — the principle 
 which justifies holding and treating the human species as pro- 
 perty, is morally wrong, — or in other words, that it is a si?).. 
 The principle, he contended, aside from all circumstances, is 
 evil, ONLY EVIL, and that CONTINUALLY! He said no 
 hand could sanctify it — no circumstances could change it from 
 bad to good. It was a reprobate — too bad to be converted — 
 not subject to the law of God, neither indeed, could be.^ He 
 admitted that circumstances might palliate, and circun)stances 
 might aggravate, but no circumstances could justify the prin- 
 ciple. If any circumstances could justify the right of proper- 
 ty in human beings — then we had only to change some oi 
 the circumstances with which slavery is connected, and it be- 
 comes universally right — so that in this case, the sin would 
 be in the circumstances. The abstract question was argued 
 at considerable length. It was insisted that slavery was 
 morally right, or morally WTong, or that it had no moral char- 
 acter. The first and last of these suppositions, he considered 
 absurd; and contended, that " He w4io has made of one blood, 
 all nations of men to dwell on the earth," must look with; 
 disapprobation upon such a system of complicated "wrongs, as 
 American slavery. 
 
 The speaker then attempted to show", that such views of 
 slavery among Methodists, and Methodist ministers, are not 
 ^modern," by extracts from Wesley, Clarke, our fathers in 
 this country — and our brethren on the other side the Atlantic. 
 And these quotations show, that clear, plain, pointed denun- 
 ciations of slavery, are not peculiar to "modern abolitionism. " 
 Read the following, and then judge whether our fathers be- 
 lieved slavery to be a sin against God and the rights of hu- 
 manity. 
 
 "And this equally concerns every gentleman that has' an 
 estate in our American plantations; yea, alV slave-holders, of 
 whatever rank and degree; seeing men Ivyurs are exactly on 
 a level with men stealers. Indeed you sp.y,, "I pay honestly 
 for my goods; and I am not concerned tfj know how they are 
 come by. " Nay, but you are ; you arf j deeply concerned to 
 know they are honestly come by. — Otiierwiso you are a par- 
 taker with a thief, and are not a jot 'aonester than him. But 
 you know they are not honestly c ome by; you know they 
 are procurednby means nothing^. near so innocent as picking 
 
( 33) 
 
 of pockets, house breaking, or robbery on the highway. You 
 know they are procured by a deliberate series of more com- 
 plicated villainy, (of fraud, robbery, and murder,) than was 
 ever practiced either by Mahommedans or Pagans; in par- 
 ticular, by murders, of all kind; by the blood of the innocent 
 poured upon the ground like water. Now, it is your money 
 that pays the merchant, and through him the captain and Afri- 
 can butchers. You, therefore, are guilty, yea, principally 
 guilty, of all these frauds, robberies, and murders. You are 
 the spring that puts all the rest in motion; they would not 
 stir a step without you; therefore, the blood of all these 
 wretches who die before their time, whether in their country 
 or elsewhere, lies upon your head. "The blood of thy broth- 
 er'' (for, whether thou wilt believe it or no, such he is in the 
 sight of Him that made him) " cryeth against thee from the 
 earth," from the ship, and from the waters. O, whatever it 
 costs, put a stop to its cry before it is too late: instantly, at 
 any price, were it the half of your goods, deliver thyself from 
 blood guiltiness! Thy hands, thy bed, thy furniture, thy 
 house, thy lands, are at present stained with blood. Surely 
 it is enough; accumulate no more guilt; spill no more the 
 blood of the innocent! Do not hire another to shed blood; 
 do not pay him for doing it! Whether you are a Christian 
 or no, show yourself a man? — Be not more savage than a lion 
 or a bear. 
 
 Perhaps you will say, " I do not buy any negroes; I only- 
 use those left me by my father. " So far it is well ; but is it 
 enough to satisfy your own conscience? Had your father ^ 
 have you^ has any man living, a right to tise another as a slave? 
 It cannot be, even setting Revelation aside. It cannot be, that 
 either war, or contract, can give any man such a property in 
 another as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it 
 possible that any child of man should ever be born a slave. 
 Liberty is the right of every human creature; as soon as he 
 breathes the vital air; and no human laia can deprive him of 
 that right ivltich he derives from the law of nature. 
 
 If, therefore, you have any regard to justice, (to say noth- 
 ing of mercy, nor the revealed law of God,) render unto all 
 their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to 
 every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let 
 none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own vol- 
 untary choice. Away with all whips, all chains, all compul- 
 sion! Be gentle toward all men; and see that you invariably 
 do unto every one as you would he should do unto you." 
 
 J. WESLEY. 
 •••In heathen countries, slavery was in some sort excusable; 
 but among Christians it is an enormity and a crime for which . 
 perdition has scarcely an adequate state of punishment." 
 
 DR. A. CLARKE. 
 
( 34 ) 
 
 In extending the evil of slavery in this nation, the Metho- 
 dist Episcopal Church, has, it is feared, for thirty-five or forty 
 years past, exerted an unhappy influence. Four years be- 
 fore our church w^as organized in this country, that is, in 1 7 80, 
 the Conference bore the following testimony against it: — 
 
 '•'•The Conference acknowledges that slavery is contrarij to 
 THE LAWS OF GoD, MAN AND NATURE, and Inirtful to societi/: 
 CONTRARY TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE 
 AND PURE RELIGION; and doing what we icould not that 
 others should do imto us; and they pass their disapprobation 
 upon all our friends who keep slaves, and they advise their 
 freedo?n. " 
 
 And from Lee's History of the Methodists, page 101, we 
 learn that the M. E. Church was organized, witli a number of 
 express rules upon this subject, which stipulated that slavery 
 should not be continued in the Church. One of them was as 
 follows: 
 
 "Every member in our society shall legally execute and 
 record an instrument [for the purpose of setting every slave 
 in his possession free,] within the space of two years." 
 And another was as follows: 
 
 "Every person concerned who will not comply with these 
 rules, shall have liberty quietly to withdraw from our society 
 within, the tv/elve months following, the notice being given 
 him as aforesaid: otherwise, the assistant shall exclude him 
 from the society.'''' 
 
 And again another rule declared that, 
 
 "Those who bought or sold slaves, ox gave them atcay, un- 
 less on purpose to free them, should be expelled immediately.''' 
 In the edition of our Discipline also, printed in 1801, we 
 find a number of rules upon the same subject, but which as 
 you are aware, together with the above, have long since been 
 left out of the Disciplinary regulations of our church, and 
 consequently many of our ministers and members are the 
 owners of slaves; and for a number of years past, the number 
 has been increasing in the Christian church, and in the nation; 
 nor do we expect that this "great evil," will ever be eflectu- 
 ally checked in its progress, till christians and christian minis- 
 ters cease to countenance it by their example. — 
 
 The present form of Discipline does not contain one fourth 
 part of the article headed "Slavery" which we find in the 
 Discipline of 1801. We suppose the greatest part of that 
 article was left out of the Discipline at the General Confer- 
 ence of 1804 or 1808, as it is not in the copy which we have 
 seen published sometime in the year 1 808. 
 
 OF SLAVERY. 
 
 ^^ Question. What regulations shall be made for the extir- 
 pation of the crying evil of African slavery ? 
 
( 35) 
 
 Answer, 1. We declare that we are more than ever ccn- 
 vinced ot" the great evil of African slavery, which still exists 
 in these United States, and do most earnestly recommend to 
 the Yearly Conferences, Quartei'ly Meetings, and to those 
 who have the oversight of Districts and Circuits, to be ex- 
 ceedingly cautious what persons they admit to official sta- 
 tions in our church; and in the case of future admission to offi- 
 cial stations, to require such security of those who hold slaves, 
 for the emancipation of them, immediately, or grailually, as 
 the laws ol the States respectively, and the circumstances 
 of the case will admit; and we do fully authorize all the 
 Yearly Conferences to make whatever regulation they judge 
 proper, in the present case, respecting the admission of per- 
 sons to official stations in our church. 
 
 2. When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a 
 .slave or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial 
 character in our church, unless he executes, if it be practica- 
 ble, a legal emancipation of sucli slaves, conformably to the 
 laws of the State in which he lives. 
 
 3. No slave-holder shall be received into society, till 
 the preacher who has the oversight of the Circuit, has spoken 
 to him freely and faithfully upon the subject of slavery. 
 
 4. Every member of the society, who sells a slave, shall 
 immediately, after full proof, be excluded from the society; 
 and if any member of our society purchase a slave, the ensu- 
 ing Quaiterly Meeting shall determine on the number of 
 years, in which the slave so purchased would work out the 
 price of his purchase. And the person so purchasing, shall 
 immediately after such determination, execute a legal instru- 
 ment for the manumission of such slave, at the expiration of 
 the term determined by the Quarterly Meeting. And in de- 
 fault of his executing such instrument of manumission, or on 
 his refusal to submit his case to the judgment of the [Quar- 
 terly Meeting, such member shall be excluded the society. 
 Provided also, that in the case of a female slave, it shall be 
 inserted in the aforesaid instrument of manumission, that all 
 her children who shall be born during the years of her servi- 
 tude, shall be free at the following times, namely — every fe- 
 male child at the age of twenty-one, and every male child at 
 the age of tioenty-Jive. Nevertheless, if the member of our 
 society, executing the said instrument of manumission, judge 
 it proper, he may fix the times of manumission of the female 
 slaves before mentioned, at an earlier age than that which is 
 prescribed above. 
 
 5. The preachers and other members of our society, are re- 
 quested to consider the subject of negro slavery with deep 
 attention ; and that they impart to the General Conference, 
 through the medium of the Yearly Conferences, or otherwise, 
 
(36) 
 
 any important thoughts upon the subject, that the Conference 
 may have full light, in order to take further steps towards the 
 eradicating this enormous evil from that part of the church 
 of God to which they are connected. 
 
 6. The Annual Conferences are directed to draw up ad- 
 dresses for the gradual emancipation of the slaves, to the 
 legislatures of those States, in which no general laws have 
 been passed for that purpose. These addresses shall urge in 
 the most respectful, but pointed manner, the necessity of a 
 law for the gradual emancipation of the slaves; proper com- 
 mittees shall be appointed, by the Annual Conferences, out 
 of the most respectable of our friends, for the conducting of 
 the business; and the Presiding Elders, Elders, Deacons, and 
 Travelling Preachei's, shall procure as many proper signatures 
 as possible to the addresses; and give all the assistance in 
 their power, in every respect, to aid the committees, and to 
 further this blessed undertaking. Let this be continued 
 
 FROM YEAR TO YEAR, TILL THE DESIRED END BE ACCOMPLISHED." 
 
 "If it is wrong to steal men from Africa, to reduce them to 
 a state of bondage ; it is, for the same reason, to retain them 
 in slavery. If you condemn the first thief, and the first re- 
 ceiver of the stolen goods, how will you justify those who. 
 knowing them to be stolen, continue to retain them? I con- 
 fess that I cannot see how the perpetuation of an injury can 
 cause it to cease to be an injury, or by what process an ac- 
 knowledged wrong can be transmuted into a right by con- 
 tinuing in it. My argument then is, if it was wrong to enslave 
 the negroes, it is wrong to keep them in hopeless bondage; 
 and it follows, that, after this country had renounced the Afri- 
 can slave trade, it was bound by the very principles on which 
 that wTetched trafiic w^as repudiated, to have taken mensures 
 for the liberation of all who had thus been wickedly reduced 
 to a state of captivity, at the earliest period at which their 
 liberation could have been made consistent with their own 
 interests, and long before this time to have converted them 
 into a free, industrious and happy peasantry. '' 
 
 R. WATSON. 
 
 The Wesleyan Methodist Conference in 1830, Resolved, 
 "That as a body of Christian ministers, they feel themselves 
 called upon again to record their solemn judgment, that the 
 holding of human beings in a state of slavery, is i7i direct op- 
 position to all the principles of natural rights and to the he- 
 nigji spirit of the religion of Christ. " 
 
 "That the Conference fully concur in those strong moral 
 views of the evil of slavery, which are taken by their fellow 
 Christians of different denominations; — and that they express 
 
( 37 ) 
 
 their sympathy with an injured portion of their race, and 
 their abhorrence of all those principles on which it is attemp- 
 ted to defend the subjection of human beings to hopeless and 
 interminable slavery- " 
 
 To the above, many similar quotations might be added. 
 But enough have been adduced to show, that our fathers, as 
 well as ourselves, believed slavery to be something beside a 
 mere political things — and enough also to show, that toe have 
 strangely and ividely departed from the ancient landmarks of 
 our church regulations upon this subject. 
 
 Mr. S. then alluded to the Scripture view of slavery, and 
 expressed his sentiments upon that point in the language of 
 the Synod of Kentucky, which is as follows: 
 
 It is often pleaded that in the Old Testament, God himself 
 expressly permitted his people to enslave the Canaanites. 
 True; for God may punish any of the children of sin as he 
 sees lit — He has a right to do so, and He alone has a right. ' 
 He may commission either the winds, or the waves, or the'* 
 pestilence, or their fellow men, to work his purpose of ven- 
 geance upon any people. But man has no right to arrogate 
 the prerogative of the Almighty — he has no right, uncommis- 
 sioned by his Maker, either to enslave or destroy his fellow. — 
 God commissioned Saul to exterminate the Amalekites — 
 could we plead this as an excuse for the massacre of an Indian 
 tribe? God expressly directed his prophet Samuel to hew 
 Agag in pieces — could any of us allege this as a ground for 
 cutting down every man who he considered as an enemy of 
 Zion's King? How, then, can any man assert, that because 
 God determined to punish the Canaanites, and used the Isreal- 
 ites as the executioners of his decree, we are at liberty to 
 obey the dictates of our own avarice, and hold our fellow 
 men in bondage? Is not such a perversion of God's Holy 
 Word more shocking than Belshazzar's desecration of the sa- 
 cred vessels of the sanctuary, when he and his concubines 
 drank wine out of them amid the drunken revelry of his im- 
 pious feast. 
 
 We are told, again, that the apostles gave to Christian mas- 
 ters and Christian servants directions for the regulation of 
 their mutual conduct. True; and these directions will be 
 valuable while the world lasts — for so long, we doubt not, 
 will the relation of master and servant exist. But how do 
 such directions license holding oi slaves? The terms which 
 the apostles use in giving these precepts, are the same terms 
 which they would have used, had there been no slaves upon the 
 earth. — Many of the masters of that day were indeed slave- 
 holders, and many of the servants were slaves — but should 
 that circumstance have prevented the inspired ambassadors 
 4 
 
( 38 ) 
 
 from teaching the duties which devolve on masters and ser- 
 vants, in every age, and under every form of service? If so, 
 then the fact that rulers at that time v^^ere generally tyrants, 
 and the people vassals, should have prevented them from lay- 
 ing down the duties of rulers and people. In the precepts of 
 holy writ, neither political tyranmj nor domestic slavery is 
 countenanced. Nay, if masters complied with the apostolic 
 injunction to them, and gave their servants as they were dir- 
 ected to do, "that v/hich is just and equal," there would be at 
 once an end of all that is properly called slavery. 
 
 The divine right of kings to tyrannize over their subjects, 
 and the unlawfulness of resistance to their authority on the 
 part of the people, were formerly maintained by the very 
 same kind of scriptural arguments, which are now advanced 
 in support of slavery. The arguments drawn from the Bible 
 in favor of despotism, are, indeed, much more plausible than 
 those in favor of slavery. We despise the former — how then 
 should we regard the latter? 
 
 It has been sometimes said, that the ' New Testament docs 
 not condemn slave-holding in express terms. ' And the practice 
 has been advocated, because it has not been thus denounced. 
 If this assertion were true, and if the Bible only virtually 
 denounced it, it would be a sin. No man can righteously con- 
 tinue a practice which God disapproves of, no matter in what 
 form the disapproval is expressed. But the assertion is not 
 true. The Nkw Testament does condemn slave-holding, as 
 
 PRACTISED AMONG US, IN THE MOST EXPLICIT TERMS FURNISHED BY 
 THE LANGUAGE IN WHICH THE INSPIRED PENMEN WROTE. If XX 
 
 physician, after a minute examination, should tell a patient, 
 that his every limb and organ was diseased. — If he should enu- 
 merate the various parts of his bodily system, the arms, the 
 legs, the head, the stomach, the bowels, &c., and should say 
 of each one of these parts distinctly that it was unsound; could 
 the man depart and say, 'after all I am not diseased, for the 
 physician has not said in express terms that my body is unsound?' 
 Has he not received a 7nore clear and express declaration of 
 his entirely diseased condition, than if he had been told in 
 merely general terms, that his body was unsound? Thus has 
 God condemned slavery. He has specified the parts which 
 compose it, and denounced them, one by one in the most am- 
 ple and unequivocal form. In the English language we have 
 the term servant., which we apply discriminately both to those 
 held in voluntary subjection to another, and to those whose 
 subjection is involuntary. We have also the term slave, 
 which is applicable exclusively to those held in involuntary 
 subjection. The Greek language had a word corresponding, 
 exactly, in signification, with our word servant'^ but it had 
 none that answered, precisely to our term slave. How then 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 was an apostle, writing in Greek, to condemn ou7' slavery? 
 Could it be done in tlie way, which some seem to think it must 
 be done, before they could be convinced of its sinfulness? 
 How can we expect to find in Scripture the words 'slavery 
 is sinful,' when the longuage in which it is written contained 
 no term which expressed the meaning of our word slavery? 
 Would the advocates of slavery wish us to show that the 
 apostles declare it to be unchristian to hold servants (douloi)? 
 This would have been denouncing, as criminal, practices far 
 different from slave-holding. But inspiration taught the holy 
 penmen the only correct and efficacious method of convey- 
 ing their condemnation of this unchristian system. — Thev 
 pronounce of each one of those several things which constitute 
 slavery that is sinful — thus clearly and forever denouncing 
 the system, wherever it might appear, and whatever name it 
 might assume. If a writer should take up each part of our 
 federal constitution separately, and condenm it article by ar- 
 ticle, who would have the folly to assert that, after all he had 
 not expressly condemned the constitution? Who would say 
 that this thorough and entire disapproval of every part of 
 the instrument of confederation must pass for nothing, and is 
 no proof of the writers hostility to it because he has never 
 said in exactly so many words, ' I disapprove of the constitu- 
 tion of the United States?' We see that he could condemn 
 it most explicitly and thoroughly, without ever mentioning it 
 by name. 
 
 The above is an extract from a very able address of the 
 Presbyterian Synod of a slave-holding state. The whole ad- 
 dress is well worth a careful perusal — and it should put the 
 ministers and Christians of the free states to the blush of 
 shame! 
 
 The speaker next proceeded to show, that if slavery be a 
 sin^ as he contended it was, it ought of course to be immedi- 
 ately abandoned. The abolitionists meant by immediate 
 emancipation, the immediate cessation of the right assumed of 
 property in man. Not turning the slaves loose upon commu- 
 nity, to roam at large without law^ — but the placing them un- 
 der good and wholesome laws — they are not now known in 
 law except as goods and chattels — let them be emancipated 
 into law. 
 
 Immediate emancipation is not as some have supposed an 
 amalgamation of the whites and blacks — there is too much of 
 this already — we would prevent it — but should we cease to 
 lift up our voice against the most cruel oppression through a 
 fear, that should slavery be abolished, some white woman 
 might at some distant period happen to marry a black man, 
 no! no!! NO!!! 
 
( 40 ) 
 
 Immediate emancipation does not necessarily imply the m- 
 vestment of the slaves with equal political privileges with the 
 whites — though it is believed, that it would be difficult to 
 show why the color of a man's skin should deprive him of his 
 "civil or political rights — yet this is another question. 
 
 The slaves may be free in u. good sense, though not admit- 
 ied immediately to equal political right. In the state of Rhode 
 Island, though a man be worth a hundred thousand dollars, 
 yet if he does not possess real estate to the amount of one 
 hundred and fifty dollars, he is not admitted to the polls — and 
 yet we never supposed this a state of slavery. 
 
 The abolitionists, said Mr. S. in common with most of their 
 fellow citizens believe that our general government has the 
 power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and in 
 the territories — and that if slavery be sin it is a sin for which 
 every citizen of the United States is responsible! But Con- 
 gress will not abolish slavery till the people call for it — and 
 the people will not call for it, till they feel it to be wrong — 
 and they will not feel it to be wrong, till they investigate and 
 examine it. 
 
 Hence the propriety and necessity of discussion. 
 
 All right to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the slave 
 states belongs exclusively to the legislators of those states. 
 The general government has no authority to interfere with 
 the political relations of master and slave in the slave states. 
 The abolitionists would not countenance any resort, by 
 the slaves, to physicial force to obtain their freedom on any 
 account. They have been accused of trying to get up insur- 
 rections among the slaves, but it is FALSE! We do indeed 
 believe, that any citizen of the world has a right to oppose 
 any sin, whcreverer it may exist — even though it be legalized 
 by human laws. If therefore slavery be sin, it is not only 
 our privilege, but our solemn duty to oppose it. 
 
 We find it very convenient to apologize for the present 
 race of slave-holders by saying slavery was imposed upon us 
 when we were British colonies: but we are iinwilling to re- 
 ceive any aid from England in getting rid of it. "O yes* 
 It is a very delicate subject — and one with which foreigners 
 must not intermeddle!" 
 Brother S. proceeded: — 
 
 Slavery will never be abolished by peaceful measures till 
 the subject shall have been freely and fully discussed--and 
 that discussion as a matter of course, must commence in the 
 north. It cannot be discussed in the south; — we must there- 
 fore discuss it in the north, or not at all. But there are no 
 slaves in the north! True; but there are 26,000 in the D. C. 
 and in the territories.. 
 
( 41 ) 
 
 Mr. President, we think we can judge as correctly respect- 
 ing the character of slavery in the abstract^ as slave-holders 
 can. Nay; it is reasonable to suppose we should be less like- 
 ly to err than they — for we have no interest, at stake. It is 
 more difficult to judge correctly where interest is involved. 
 It is not a very easy matter to see through ^silver dollar! 
 
 Neither the rum-seller, or the drunkard is the best qualified 
 to judge of the sin of intemperance — nor are these the per- 
 sons to commence a temperance reformation! 
 
 As ministers and Christians we ought to oppose this "'cry- 
 ing evil.'" In it, our church, and our ministers are deeply in- 
 volved. The groanings of the prisoner call loudly for our 
 prayers and our exertions. It is a happy circumstance that 
 the leaders in this discussion are generally ministers of the 
 gospel — who in point of politics, have nothing to hope or fear. 
 And while we disclaim all intention to interfere with the pol- 
 itical relation of master and slave in the slave states, we will 
 not cease to preach against this greai evil because the laws of 
 the slave-holdig states sanction it, — nor because the power of 
 moral suasion may become so strong as to lead the people of 
 the north to elect such representatives to Congress as will 
 vote for the abolition of slavery in the I). C. and in the ter- 
 ritories. We mean to lift up our voice like a trum.pet — and 
 show the inhabitants of this land their sins! 
 
 We know it is an "exciting subject" — but we have yet to 
 learn, that a good cause should be abandoned because it pro- 
 duces excitement. 
 
 Moses and Aaron produced excitement in the court of 
 Pharaoh when they contended for the rights and liberties of 
 the Isrealites — when our fathers asserted their liberties, and 
 tiirew off the British yoke, it produced great excitement. 
 
 The reformation under Luther, was a very exciting subject . 
 When the seeds of Methodisin were first sown both in Eu- 
 rope and America, the whole community v/ere excited. The 
 temperance discussion has produced great excitement in va- 
 rious parts of our country — and every revival of religion ex- 
 cites and irritates the community more or less. We have 
 never dreamed that so great a change could take place in our 
 country as the abolition of slavery w^ithout great excitement. 
 When the "craft" of men is in danger, they will be excited. 
 "But if the North do not give up this discussion the Union 
 will be divided." Who will divide it? The North will not 
 do this — and what have the South to gain by it? [If the 
 South divide the Union, they loose at that moment all north- 
 ern support in case of insurrection — their safety now con- 
 sists in their union with the North. Let the South divide the 
 Union and make a war upon the North — they must support 
 it either with white or colored soldiers. If thev march their 
 4* ^ 
 
(42) 
 
 white men against the North who will take care of their wo- 
 men and children left in the hands of the slaves at home? If 
 they arm their slaves and march them out to fight the aboli- 
 tionists, who will guarantee their master's cause? If the Uni- 
 on is divided, will the line of divission be impassible! Will 
 not the servant be free from his master the moment he step& 
 across the line? Can the divission of the Union keep anti-sla- 
 very publications out of the South? And the moment the Uni- 
 on is divided will not the entire North, both church and state^ 
 be abolitionists to a man? Is it not the union of the states, and 
 of the church, which keeps up a spirit of slavery in the North, 
 and will the South sever that cord which binds to them their 
 northern apologists ? No, sir, never; unless they wish to hasten 
 emancipation. They may threaten^ as they have ever been in 
 the habit of doing, but that will be all. They can never be so 
 blind to their own interests as to divide the Union for the 
 sake of destroying abolitionists? This word only adds new 
 fury to the "unhallowed tlame," as the brother from Balti- 
 more calls it.] But Mr. President, if abolitionism is constitu- 
 tional^ what pretext is there to be ibr a divission of the Union? 
 I take the ground, sir, that we are protected by the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States. Let us look at this subject for a 
 moment. And 1. The Constitution recognizes the existence 
 of slavery. 2. It permits continuance. 3. It secures ser- 
 vants to their masters wherever they are found, if demanded* 
 But 4. It does not enjoin slavery as a duty. 5. It does not 
 prohibit emancipation. And lastly, It gurantees the freedom 
 of speech, and of the press, and the right of petition. Will 
 tb.e South divide the Union because we in the North are pur- 
 suing a constitutional course? 
 
 But it is said that this abolition discussion is not conducive 
 to the peace of the church? Suppose this were admitted; are 
 there no interests to be consulted beside to peace of the 
 church? It may not, perhaps, be always best, that the 
 church be at peace. There may be " ease in Zion, " con- 
 nected with a "wedge of gold and a Babylonish garment.''' 
 The Methodist Episcopal Church has an unholy alliance 
 with slavery — she ought not, therefore, to give herself any 
 peace till she cleanses the skirts of her garment from "blood 
 guiltiness"! Shall the dearest interests o^ ujidying millions 
 be sacrificed upon the altar of the peace of the church? But 
 the church will be divided. And what will divide it? The 
 church is built upon a rock — and the gates of hell shall 
 not prevail against it. If therefore, abolition is from hencathy 
 tlie church is safe — for the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against it. And if abolition is from above, (of which I have 
 no more doubt than of the truths of Christianity,) it will never 
 harm the Church, All future consequences to the Union and 
 
( 43 ) 
 
 the Church, are, at best, imaginary^ They may be realized, 
 and they may not. Shall we then suffer imaginary conse, 
 quences to determine our duty, when we have a more unerring 
 rule? Had we always acted on this principle; where would 
 the temperance reformation and many other important enter- 
 prises always have been? Imaginary consequences are a 
 new standard of duty for a body of Christian ministers, and 
 very unbecoming in the nineteenth century. 
 
 I come now, Mr. President, to notice a few things which 
 were stated on the floor of this Conference yesterday, and 
 then I have done. An aged and venerable brodrer from Bal- 
 timore, called the abolition excitement an "unhallowed flame" 
 — and this expreiision he has several times repeated on this 
 floor. Now, sir, this sama unhallowed flame has burnt off the 
 chains from 600,000 goods and chattels in the West India 
 islands, and elevated them to the rank of human beings! Abo- 
 litionism is one in all parts of the world. We are not trying 
 an experiment — we are walking in a beaten track. Our prin- 
 ciples have been fully tested and we have no fears as to the 
 final results. The day of our national jubilee may linger, 
 but it will come at last — a?id it cannot tarry long! Had it 
 not been for the abolitionists, the 600,000 colored freemen in 
 the West Idia islands, had still been goods and chattels! And 
 do you ask what the abolitionists have done? Let the 600,- 
 000 goods and chattels metamorphosed into peaceable, indus- 
 trious a.nd happy iVeemen answer the question! Let a ship 
 load oi fifty-nine tons of Bibles testify to the good effects of 
 emancipation! Through the influence of this "unhallowed 
 flame" some scores of slaves have been set at liberty in this 
 country. A gentleman in this city has emancipated his slaves, 
 through the influence of abolition doctrines. The fires of 
 abolition are now burning deep and wide — the leaven of 
 liberty is now working through the whole lump — and the axe 
 is laid at the root of the tree — the whole country is awake, 
 and the day of our redemption is at hand! 
 
 The impropriety of attempting to brave public opinion has 
 been suggested on this floor. But, sir, if public opinion is 
 wrong it ought to be braved? Shall truth and righteousness 
 succumb to public opinion without stopping to inquire whether 
 that public opinion is right or wrong? If public opinion is 
 wrong, let it be set right — and in order to this, let if be braved 
 by a firm adherence to right principles! However few in 
 number the advocates of truth may be, let them not swerve 
 the breadth of a hair from right principles! Let there be no 
 compromise between truth and error. 
 
 Public opinion was against Daniel, when he was command- 
 ed not to pray for thirty days, but he braved it — and in defi- 
 ance of the king's decree, continued to pray with his win- 
 
( 44 ) 
 
 dows open towards Jerusalem. Public opinion was against 
 the three Hebrews, when they refused to worship the "golden 
 image," and to obey laws which infringed upon the rights ol' 
 conscience. They braved public opinion, and stood it out 
 against the stern decree of the king! Did they do right? 
 The apostles braved public opinion in every place where they 
 planted the standard of the cross. Martin Luther and his 
 followers did the same at the risk of their lives! John Wes- 
 ley and his coadjutors in England, braved public opinion. 
 When Mr. Wesley was expelled from the churches, he 
 preached in grave-yards, public markets, and open fields I 
 And though public opinion commanded Mr. Wesley to desist 
 through the medium of mobs — still he stood it out! Shame 
 on his compromismg sons! The Methodists in all parts of 
 the United States have braved, and finally to a considerable 
 extent, changed public opinion. Every man's hand has been 
 iigainst us and yet we have stood firm. But now comes up 
 the new doctrine of compromise! ! Let it be banished from 
 the breast of every patriot, philanthropist and Christian. — 
 The advocates of temperance, have braved and changed pub- 
 lic opinion. The same may be said of Wilberforce, and the 
 English abolitionists. And with all these examples before 
 us, shall we succumb to an unholy public opinion, founded in 
 the love of gain? Shall we turn our backs upon the cause 
 of suffering humanity because public opinion frowns upon 
 U3? No! Never!! 
 
 Mr. President, Rev. J. A. Collins has told us that he came 
 up here flush with the expectation, "that the brethren from 
 the North would put their foot on abolitionism and crush it. '' 
 And have we yet to learn, sir, that free discussion is not to 
 be put dovv^n in this way? When you can put your foot on 
 one of the burning mountains and smother its fires — when you 
 can roll back the current of the thundering falls of the Ni- 
 agara — or stop the sun in its course, you may then begin to 
 think about " crushing abolitionism " ! Sir^ the die is casf — the 
 days of the captivity of our country are miynhered! Their 
 
 REDEMPTION 13 WRITTEN IN HEAVEN !! 
 
 Ant) action which this conference may take on this subject 
 — will give to abolitionism both strength and stability. It 
 cannot be voted down, — it cannot be persecuted down — it 
 has braved public opinion and mob-law too long to think of 
 yielding now to votes of censure. Any resolutions you may 
 pass, for or against abolitionism, will bring it into notice, and 
 set it on a higher and firmer foundation — The resolutions of 
 this Conference may retard the emancipation of the slaves, 
 but they cannot check abolition. If you would not contri- 
 bute to the permanency and spread of abolitionism, you had 
 better practice on the suggestion of the brother from Ohio,. 
 
(45 ) 
 
 (Rev. D. Young,) and "not touch it with your tongs." 
 This he tells us, has been his course. But let it be remem- 
 bered that these are the men who are to sit as our judges — 
 men who, in point of examination, and a knowledge of what 
 they condemn, have not so much as touched it with their 
 tongs — and yet they are prepared to express their "unqualifi- 
 ed" disapprobation of that of which they acknowledged 
 their entire ignorance ! O, how strangely have we departed 
 from the foot-steps of our fathers! 
 
 Several of the speakers yesterday alluded to mobs — and 
 expressed their fears for the personal safety of the two breth- 
 ren who attended the abolition meeting last Tuesday — but 
 not a word fell from their lips in condemnation of mobs! No! 
 Not a syllahleU Sir, we are assured by the citizens of this 
 place, that there will be no mob, unless the General Confer- 
 ence get it up! I hope for the honor of the Conference, that 
 we shall hear no more suggestions of this kind. Such sug- 
 gestions, through the press and otherwise, have been the 
 means of getting up the mobs which have so recently disgrac- 
 ed various parts of our country. 
 
 You have also been told, that one of our bishops, was, last 
 year, almost driven from the chair, that the Conference might 
 be turned into an abolition meeting. This, sir, is a very great 
 mistake. The facts in the case are these. The N. H. Con- 
 ference at its last session appointed a committee on slavery — 
 that committee reported — a motion was made to adopt the re- 
 port — and the Bishop refused to put the motion, stating as his 
 reason, that he did not think the adoption of the report would 
 tend to the peace of the church. A motion was then made 
 to go into a committee of the whole^the Bishop after a mo- 
 ments reflection said, that it would be in order for the Con- 
 ference to do so. The Conference then went into a commit- 
 tee of the whole, and adopted the report by a vote of 59 to 8 
 — the Bishop leaving the chair, and calling another brother to 
 take it. So much for driving the Bishop from the chair, and 
 turning the Conference into an abolition meeting! 
 
 Brother Scott made a few additional remarks and took his 
 seat, having occupied about two hours in his speech. The* 
 moment he finished, as you well know, some half a dozen rose 
 to reply — the floor was however obtained first by Rev. T. 
 Crowder, of Virginia. And now dear brethren, I wish to call 
 your attention to an examination of some of the principal ar- 
 guments which were adduced by brother Crowder, and other 
 speakers on the same side. These arguments you well recol- 
 lect were not replied to on the floor of the General Confer- 
 ence. The abolitionists occupied less than one third of the 
 time which was consumed in the discussion — and the small 
 portion of time which they did occupy seemed to give pain tp 
 
(46 ) 
 
 a majority of the Conference. They did not therefore, think 
 it best to insist on replying to the speaker who followed brother 
 Scott. I am however unwilling that their arguments, (if 
 arguments they may be called) should pass unnoticed, and 
 therefore embrace this method of addressing you. 
 
 Brother CROwnER commenced his speech with an attempt 
 to defend slavery from the Bible. When will Christian minis- 
 ters cease to press mto the service of slavery and sin, the 
 Holy Scriptures? Before slave-holders and their apologists 
 were so hard pressed by the abolitionists, it was generally 
 admitted in all parts of the country, that slavery was wrong 
 — but then it was thought there was no remedy. But since 
 the great act of justice of the memorable first of August, 1834, 
 was consummated — and it has been fully demonstrated, that it 
 is safe to do right — slavery has at last taken refuge in the 
 Bible! Yes; in the nineteenth century. Christian ministers 
 in the midst of a Christian land, gravely attempt to make it 
 appear that there is no moral icrong in holding and treating 
 the human species as property — in exchanging them for sheep 
 and cattle — in withholding from them the Bible, and the 
 knowledge of letters — in breaking up and separating families 
 — and in all the other evils which the right of property im- 
 plies. But from this retreat slavery will soon be cut off — its 
 Bible advocates cannot long maintain their ground. — There 
 is too much light and religious feeling in the community to 
 admit the possibility that the contest between slavery and the 
 inspired writers can long remain undecided. The triumph of 
 truth is certain — and it is near. 
 
 Brother Crowder is a stranger to me, and there is in his 
 appearance something so meek and Christian-like, that I could 
 scarcely believe my own eyes w^hen I saw him stand up and 
 attempt to justify slavery from the Bible! But when I re- 
 flect, that ministers of the gospel used to drink rum, and think 
 it right to do so, I cannot consent to unchristianize all slave- 
 holders, though I firmly believe their conduct irreconcilable 
 with the principles of the gospel. — Christian ministers once 
 justified the foreign slave-trade, and the Constitution of the 
 ' United States directly licensed that traffic in human flesh for 
 the space of twenty years! All civilized nations now pro- 
 nounce that trade no better than piracy. And the time is 
 not distant, when the internal slave-trade will be viewed in 
 the same light — and when slavery will not find an apologist 
 professing the Christian name. To brother Crowder, I am 
 willing to award a spirit of candor and fairness. I wish I 
 could say as much of all the speakers on the same side. 
 
 For an answer to brother Crowder's Bible arguments i 
 would refer you to brother Scott's extract from the Syn)od of 
 Kentucky, which I consider a full answer to him on that 
 
{ 47 ) 
 
 point. As however this view of the subject is at the present 
 time, of great importance, I will add a few other considera- 
 tions. We admit that 
 
 "The Hebrews held some in servitude for a limited period, 
 by the special per-mission and direction of God; and this per- 
 mission was given on the very same ground, that a Hebrew 
 was permitted to kill a man who had murdered his friend. 
 (Num. XXXV. 19;) and he might do this without the process of 
 a trial. And upon the same ground, the Jews were per- 
 mitted to commence and carry on exterminating wars against 
 thei dolatrous nations aroimd them. Hence, we suppose, that 
 it is as really wrong ibr any man in this age of the world, to 
 take away the liberty of his innocent neighbor, or to withhold 
 it from him in any way, without an express permission from 
 God, as it would be for one to kill the murderer of his friend 
 now, without the forms of law. 
 
 Two thirds of all the servants in Israel were free at the 
 end of six years; and the fiftieth year all were set free. 
 There was no such thing as hereditory servitude among the 
 Jews. 
 
 But American slavery is perpetual, to the very las^t moment 
 of the slave's earthly existence, and by law it is entailed up- 
 on all of his descendants to the latest posterity. 
 
 Jewish servitude was voluntary, except in those cases 
 where it was the penalty annexed to crime. 
 
 But American slavery is involuntary. No one who is now 
 a slave in this land, was ever consulted, before his liberty was 
 taken away, whether he would be a slave or not; and if he 
 had been, he could not have given his master a just and pro- 
 per title to his body as his property. 
 
 Under the Mosaic economy, servants might contend with 
 their masters about their rights; and to despise the cause of 
 such was considered a, heinous crime. (See Job xxxi 13.) 
 
 But here, in this land of christians, slaves can make no 
 contracts of any kind, they can have no legal right to any 
 property; all they have and are belongs to their masters. 
 
 The laws of Moses granted freedom to a servant who had 
 been cruelly treated. (See Ex. xxii. 26, 27.) 
 
 But our Christian laws allowed the master to punish his 
 slave, as much as he desires, and afford the slave no redress; 
 nay, if the slave makes any resistance, the laws expressly 
 justify the master in putting him to death. In Kentucky, 
 "any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free," who " shall at 
 any time " even lift his hand in opposition to ant white person^ 
 shall receive thirty lashes on his or her bare back^ well 
 LAID ON, by order of the Justice. " 
 
 ►Servants were carefully protected among the Jews, in their 
 domestic relations; so that husbands and wives, parents and 
 
(48) 
 their children must not be sparated. And in case the mother 
 did not get her freedom as soon as her husband, the children 
 remained with her; and her master was bound to receive him to 
 service again, in case he choose to live with his wile and chil- 
 dren. 
 
 But here, slaves are entirely unprotected in their social and 
 domestic relations; husbands and wives, parents and their 
 children may be, and they are separated and parted forever, 
 at the irresponsible will of the master. 
 
 The laws of Moses secured to servants the necessary means 
 of instruction and consolation. 
 
 But no such laws exist in this land; here the operations of 
 the laws, tends directly to deprive the slaves of all "mental" 
 and religious "instruction" for their whole power is exerted 
 to keep their slaves in the lowest kind of ignorance. 
 
 The laws of Moses require every one to pity and love the 
 stranger who might chance to come among the Jews, and un- 
 der severe penalties they were forbiden to vex or oppress 
 them m any way. 
 
 Here the laws view every colored stranger as an enemy, 
 and they consider him a slave until he proves his freedom. 
 
 If a servant escaped from his master and fled to the land 
 of Israel, the law of Moses commanded every one to protect 
 him; and forbade any one to deliver such to his master again. 
 But here, if a slave escape from his master, and flee to any 
 part of the United States, the law forbids any one to protect 
 him, and commands that he be delivered up to his master. 
 
 The Mosaic law forbade man-stealing as the highest kind of 
 theft, and condemned the perpetrator to suffer death as the 
 penalty. 
 
 But here thousands of legally free people of color have 
 been stolen, and sold into hopeless and involuntary servitude, 
 as many are now every year, in this nation; and there is no 
 law by which they can redress their wrongs." 
 
 Before American slavery can be justified from the fact that 
 the Jews held servants, it must be proved, 1. That we have 
 the same Divine authority that they had — the same express 
 permission. And 2. It must be shown, that our slavery is 
 like their servitude — neither of wliich can be done. There 
 has been slaves in this country about two centuries — and 
 when have they ever had a year of Jubilee or general release? 
 Four times fifty years have rolled away and found them still 
 in bonds. 
 
 We have heard it argued from high authority, since we 
 have been in this city, not indeed on the floor of the general 
 Conference, but elsewhere, that though slavery is contrary to 
 the original rights of man, yet is not forbidden in the moral 
 law. It was admitted to be contrary to the principles of the 
 
(49) 
 
 Gospel — and it was asserted that when those principles should 
 be fully carried out, slavery would be done away. It was 
 said that the moral law was designed not to restore the fal- 
 len, but to govern the innocent. Let this be admitted. Does 
 it hence follow that innocent and holy beings are at liberty 
 to enslave each other, that there is nothing in the moral prin- 
 ciples by which they are governed to prohibit them from 
 robbing each other of their original rights? Let us try to as- 
 certain in the first place, what is expressly forbidden in the 
 moral law. Secondly, is there nothing contrary to the prin- 
 ciples of the moral law, which nevertheless, is not expressly 
 forbidden. Thirdly, if slavery be contrary to the principles 
 of Gospel^ wherein do those principles differ from the princi- 
 ples of the moral law? But, fourthly, the principles of the 
 moral law are not only still binding upon us, but we are em- 
 phatically under the Gospel. If, therefore, slavery be con- 
 trary either to the principles of the law or the Gospel, it is 
 SIN ! And if it be not contrary to the principles of either, 
 how is the dissemination of the Gospel, and the carrying out 
 of its principles to do it away? Suppose it should be said, 
 that drunkenness is not expressly forbidden in the moral law 
 — and yet that it is contrary to the spirit of the Gospel — and 
 when the principles of the Gospel are fully carried out, 
 drunkenness will be done away — go on preaching the Gospel, 
 and let drunkenness alone. By preaching against intemper- 
 ance particularly^ you interfere with the rights of property. 
 Many of our citizens have invested large amounts in manu- 
 facturing and vending distilled liquors. And besides it is a 
 very "delicate and exciting" subject. Lecturing upon the 
 subject will only have a tendency to irritate feelings, and 
 make the matter worse. The principles of the Gospel when 
 fully carried out, will gradually undermine and destroy the 
 evil. We ought not to have any temperance or peace socie- 
 ties, or any lectures on tliose subjects, jbecause drunkenness 
 and war, are not expressly forbidden in the moral law, and 
 the principles of the Gospel, when fully carried out, will do 
 them away. The same Icind of reasoning may be applied to 
 many other evils, but this is a mere play upon words, it is ma- 
 king nice distinctions where none exist. 
 
 Brother Crowder, told us that there was a difference be- 
 tween this country and England. Tme; but vvhat of that? 
 Slavery is slavery wherever it exists. Human rights are the 
 same every where. Emancipation means the same thing in 
 all parts of the world. The means through which slavery 
 was abolished there, are the very same we are now pursuing 
 here. The British government had the power to abolish sla- 
 very in the West India Islands — and our government has the 
 power to abolish it in the District of Columbia and the terri- 
 6 
 
( 50 ) 
 
 tories. The British Parliament did not abolish slavery till 
 the people pretty generally through the kingdom called for it, 
 and the people did not call for it, till the subject had been thor- 
 oughly discussed, and anti-slavery societies had been formed 
 in all parts of the empire. And had it not been for incendiaries 
 and fanatics, the English people had still been asleep. Slavery 
 will be abolished in all those parts of our country where the 
 general government has jurisdiction, as soon as public senti- 
 ment becomes sufficiently enlightened and united. And when 
 the example is set by the nation, the states will not long hold 
 out. But be this as it may, slavery in the District of Columbia 
 and the territories is of sufficient importance to justify all the 
 exertions which the abolitionists have made, and much more — 
 and we should all be of the same opinion, if our wives and 
 our children were among the slaves. I observed that brother 
 Crowder and the toher speakers on that side, found it very 
 easy and convenient to pass over the question of slavery, so 
 far as it exists under the jurisdiction of the General Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Another objection which brother C. made against abolition- 
 ism was, that it was opposed to colonizationism. Abolition- 
 ists have no objections to any colored persons going to Africa 
 who choose to go — and they would be glad to have the colo- 
 ny at Liberia pi'osper. And yet they are opposed to coloniza- 
 tionism, for the following reasons among others. 1. Coloni- 
 zation goes on the supposition that the colored man has no 
 right to this country. 2. It asserts that they cannot be ele- 
 vated here. 3. It slanders the free people of color, and fos- 
 ters an unholy prejudice against them. 4. It opposes emanci- 
 pation^ unless it be connected with exjmtriation. 5. In the 
 south it commends itself to the interest of the slave-holder, 
 and in the north it professes to be a gradual remedy for sla- 
 very — and yet it disclaims all connection with slavery. 6. 
 It is an anti-abolition institution — it persecutes and condemns 
 the abolitionists. 7. It does expressly justify slavery. 8. 
 Though it professes to colonize the free people of color with 
 their own consent, yet it opens a wide door for coercion — and 
 many who have been transported, have been actually coerced 
 away. All these, and many other points, equally objectiona- 
 ble, shall be proved on the General Conference floor, if desir- 
 ed, by extracts from the African Repository, and from the pub- 
 lic addresses of the agents and officers of the society. Is it 
 strange then, that abolitionists should have their objections to 
 this society? 
 
 The speaker then stated, that the New England states were 
 once engaged in the slave trade, and that many in the New 
 England states made themselves rich by this traffic. Suppose 
 we admit all this, yet, what does that prove about the right or 
 
( 51 ) 
 
 wrong of slavery — or the justice or injustice of immediate 
 emancipation? Can the south be justified in continuing to do 
 wrong, because the north were once wicked? 
 
 Brother Crowder next affirmed that abolitionism was a vio- 
 lation of the compact. Here we are at issue. The same 
 statement has been often made, but never proved. The 
 terms of the compact contained no provision that the subject 
 of slavery should not be discussed in any part of the Union, 
 or that Congress should never abolish slavery where the Gen- 
 eral Government has jurisdiction. Suppose the laws of Mas- 
 sachusetts sanctioned gambling in all its forms, and suppose 
 also that the laws of the District of Columbia sanctioned it; 
 we never could have dreamed that South Carolina had violat- 
 ed the terms of the compact,jby lecturing against gambling, 
 forming anti-gambling societies, and petitioning Congress to 
 abolish gambling in the District of Columbia! And yet ac- 
 cording ^o the southern doctrine, this would be an interfer- 
 ence with our civil institutions. 
 
 Brother C. reminded us that according to the apostles doc- 
 trine, we ought to be subject to "the powers that be" — but 
 he forgot to mention the example of apostles when "the pow- 
 ers that be " contravened the powers that were from above. 
 In such a case they did not hesitate. "Whether it be right 
 in the sight of God, to hearken unto you, more than unto 
 "God, judge ye." 
 
 Brother C. stated that he had two slaves — was not cruel to 
 them — they were well fed and clothed, they love us, and they 
 wept when I left home to come to this Conference. 1 believe 
 this is all true. I do not think brother C. would hurt any bo- 
 dy. There are undoubtedly many others who treat their 
 slaves with considrable kindness. We have never pretend- 
 ed that all the slaves were cruelly treated, though there is 
 not probably one such case as brother C's., in a thousand. 
 With a few exceptions,, the slaves are cruelly treated. 
 Brother C. admitted that there were some instances of cruel 
 treatment. He was too honest to cover up that tact. But 
 slavery in its mildest form is slavery. And what an incalcu- 
 lable amount of injury does the example of such a good man 
 as brother C. do to the cause of human rights. "If such a 
 good man as brother Crowder, holds slaves, it cannot be 
 wrong"- and thus his example will be imitated as a slave-hol- 
 der^ but not as a benevolent man. It is of little consequence 
 to us, whether the man who robs us of our money, be polite 
 and complaisant or otherwise. Robbery is robbery, and sla- 
 very is slavery. 
 
 Rev. W. Wynans stated that slavery was a divine institu- 
 tion — and must cf course be right. God, said he, has institu- 
 ted perpetual, hereditary slavery — and therefore it is right 
 s 
 
( 52) 
 
 under all circumstance. If circumstances ever did exist suffi- 
 cient to justify slavery aside from revelation, then American 
 slavery might be justified. But, 1. I deny that God ever did 
 institute perpetual hereditary slavery. 2. I deny that there 
 is any Scripture authority for American slavery. Or, indeed,, 
 tor any other slavery at the present time. 3. I deny that 
 there are any circumstances in our country which can justify 
 slavery. 
 
 And if Mr. Wesley is right, then every slave-holder is a 
 man-stealer. He says it is "impossible that any child of man 
 should ever be born a slave.''"' Now there are 60,000 chil- 
 dren born of i'emale slaves yearly — and if they are in the sight 
 of God, as Mr. Wesley has said, born free — then there are 
 so many children stolen yearly in our country, and reduced 
 to slavery. 
 
 Brother Wynans next stated, that the abolitionists were 
 shutting the door of the Gospel against the slaves — that their 
 movements made the planters very jealous, that in one or 
 two instances missionaries had been turned away — and final- 
 ly, he thought the movements of the abolitionists were injur- 
 ing the slave. Now if it were true, that the discussion of this 
 great doctrine of human rights stirs up in some few instances 
 the bad passions of men to increase oppression, yet this fact 
 alone is not sufficient proof that the cause should be abandon- 
 ed. This reasoning would have defeated the deliverance of 
 the children of Israel from Egyptian bondage — and our fath- 
 ers from the British yoke. The present generation of slaves 
 are not alone concerned, and especially the few who may be 
 more severely treated, in consequence of the movements of 
 the present day. It is a question connected with the dearest 
 interests of millions now on the stage, and of generations to 
 come. I am fully of the opinion, that there are more instan- 
 ces where the slaves are treated better in consequence of the 
 abolition movements, than there are where they are treated 
 worse. A slave holder was asked not long since in the city 
 of New York, whether the abolition movements were operat- 
 ing unfavorably upon the treatment of the slaves? He said 
 "no! W^e are obliged to treat them better; for now every 
 eye and ear is open — we are more narrowly watched than we 
 used to be." But I will not insist that they are better treat- 
 ed, neither do I believe, that in general, they were worse 
 treated. But admitting that all the objections which have 
 been urged to abolition are true, still the great question, to be 
 decided, is, whether slavery be sin or not. If it be sin, the 
 path of duty before every Christian is plain. The promulga- 
 tion of the doctrines of the reformation were connected with 
 the shedding of blood; but had Luther been influenced by 
 the modern doctrine of expediency, where should we have 
 
( 53 ) 
 
 been? Had the sig7iers and defenders of the declaration of 
 Independence been under the influence of this principle of 
 expediency^ where would our liberties have now been. 
 
 I fear we have nearly lost sight of slavery, except as it ex- 
 ists in the Methodist Episcopal Church! And it appears to 
 me, that we are almost ready to sacrifice the rights and liber- 
 ties of millions of human beings, to a few local circumstances 
 connected with some of our own missions to the slaves! Do 
 we not limit our views of this great evil to our own church? 
 Let us lift up our eyes and look on the fields which were once 
 dyed with the blood of liberty, but now covered with tyran- 
 ny and oppression! 
 
 Brother Wynans proceeded: — 
 
 Abolitionism is an incendiary flame. It is insurrectionary 
 — and in the carrying out of these measures we in the south 
 can see through murdered wives and children, and burning 
 houses, &c. If this were not a serious matter, it would be not 
 a little amusing to reflect, that at this late period, ministers of 
 the gospel will indulge in such flights of imagination, on such 
 subjects! 
 
 If there never had been any slaves emancipated, or if such 
 effects had ever followed emancipation, these representations 
 would not appear so utterly groundless. But slaves have 
 been emancipated by hundreds of thousands, at different 
 times, and in different places. And where have murdered 
 wives and children, and burning houses ever followed? It is 
 now too late in the day to produce much effect by such repre- 
 sentations. There are too many facts in existence upon this 
 subject. The experiment has been often tried — and it has 
 never failed — no not in a single instance. Reason and philo- 
 sophy agree with facts. Oppression, not emancipation, will 
 produce insurrections. The slave longs for freedom — and 
 will he kill his master for bestowing upon him that which he 
 ardently desires? Never! I know some have supposed that 
 the emancipation in St. Domingo was followed by murdered 
 families and burning houses! but this is a very great mistake. 
 There were in the French part of the Island of St. Domingo 
 600,000 slaves suddenly emancipated in the year 1793. It 
 was a time of civil war — the arrival of a British armament 
 was daily expected. The emancipation of the slaves was the 
 only alternative — the only possible way of saving the island 
 — and this a very doubtful exp eriment at best. But it 
 worked well. The slnves joined with the whites, in oppos- 
 ing the common enemy. No white inhabitant of the Island 
 was injured, unless he had first put himself in the attitude of 
 a political enemy, by siding with the British. Not a wife, nor 
 a child was murdered, nor a building burned. The emanci- 
 pated slaves remained quiet and were industrious till Bona- 
 5* 
 
( 54) 
 
 parte in 1 802 through one of his generals, attempted to re- 
 establish slavery in the Island. It was then, that those who 
 had been free and happy for nine years, resisted unto blood. 
 Thus it will be seen that it was slavery, and not emancipa- 
 tion which gave rise to the bloody scenes of St. Domingo. 
 
 But let it be remembered, 1. That there were about 42,000 
 whites — 44,000 free colored people — and 600,000 slaves in the 
 Island. — 2. Slavery was abolished under the most unfavora- 
 ble outward circumstances; a time of civil war. What an 
 excellent opportunity this, for the slaves to have butchered 
 their masters — especially as they were so much more numer- 
 ous than the whites. — 3, Those slaves wese emancipated sud- 
 denly, without a moment's warning, or any kind of jjrepara- 
 tion. And yet the experiment way perfectly safe. 
 
 Br. Wyman's cry of murdered wives and children, and bur- 
 ning houses, is not new. The West India planters, and their 
 apologists, throughout the kingdom of Great Britain, when the 
 subject of abolition was first agitated in the British Parlia- 
 ment, raised this same bloody cry, lovg and loud; and they 
 continued it from year to year. "Our throats will be cut, and 
 our buildings will be burned." So they said, and so many be- 
 lieved. But what has been the result. Let the Antigua news- 
 paper, together with an eye and ear witness answer the ques- 
 tion. The above named paper of the 7th of August, 1 834, 
 speaks thus: — 
 
 " The great doubt is solved — the alarming prognostications 
 of the advocates of slavery falsified — the highest hopes of 
 the negroe's friends fulfilled, and their pledge honorably re- 
 deemed. A whole people, comprising 30,000 souls, have pas- 
 sed from slavery into freedom, not only without the slightest 
 irregularity, but with the solemn and decorous tranquility of 
 the Sabbath. A week has nearly elapsed, and although all 
 eyes and ears are open, and reports spread rapidly, we have 
 not heard of a single act of insolence, insubordination or vio- 
 lence committed by any one of them, under fiilse and licen- 
 tious notions of freedom." 
 
 From the same paper, of the 15th August: "It is with the 
 highest satisfaction we announce, that we know of, and be- 
 lieve that there is no gang of laborers in the island, which has 
 not returned to its accustomed employment,'''' 
 
 So that two weeks after the slaves were "let loose," in- 
 stead of begging and stealing, they were all quietly at work. 
 
 We quote from the same paper of the 21st August: 
 
 "The third week of freedom will close with this day, and 
 again we are bound to express our gratitude and praise to the 
 Divine goodness, for the perfect peace and tranquility which 
 the island enjoys. Not the least symptom of insubordination 
 has manifested itself any where; and the daily accounts from 
 
( 55) 
 
 all quarters testify to the excellent disposition and conduct of 
 the new freemen." 
 
 In a letter from Antigua, dated 30th August, and published 
 in a Norfolk paper, we Hnd the following: 
 
 "The operations of Commerce have experienced no inter- 
 ruption; public confidence remains unshaken. Two sugar 
 plantations have recently leased for as much as they were 
 worth, with the negroes included, prior to emancipation." 
 
 From the Few-York Evangelist. 
 
 FACTS! FACTS!! FACTS!!! 
 
 WEST INDIA EMANCIPATION. 
 
 Authentic and recent news from Earbadoes. 
 
 A few days since, we had the pleasure of a call from an old 
 and respected acquaintance, formerly a respectable attorney 
 in Vermont, now a merchant in the island of Barbadoes, where 
 he has resided most of the time since September, 1834. His 
 character as a Christian and a man of observation, renders his 
 remarks and statements, worthy of entire confidence. We 
 took some notes of his conversation, during the hour he had 
 to spare to us, between the time of his arrival here, and his 
 departure to visit his family, after so long a seperation; and 
 from these notes we have prepared the following sketch, every 
 particular of which corresponds, we believe, with the state- 
 ments he made. 
 
 The Island of Barbadoes is one of the most populous portions 
 of the earth. The inhabitents are reckoned to be at least 
 120,000 on an Island not more than twenty-one miles long, 
 and twelve broad at the extremity. Of these, it is estimated 
 that 80,000 were slaves, before the abolition act took effect, 
 August 1, 1834; and 20,000,^-66 people of color. The colo- 
 nial legeslature of Barbadoes did not fully emancipate their 
 slaves, as was done in Bermuda and Antigua, but adopted the 
 apprenticeship system with all its absurdities and injustice to 
 the emancipated slaves. This system of apprenticeship had 
 been in operation nearly a year and a half, when our infor- 
 mant left the Island. Many of the masters are now volunta- 
 rily emancipating their apprentices, and such is the progress of 
 this, that it is probable nearly all will be made wholly free 
 before the expiration of the legal apprenticeship. Intelligent 
 men now generally admit that it would have been better for 
 the Island if the emancipation had been immediate and uncon- 
 ditional at first. 
 
 As to the effects of emancipation upon the public safety, 
 
( 56 ) 
 
 they now laugh at the idea of fear. They are talking of re 
 ducing their military force. Ask them if they are not afraid 
 the blacks will rise and cut their master's throats, they re- 
 ply, "What should they do that for, when they have got all 
 they wanted?" The free blacks are organized into militia 
 
 Many who opposed the abolition of slavery, step by step to 
 the last, are now in favour of it. They say it has been a good 
 thing for the Island. All their fears in regard to evil conse- 
 quences have been disappointed. 
 
 The capitol, Bridgetown, is very populous, the inhabitants 
 from 10 to 12,000, but our informant had never known suffi- 
 cient disturbance to occasion a person to walk forty rods to 
 see it. There is vice enough, to be sure, but no combination 
 of the vicious to disturb the public peace. He could lie down 
 to sleep there, out of doors, as quietly as in any place in New 
 England. 
 
 There is no general complaint of the want of labor. The 
 crops are got in as usual. The blacks will work for pay on 
 their own day, and extra hours, as readily and as much, as 
 ignorant and depraved white people would, when paid for it. 
 They act just as other people would do in similar circum- 
 stances. It is a common remark, that a negro goes on an er- 
 rand quicker and loiters less, now he his paid, than when he 
 was a slave. 
 
 As to the fear that abolishing slavery will lead to amalga- 
 mation, our friend avers that it operates precisely the other 
 way, to separate the two races. Amalgamation has had its 
 full run there, under the reign of slavery. You may go into 
 a church now, and see 250 persons at a time, of whom you 
 cannot detennine confidently whether they are white or co- 
 lored. It has been a common thing there for white men to 
 keep colored women. Even married men did it. Every 
 body says this is becoming now far less common, and the co- 
 lored women who used to be kept as concubines of white 
 men, are now getting colored husbands. It takes the min- 
 ister in the cathedral at Bridgetown, a quarter of an hour to 
 publish the bans of marriage. 
 
 The effect of abolition on the financial condition of the coun- 
 try is quite remarkable. Our informant says that real estate 
 is rising, for the last six months has risen rapidly, in many in- 
 stances has risen one third in a year. If persons had bought 
 real estate two years ago, great fortunes might have been 
 made. The consumption of dry goods has also wondefully in- 
 creased, and dealers in dry goods are making fortunes. The 
 negroes now dress like other people. Some years ago, if a 
 colored woman had been seen in the streets wearing a straw 
 bonnet, it would have been almost a signal for a mob, now 
 they dress as well as any people of their standing. The im- 
 
( 57) 
 
 ports generally are doubled. A very great increase has ta- 
 ken place in the importation of American productions. The 
 blacks begin to live like human beings. The importations 
 were never so great as the last year. 
 
 Tlie change of feeling on the subject of abolition is en- 
 tire. Our friend was surprised on his first arrival to hear the 
 subject so freely spoken of, immediately alter the act took ef- 
 ect. He supposed he should have to talk carefully and in 
 whispers, as at the south. The papers are begining to publish 
 in favour of the act. While it was talked of, the people and 
 the papers were violent and furious against it. After the 1st 
 of August, seeing no disturbance, they began to congratulate 
 each other. Now they are coming round entierly, and al- 
 ready begin to reproach America for continuing the system of 
 slaver}^ This change does not seem to have arisen from 
 any new viws of slavery as a sin; but from what they see of 
 the effects of abolition, they are satisfied it is a great benefit. 
 And they say it will come to the same result in America, 
 whenever abolition takes place. Said our friend, "I felt a- 
 shamed of my country, to hear it reproached for the absurdi- 
 ty, and inconsistency, and sin of slavery, and I could make 
 no reply. Here among our own people, one does not feel it 
 so much; but when we get abroad, we feel it keenly." 
 
 . It is not the case that the negroes become impudent toward 
 the whites, in consequence of emancipation. On the contra- 
 ry, it is universally said that they are more civil than they 
 used to be. 
 
 In short, one only needs to see the West Indies to be con- 
 vinced of the safety and utility of abolishing slavery. The 
 experiment of emancipation has already gone on long enough 
 to prove that negroes are like other people; if you give them 
 their rights they are grateful, and have sense enough to see 
 that it is now for their interest to support the laws, and that if 
 they make disturbance they punish only themselves. 
 
 Many other instances of emancipation might be brought 
 forward — and much more might be said of the good effects in 
 those cases which are here adduced. But it is unnecssary. 
 The arguments in favor of immediate emancipation are as 
 bright as noon day. To take the opposite side of this impor- 
 tant question, at this time, shows either a lack of knowledge, 
 or a jUxed love of slavery! The perfect safety of immediate 
 emancipation under almost any circumstances, is now placed 
 beyond all reasonable doubt. There is nothing wanting but 
 a disposition. 
 
 Brother Wynans told us that "no abolitionist in the land 
 would be more glad to see the slaves free than himself — and 
 yet he tells us slavery is a Divine institution — that it is 
 right under all circumstances. And he furthermore, tells us, 
 
( 58 ) 
 
 that Christians, Ministers, and even Bishops ought to be slave- 
 holders — and slave-holders ought to labor under no disadvan- 
 tages — they ought to be eligible to all the offices within the 
 gift of the church. " 
 
 Now, how brother Wynans can believe that slavery is of 
 Divine origin — that it is right that Bishops ought to be slave- 
 holders — and yet be as glad to have slavery done away as 
 any abolitionist in the land, I cannot conceive! It appears 
 to me to imply an inconsistency, to say the least. I perceiv- 
 ed that brother Wynans had his difficulties in defending sla- 
 very — and in reconciling it with moral principles. I am not 
 surprised that his speech makes rather bad joints! There 
 are few who could have done better, from the same premises. 
 In this'^oorf brother^ the cause of slavery has, both ingenuity 
 and zeal. I admired the bold and uncompromising attitude 
 which the brother assumed, but was sorry he had not had a 
 better cause. 
 
 If brother Wynans would be as glad to have his slaves free 
 as any abolitionist, he will set them at liberty immediately 
 after reaching home. "0! but the laws forbid it." Well, 
 suppose the laws should forbid his praying? 
 
 "Ministers, Christians, and Bishops should be slave-holders!" 
 Why? Because they will be kind to the slaves, they will set 
 a good example. So then we ought, according to this doc- 
 trine, to have christian rum-sellers to keep the traffic from be- 
 ing abused — and to set a good example to other rum-sellers. 
 And we ought also to have Christian robbers and thieves, that 
 they may set a good example so the craft — and so produce a 
 good injluence on those who are immoral ! I beg to take differ- 
 ent ground. Neither Bishops, Ministers or Christians, should 
 be slave-holders. Let all these good men come out from 
 these abominations. It is the example of good men more 
 than any thing else which keeps the system alive. While such 
 good men (I must believe them to be such) as Dr. Capers, W. 
 Wynans, T. Crowder and others, hold slaves, and treat them 
 well, bad men will hold them, and treat them cruelly. These 
 good slave-holders are the shield^and covering of the bad ones. 
 They meet you at every turn and corner. You cannot speak 
 of slavery, or the evils of slavery, but these good men stand 
 right up before you. I will not wish them in heaven, as broth- 
 er Smith did brother Scott the other day — but I believe it 
 would be better for the cause of bleeding humanity if this 
 wretched system could not plead the example of any Christian 
 or Christian Minister! A Christian rum-seller does more 
 harm to the cause of temperance than a dozen infidels! You 
 have all heard of deacon Giles of Salem, Mass., the riim ma- 
 ker. Every unprincipled rum-seller and manufacturer in the 
 land, will plead in justification of his conduct the example of 
 
J 59 ) 
 
 deacon Giles. And the influence of Christians, and Christian 
 Ministers on the subject of slavery, is in my humble opinion 
 equally pernicious. 
 
 The speaker told us, that he was formerly from a free state 
 — that he had become a slave-holder, and felt justified in so 
 doing — that Bishop Asbury was a w^arm abolitionist when he 
 first came to this country, but that he cooled off', and changed 
 his views somewhat before he died. All this only strength- 
 ens my conviction, that slavery is "deceitful above all things, 
 and desparately wicked" — "that if it were possible it would 
 deceive even the very elect." But this no more proves that 
 slavery is right, than the fact that a great many men who 
 were once te?nperate, but have become drunkards, proves that 
 drunkenness is right! 
 
 Brother W. affimed, that the south would not receive any 
 help either from England or the northern states, in getting rid 
 of slavery, i. e. in plain English, they love slavery so well, 
 that they are determined to hold on upon it in spite of all op- 
 position — and yet they would rejoice if the negroes were 
 free! OO^Put this and that together. 
 
 Dr. Capers of South Carolina, next addressed the Confer- 
 ence, in a very mild, winning manner. This brother, wheth- 
 er right or wrong, carries with him a conviction of cincerity 
 and purity of motive, which it is very difficult to resist. One 
 can hardly help loving him, though he is a slave-holder. He 
 stated some facts respecting the introduction of the gospel 
 into different neighborhoods in the vicinity of Charleston, 
 and also the opposition which some of our first Ministers met 
 with from some slave-holders, in trying to preach the Gospel 
 to the slaves, which only increased my convictions of the 
 evils of slavery, and the importance of continuing the anti- 
 slavery discussion. The remarks which Dr. Capers, very 
 clearly proved that Methodist preachers in the south as well 
 as in the north, have been ready and willing to labor and suf- 
 fer for Christ's sake. But they had no more connection with 
 the right or wrong of slavery, or abolitionism, than they had 
 with the inhabitants of the moon — and yet the time and man- 
 ner in which these remarks were made, had a tendency to 
 prejudice the Conference against abolitionism. The infer- 
 ence which many drew from what the Doctor said, was, that 
 if abolitionism continued to spread, these spiritual gardens 
 must be laid waste — whereas nothing is more false! The tri- 
 umph of abolitionism will multiply these openings to the mis- 
 sionary a thousand fold! 
 
 And now dear brethren, I come to the amendment which 
 brother Scott proposed to the resolution disapproving of abo- 
 lionism. This amendment was in the very language of our 
 discipline. The resolution is in substance, as follows: '-That 
 
( 60 ) 
 
 we disapprove in the most unqualified terms of modern aboli- 
 tionism." The amendment was this: "Although we are as 
 much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery," we 
 disapprove, &c. — As soon as the amendment was proposed. 
 Rev. D. Ostrander rose up and said, that he presumed every 
 brother on the floor was ready to vote for it. So we thought, 
 and so any one would naturally have supposed. But the se- 
 quel told a very different story. Dr. Bangs, P. P. Sanford, 
 N. Levings, and others from the north, opposed the amend- 
 ment. The south opposed it of course. Just before the 
 question on the amendment was taken, brother Scott rose and 
 remarked as follows: Mr. President, 1 have listened to what 
 has been said upon this amendment with surprise and aston- 
 ishment. I can hardly believe my own eyes and ears. I am 
 alarmed for our church! — Yes sir, more so at this moment 
 than at any former period of my life. Can it be possible (!) 
 that we dare not speak out our former sentiments on the sub- 
 ject of slavery? Shall we now take in our colors after hav- 
 ing exposed them to the gaze of the world for 50 years? 
 When before did we ever hesitate to publish to the world in 
 any and every form, that we were "convinced of the great 
 evil of slavery?" We are told that if this amendment pre- 
 vails, the south will be alarmed — but sir, if it does not prevail 
 the north will be alarmed! We have always supposed that 
 we belonged to a church that was opposed to slavery — have 
 we been deceived? Does the south suppose us friendly to 
 slavery? If not, what harm can arise from speaking out in 
 the language of our discipline — especially as in the same sen- 
 tence, and with the same breath, we condemn abolitionism? 
 There is no danger that the south will suppose we are aboli- 
 tionists, if the amendment prevails, because a condemnation 
 of abolitionism will be connected with the amendment. But 
 if we leave out this amendment, both the north and the south 
 may reasonably conclude, that we have gone over to the cause 
 of slavery. 1 know we shall have the expression in our disci- 
 pline, but it might as well be in an old almanac. Our church 
 rules on slavery are nullified^ completely so. They might as 
 well be out of the discipline as in it. And if we cannot 
 speak out in its language liere,^ how can we expect that it will 
 be enforced in the south? 
 
 We have descended from the high and holy ground where 
 our father's used to stand. We have accommodated and 
 compromised away the greatest part of our former church 
 regulations on slavery — and if we cannot say we are as much 
 as ever opposed to the great evil of slavery 7^o^t', where shall 
 we be by the next General Conference? — Where! 
 
 The amendment failed by a vote of 120 to 15! Tell it 
 not in the North! Tell it not in England! Our southern 
 
( 61 ) 
 
 brethren told us it would not do to let the south know that we 
 were as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery 
 — and we have believed them, and have acted accordingly, to 
 the no small disgrace of our church ! This is a memorable 
 day in our Israel — a day never to be forgotten — and such 
 another, our church never before saw — and 1 hope never may 
 again! We expected you would condemn abolitionism, but 
 we did not suppose you would succumb to slavery. — When 
 our brethren in the south state fdcts^ we cannot but believe 
 them, but when they state what they think will be the results 
 of certain measures in future^ we have a right to consult our 
 own judgments, and receive their predictions with caution. 
 But 1 have discovered in the General Conference a disposi- 
 tion to put implicit confidence in all the predictions of our 
 southern brethren. This 1 think is wrong — and what I fear we 
 shall have cause deeply to regret. I suppose the West India 
 planter could have made out as strong a case, three or four 
 years ago, against the British abolitionists, as our brethren 
 have against us. But their predictions have all proved 
 groundless; and so it will be here — we fear my dear brethren 
 where no fear is. Interest is the great lever which moves 
 the whole south against the abolitionists. It is almost impos- 
 sible for good men to divest themselves of its influence. But 
 we ought to take into consideration great principles^ and 
 the interests of a great people, rather than a few local circum- 
 stances connected with slavery in our church. Let us con- 
 rast for a moment the doings of this General Conference on 
 The subject ot slavery, with the doings of the Synod of Ken- 
 tucky. That Synod belonging a slave state has spoken 
 out against slavery in tones of thunder, — but here a Metho- 
 dist General Conference, composed of members mostly from 
 free states, dare not so much as to say, we are still convinced 
 of the great evil ! That Synod described slavery in all its 
 horrors — and then advanced the most overwhelming argu- 
 ments against it, both from reason and scripture — and that too, 
 in the midst of slavery; but we dare not so much as whisper 
 the fact, that slavery is an "evil. " Why did not this Synod 
 fear that their course would produce excitement in the south, 
 and indeed in their own slate? Because their high and noble 
 minds could not be confined to a few local circumstances, 
 while millions were groaning under oppression in all its hor- 
 rid forms. While that Synod stands erect in the midst of 
 slavery and refuses to worship the golden image which slavery 
 has set up — here a Methodist General Conference is seen 
 bowing and crouching to the claims of tyranny and oppres- 
 sion!! O, it is a delicate and exciting subject — our southern 
 brethren tell us we must not touch it, it will not do, and wo 
 believe them and submit! They have always told us tlio 
 6 
 
( 62) 
 
 same stovy, and we have always yielded to theni — and what 
 do you think the end will be? Are we always to be turned 
 off in this way? Look my brethren at the blooming and 
 flourishing West India Islands! How many thousand times 
 over did the planters there say, "you must not touch it — it will 
 not do ! " But look at the good effects of obeying God ! Shall 
 we shut our eyes and refuse to behold the light, because our 
 deeds are evil! God forbid! You may refuse to hear my 
 voice, but still I will speak! I fear that the curse of God is 
 already upon our church. Is there not iniquity among us? 
 
 The past year has been to us, as a people, one of unparal- 
 elled afiliction and loss. There has been it appears, a decrease 
 of some two thousand members in our church communion. 
 This is a very serious matter — and we ought, as far as possi- 
 ble, carefully seek out the cause. We have, for several years 
 preceding the last, had large additions, yearly to our socie- 
 ties. And it is worthy of remark, that while the church, in 
 her collective capacity, has sustained a loss, yet in some sec- 
 tions of the work there have been large additions — and 
 among these sections, the N. E. and N. H. Conferences, 
 where the "unhallowed flame" of abolitionism has raged tlie 
 most, are by no means the least. Both these Conferences 
 during the last year, were favored with blessed revivals of re- 
 ligion, and in some of those places where the unhallowed 
 flame was the hottest, there have been some of the most re- 
 freshing and extensive revivals. The nett gain in the N. E. 
 Conference, was, I think, last year, about 1300 — and several 
 hundreds were added in the N. H. Conference. And when 
 we take into the account the increase in these Conferences, il 
 makes the decrease in other parts of the country still more 
 alarming! I do not say that God has blessed us because we 
 have espoused the cause of the slave, or that slave-holders 
 and apologists for slavery, are under the frowns of God on 
 that account. I state facts without drawing any inferences. 
 I am willing, however, to give it as my opinion, that the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal has exerted a most unhappy 
 influence on the cause of human rights and universal emanci- 
 pation, during the last year. It has refused to publish for one 
 Annual Conference, and for Methodist Preachers, when com- 
 munications have been signed by some forty of our brethren, 
 in two instances at least, requesting the privilege of explain- 
 ing and defending themselves, when they have been misrep- 
 resented and abused. I solemnly believe that this paper has 
 strengthened the oppresso7^, and grieviously afflicted the op- 
 pressed^ in the course it has taken against the anti-slavery 
 movements in the North. Had the paper been entirelij ven- 
 tral^ we would have been satisfied, but we feel that we have 
 ourselves suffered a sort of oppression, not to say slavery, 
 during the last year. 
 
( 63) 
 
 The sudden death of our beloved Bishop Emory, — and the 
 dreadful conflagration which entirely destroyed our large 
 Book Establishment, are among the solemn events of the 
 past year! And it does appear to me, that it becomes us to 
 pause and consider! I do not say that these awful providen- 
 ces are designed to call our attention to the horrid oppressions 
 with which, as a church, we are connected; but this I will say, 
 there is a cmise somewhere, for this heavy chastisement from 
 the hand of God! And I do most sincerely pray, that with re- 
 spect to the great question now pending, we may not be 
 •'found to fight against God." Can we not say or do some- 
 thing before w' e leave this place, that will show to the world 
 that we are still opposed to slavery. I believe we can. 
 
 The view which brother Scott has given the Conference of 
 abolitionism, the substance of w4iich is contained in tlie pre- 
 ceeding pages, is cox'rect. It may not agree in every respect 
 with the description which you have had of abolitionism here- 
 tofore, but it is as strong and incendiary as can be found in 
 the Gamsonian school, because it is the ve?y same. I have 
 read all the principal abolition authors — and therefore knoic 
 what abolitionism is. I make these remarks because it has 
 been said that Br. Scott gave to Conference what he consider- 
 ed abolitionism, but that it is not in all respects true modern 
 abolitionism. 
 
 And now, my dear brethren, I have done. May the great 
 Head of the church lead us into all truth, and save us in hi^ fv- 
 'erlastmg kmgdom at last. — Amen. 
 Cincinnati, Ohio, May \9th, 1 836. 
 
 An Extract from the Address of the Methodist Wesleyan Con- 
 ference in England, to the Methodist Episcopal Church in 
 the United States. 
 
 "It has already come to your knowledge as a matter of pub- 
 lic notoriety, that by the blessing of God on the eflbrts and in- 
 fluence of our connexion and on the combined endeavors of 
 the religious public of our beloved country, a great measure 
 for the emancipation of the slaves in all the territories of Great 
 Britain was eventually conducted to a successful issue in the 
 Imperial Legislature; and has since been carried into prac- 
 tical effect in all the colonies of the empire, with various de- 
 grees of completeness, but universally with safety and ad- 
 vantage, and with results which mightily encourage us to go 
 forward in our earnest attempts to enlighten and evangelize 
 the whole population, to which favourable access is thus freely 
 
( 64 ) 
 
 opened. Our American brethren will doubtless allow us 
 the fraternal liberty to express our conviction that GREAT 
 SCRIPTURAL PRINCIPLES are opposed to the conihmance 
 of slavery in a chfislia?i slate; that the permission of it, is one 
 of those deviations from natural equity and evangelical purity 
 which call for furthe}- deviations abet and -maintain them that 
 it is CONTRARY to the PRECEPTS of cHRisTiANiTT, aud violatcs and 
 counteracts the principles and obligations by which the Gospel 
 urges those precepts. We trust that t/owr connexion Jiaving 
 ALREADY BEGUN to resist and condemn this baneful sys- 
 tem, will, in its own way, be freely and providentially led to 
 such practical steps as shall produce a consentaneous opinion, 
 feeling and purpose amongst your own people; and will then 
 "have the GLORY of the PUBLIC OPINION of your great and 
 increasing population, to such decided views as will result in a 
 UNANIMOUS REJECTION of SLAVERY and its social mischiefs, 
 on the ground of its repugnancy to the LAWS of CHRIST." 
 
THIRD FART. 
 
 MAY 24th. AFTERNOON. 
 
 Towards the close of the session, Mr. Wynans, of Missis- 
 sippi, asked leave to submit the following resolution, — which, 
 he remarked, he was sure would be interesting to all. 
 
 "Resolved, &,c. That a pamphlet, circulated among the mem- 
 of this Conference, purporting to be, " An Address to the Gene- 
 ral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church ; By a mem- 
 ber of that body,'' containing reports of the discussion on mod- 
 ern abolijtionism, palpably false, and calculated to make an 
 impression to the injury of the characters of some of the mem- 
 bers engaged in the aforesaid discussion, is an outrage on the 
 dignity ol this body, and meriting unqualified reprehension.'' 
 The resolution was signed by Mr. Wynans, above mentioned, 
 and by Mr. Stamper, of Kentucky. 
 
 After reading the resolution, Mr. Wynans proceeded to spe- 
 cify instances to support the allegations embraced in it, and 
 attempted to show the propriety of such a resolution, in a se- 
 ries of written remarks. He contended, that there were in 
 the Address, no less than three direct, ^flagrant falsehoods, be- 
 sides man^ others, indirect or inferential. He read from the 
 manuscript with great calmness of manner — but his remarks, 
 in matter and in style, were in a high degree, violent and in- 
 ilammatory. He left no room for the possibility of uninten- 
 tional error; — whatever in the pamphlet he deemed a depar- 
 ture from strictly accurate statement, was stigmatised as false- 
 hood. Although the author of the Addi'ess professed to be 'a 
 member of the Conference,' and Mr. W. believed him to be 
 so, and as such, a brother, he seemed resolved to put on it the 
 most rigorous construction for his condemnation. He appear- 
 ed to exclude from the account altogether, how liable any per- 
 son would be, in the exciting circumstances of the previous de- 
 bate, to misunderstand the speaker, and how easy it was for 
 error to insinuate itself into the subsequent report of a vehe- 
 ment, turbulent and unargumentative speech, made out from 
 hasty notes, taken at the moment of its delivery. Nor did he, 
 for a moment, advert to what was certainly a strong circum- 
 stance, to prove that any error into which the author might 
 have fallen, was unintentional, the signal infamy which would 
 overwhelm any man — and, most of all, a member of the Con- 
 ference — who should prepare and openly circulate palpable 
 6* 
 
( 66 ) 
 
 falsehoods^ concerning the discussion of a great question, in 
 which the Conference itself, and the whole community were 
 interested, and to which they had been ear and eye witnesses 
 but a few days before. 
 
 Having no notes of the speech of Mr. Wynans, we give the 
 above as our recollection of the general character of most of 
 his remarks. The want of notes is the less to be regretted 
 liere, as in the speech of Mr. Scott, which will follow, their 
 tenor and bearings will be clearly enough apprehended. 
 
 When Mr. W. had concluded his remarks, Mr. Scott rose 
 ■and stated calmly, and with full exemption from the tone of 
 defiance, that he was the author of the pamphlet in question — 
 that he was the member, against whom the charges of multi- 
 plied falsehood had been so gravely preferred. In view of the 
 seriousness of the allegations made against him — and that he 
 might have sufficient time to prepare for liis defence against 
 them, he moved that the resolution be laid on the table, till the 
 next morning. He also asked, to be furnished witfi a copy of 
 the resolution — as also of the remarks read by Mr. Wynans. 
 By a vote of the Conference tiie former was granted to hiaj. 
 The latter he could not obtain, inasmuch as that body had no 
 control over it^and Mr. W., I'efased the request — alleging, as 
 we are informed, that he could not trust Mr. Scott with it. 
 
 It was at this stage of the proceedings that Dr. Bangs of 
 New York, took the floor, and remarked, that the proceedings 
 of the Conference had been made public througli other chan- 
 nels, than those of the church. He then referred to a paper 
 in this city, [the Philanthropist,] in vdiich were reported the 
 speeches of the members, on the abolition question. The 
 General Conference, he alleged, had an unquestionable right, 
 if they chose, to shut their doors entirely, and to exclude all 
 spectators. Throwing open the doors was a mere favor. He 
 could not conceive, then, how any gentleman could intrude 
 himself within their walls, and set himself to taking notes of 
 what they said. He thought it a breach of courtesy — of con- 
 fidence — as much so, as if a man after being admitted into 
 the parlor of a gentleman, should go away and retail the con- 
 versation he had heard there. Individuals had no right to be- 
 have in that manner. He considered it theft — literary theft 
 — to report speeches made on that floor, without the consent 
 of the Conference. Reports of speeches in Congress were 
 not published without first submitting them to the speakers — 
 members might by such reports, be placed in a very ridiculous 
 attitude. Things might be said too occasionally, on the spur 
 of the moment, which it would be inexpedient to publish. 
 
 [The editor of this paper was not present when Dr. Bangs 
 was delivered of the foregoing combustibles. He was told 
 that the Doctor was greatly excited — that, large as his frame 
 
( 67 ) 
 
 is, when calm and undisturbed, he seemed, on this occasion, in- 
 flated beyond his wonted dimensions; red, as is his visage eve- 
 ry day — now, it assumed a deeper hue. It must have been an 
 uncommon exhibition — for those who were just from the 
 scene, seemed agitated, and almost terrified at what they had 
 beheld. If they had just come from witnessing some case of 
 uncommon outrage in the street, they could scarcely have 
 been more moved, in giving an account of it. 
 
 A word or two concerning the Dr.'s rather raw notions of 
 propriety. If a gentleman in Cincinnati, were to throw open 
 his parlor, and advertise the whole city, either by publication 
 in the newspapers, or through his particular friends, that he in- 
 tended to feast, for a week, all who would come and partake 
 of his good things; the freeness of his fare would not exempt 
 it from general criticism, nor himself from public disgrace, 
 should he attempt to purchase the reputation of lordly hospi- 
 tality with rancid butter, or spoiled beef, or meagerly sweet- 
 ened pies. If men will make themselves public men, and like 
 Dr. Bangs, make themselves ridiculous from want of tact and 
 temper, they must blame themselves, not those who speak of 
 their conduct as it is. The Dr. and the other members of t\je 
 Conference are public men. They meet as d. public body^ in a 
 jjubiic manner. They discuss publicly a subject of public in- 
 terest. In so doing, they cannot escape responsibility to the 
 public, for what they do and say. It is right, too, that the}' 
 be held to this responsibility. In fevv^ assemblies, have 
 there been more frequent references to the state of public 
 sentiment, as furnishing a reason for pursuing a particular 
 course of conduct. To -what were the pro-slaveiy resolu- 
 tions of the General Conference to be attributed? To the in- 
 fluence of rectitude? No: but to the supposed state of public 
 cpinion. To what was the persecution — the furious — the 
 deadly persecution of Scott, and Storrs, and Norris, and oth- 
 ers, who, with them, were striving to pluck up t]:ie drowning 
 ; onor of their church — to what was this owing? To the sup- 
 ,.'Osed state of public opinion. Verily, when, an ecclesiastical 
 assembly reject the reign of right to- come under that of public 
 ■pinion — public opinion, as an acknowledged sovereign, has a 
 \ IIGHT to know what its v/illing subjects are doing. 
 
 The Doctor's knowledge of Congressional proceedings, 
 seems rather unripe. Congress have no reporters? Each 
 house admits within its bar, men who report the proceedings 
 for their own benefit. This does not prevent an}' one out of 
 the bar from reporting the whole of their proceedings — and 
 this too, without submitting a single line to a speaker, or an 
 officer. The best advice we can give the Doctor — and indeed 
 all public men, be they ecclesiastical or political, but especi- 
 ally the former, is never hereafter to speak, what they would 
 
( 68 ) 
 
 be ashamed to see printed. This will be sufficient punishment 
 for every literary thief, who may in all time to come, attempt 
 to filch from them, their sermons and their speeches. 
 
 The motion of Mr. Scott prevailed, and the Conference 
 adjourned to their usual hour to-morrow morning. 
 
 Wednesday Morning — May 25. 
 The resolution of the last evening against Mr. Scott excited 
 considerable interest. At the usual hour for the opening of 
 the Conference, many of the citizens had assembled, and the 
 galleries were well filled, expecting that the resolution against 
 Mr. Scott would, of course, be the first business attended to, 
 after the ceremony of opening the meeting had been perform- 
 ed. However, this did not turn out to be the case. Some 
 other matter, relating, perhaps, to the mode of payment, or to 
 the measure of the compensation of the ministers, was taken 
 up. After this had been discussed some time, and to all ap- 
 pearance, was about occupying the whole forenoon, Mr. Scott 
 moved that the business then before the House, be postponed, 
 in order to take up the resolution against himself. The mo- 
 tion failed. A short time afterward Mr. Early renewed the 
 motion made by Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott earnestly appealed to 
 his brethren to sustain the motion, remarking that, although 
 Mr. Ostrander, (a gentleman who had manifested a disposition 
 to exclude all further consideration of the resolution) seemed 
 ' determined that the resolution should not again be taken up 
 at all, yet, he (Mr. S.) thought it due to his character, that it 
 shouldbe called up immediately. He felt that it had already 
 been postponed too long. He was keenly sensible of the in- 
 iury under which he was suffering, and every moment of un- 
 necessary delay, only added to its aggravation. Mr. Early's 
 motion was lost. It was now about 1 1 o'clock in the morn- 
 ing — the regular time for adjournment being half past 12. A 
 motion was then made by a member, and carried — that, when 
 the Conference adjourn, it adjourn to meet again at 3 o'clock 
 in the afternoon. A large majority of the spectators, suppo- 
 sing from the course things had taken, that the i-esolution 
 would not be taken up till the afternoon, retired from the 
 House. However, not long after the galleries' were thinned, 
 and before the business under consideration was entirely dis- 
 posed of. Ml-. Early having renewed his motion, the resolution 
 was called up. This was one hour, as stated by Mr. Early, 
 before the usual period for adjournment. The resolution be- 
 ing read, Mr. Scott commenced by saying, that this day, one of 
 the strangest spectacles was presented, which had ever been 
 witnessed in the history of the church. A member of the 
 highest assembly, recognized in the church, was now arraigned 
 before it, charged with glaring, palpable falsehood, and this 
 
( 69 ) 
 
 not once, but many times over. Under such circumstances, 
 it could not be expected that he should appear without emo- 
 tion, yet he trusted he experienced a good degree of calmness. 
 It was the first time in his lite he had been charged with false- 
 hood. Those who knew him best, had always been willing to 
 accord to him purity of motive. In the resolution, he was ac- 
 cused of uttering a deliberate falsehood, of stating as true, 
 what he knew to be false. This w^as a serious, a grave charge, 
 and enough, if sustained, to disfranchise him of both his minis- 
 terial character and his membership. He had not only been 
 accused of "barefaced, glaring and palpable" falsehood — Bro. 
 Wynans had also declared, that the author of that pamphlet 
 must either be a "reckless incendiary or a non compos mentis."'^ 
 If he (Mr. Scott) had set fire to the city of Cincinnati, he could 
 hardly have been treated with more severity. What is the 
 usual course, in cases of misrepresentation? Suppose in re- 
 plying to any member, he should mis-state any of his argu- 
 ments — would it be right — would it be in order, for that bro- 
 ther to rise in his place and charge him with falsehood? Was 
 there then so much difference between a speech written and a 
 speech delivered, as in the one case, where there is misrepre- 
 sentation, to warrant the charge of " barefaced, glaring and 
 palpable falsehood," and in the other, to call only for connec- 
 tion ? 
 
 He wished to direct the attention of brethren to the design 
 of the pamphlet. It would be recollected, that the argu- 
 fnent?,^ adduced by him on the subject of abolitionism, had 
 been replied to, only in part, and superficially. Br's Wy- 
 nans, Crowder, and others in the opposition, moreover, had 
 not been answered by brethren on his side of the question. 
 This suggested to his mind the idea of writing a little address, 
 in w^hich he could present to the view of brethren, his argu- 
 ment entire, and the objections and arguments of opponents, 
 together with replies to them,- prepared subsequently by him- 
 self, but not delivered on the Conference floor; and present 
 them all m connexion. 
 
 Brother Wynans had accused the author of the Address of 
 falsehood, because of his statement on the first page, that O. 
 Scott "was permitted to speak but once on the question." I 
 meant by this, said Mr. Scott, what must be obvious to all, 
 that according to one of the rules of order, adopted by this 
 body, I was thus restricted. The rule is, that no member 
 shall speak twice on the same question, until all others who 
 may w^ish to speak have spoken. Now I need not tell this 
 Conference, that had the subject been debated ten days long- 
 er, I should by this rule, have been effectually prohibited 
 from speaking a second time. For we all know, that speak- 
 ers were abundant, and when the question was taken, all had 
 
/ 
 
 (70) 
 
 not spoken who desired to be heard. It was in view of these 
 tacts, I stated, that I was permitted to speak but once; and 
 not with any view to convey an impression, that I had been 
 denied this privilege, by an unusual order of the Conference. 
 Brethren know there is such a rule, and they know too how 
 unlikely it w^as, that it should be set aside in my behalf. 
 They are all aware, that, on the last day of the discussion, I 
 was called to order by a member for speaking twice, as he 
 supposed, to the same question, when 1 only rose to speak to 
 an amendment, and occupied but three minute's; — and I was 
 then pronounced in order, on the ground that before^ I had spo- 
 ken to the main question; noio^ 1 was speaking to an amend- 
 ment. I might, indeed, have made my meaning less liable to 
 be mistaken, by stating "according to the rules of the house 
 I had not such permission;" but as this was my sole meaning, 
 so it never entered my mind for one moment, that I should 
 be misunderstood. Ought this omission then to subject a 
 brother to the high and heavy charge of falsehood? Never 
 did such an idea enter my mind, as an intention to deceive by 
 this omission. 
 
 Mr*. Scott said that he had been charged with falsehood, in 
 making such a statement of brother Wynans' argument, as is 
 found on page 10 of the pamphlet. 
 
 This is the strongest, and indeed, the principal position 
 which brother W. has taken against me. I will make a few 
 statements, and then the Conference will be able to judge 
 whether I have indeed, in this instance, subjected myself tc 
 tne charge of palpable, barefaced, glaring, wilful ialsehood! 
 I intended to state brother Wynans' argument as briefly as 
 possible, and yet not so briefly as to give either a partial or 
 false view of the sentiment of the speaker. I thought the in- 
 ference that "slavery is right under all circumstances" a fair 
 one from his premises — Nay more, I understood him to draw 
 that inference in whole, or in part, from my own premises. 
 His argument when stated a little more at length, was simply 
 this: — I will attempt to show from the brother's (Mr. Scott) 
 own premises, that slavery is right under all circumstances. 
 He then stated, that slavery was a divine institution — God/ 
 permitted the Hebrews to hold slaves, and made laws to regur 
 late slavery. It must therefore be right under some circum- 
 stances — and the brother from New England has told us, that 
 if slavery is right under some circumstances, it is right under 
 all circumstances. I have proved that it is right under some 
 circumstances, and therefore from the brother's own admis- 
 sion, it is right under all circumstances." But it may be ob- 
 served in the Jirst place, that I never admitted, that if sla- 
 very was right under some circumstances, it was right under 
 all — 1 never made such a statement. In the second place, I 
 
( 71 ) 
 
 never denied that the Scriptures allowed the Jews to hold 
 servants. 1 am not such a non compos mentis as not to know 
 this fact. It will be seen therefore that brother W. in ma- 
 king out his conclusion, X\\nX slavery is right under all circum- 
 stances, attributes to me, what I never said, and assumes, what 
 I never denied — so that my premises have no sort of connex- 
 ion with his inference — and for it he alone is responsible. I did 
 not suppose, I was doing him any injustice in stating his argu- 
 ment as I did — I certainly had no such design, and therefore 
 will submit this explanation as an accompaniment to my ori- 
 ginal statement of his argument. And whether the inference, 
 that slavery is right under all circumstances, belongs more 
 properly to him or to me, to his premises or to mine, I leave 
 for the Conference and the public to judge. Suppose I were 
 to affirm that polygamy is right under so7ne circumstances — 
 [Here Mr. Wynans interrupted the speaker, and remarked 
 that he really believed him to be out of order. He demand- 
 ed that he should be kept to the record — that he should speak 
 directly to the charge made against him — and not be permit- 
 ted to wander into irrelevant discussion. The Bishop deci- 
 ded Mr. Scott was in order. Mr. Wynans still persisted, and 
 others of the"^ south, sided with him.] The Bishop (Roberts) 
 decided, that so long as Mr. Scott was respectful in his man- 
 ner, he might take any course he saw proper to defend him- 
 self, but brethren might appeal. [An appeal was called for, 
 and the motion being put, a majority voted to sustain the de- 
 cision of the chair.] Mr. Scott said he did not intend tc^be 
 disrespectful. He was endeavoring to explain to the Conft^r- 
 ence, how he had been led to mistake the argument of brother 
 Wynans, if he indeed had mistaken it. He was proceeding to 
 suppose a case. Suppose I were to affirm that polygamy is 
 right under some circumstances, or no circumstances, or all 
 circumstances — I soon come to the conclusion, that it is 
 wrong under all circumstances. But no, says brother Wy- 
 nans, I can prove from your own premises that polygamy is 
 right under all circumstances. It was allowed, it is recognized, 
 and not condemned in Jevv^ish scriptures among the Jews, 
 and therefore it is right, according to your premises under 
 all circumstances! Who does not readily see the sophistry 
 of such an argument! 
 
 Bro. Wynans did state that slavery was a Divine Institu- 
 tion — perpetual, hereditary slavery; and yet he affirmed of 
 the representation of his argument in which this statement is 
 made, that "every word of it was false." If it be false, it is 
 unintentionally so. I took down notes of his argument at the 
 time, and the representation accords exactly with them. T 
 never used the premises he represented as mine. I am not 
 stirprised, sir, that brethren should be much excited when 
 
 'r^ 
 
( 72 ) 
 
 they see their .arguments in print, and think them misrep- 
 resented. 
 
 Bro. Wynans stated that he declined the abstract question 
 ■ of slavery. Now his speech as reported in the Philanthro- 
 pist, which he yesterday quoted, as coniirmatory of the truth 
 of his charge against me, makes him say, that he would meet 
 me on the abstract question, on my own ground. I did not 
 understand him as declining the abstract question. 
 
 I am accused of another falsehood, because on page 13 of 
 the pamphlet, I represent our southern brethren as saying, that 
 "it would not do to let the south know that we are as much as 
 ever convinced of the great evil of slavery. If brethren of 
 the south did not say this — did not say that the proposed a- 
 mendment, in the language of our discipline, would be belie v- 
 ed''a mere cloak for secret abolitionism — if they did not say, it 
 would not do 7ioic — then did I hear very erroneously. {Mr. 
 Scott did not hear erroneously. It was repeatedly asserted 
 on the floor of the Conference, that it would not "do to speak 
 out now" — that "there was a time for every thing, &c. &c.'' 
 Hundreds of spectators must have heard the same things. 
 —Ed. Phil.] 
 
 Bro. Wynans stated, that he did not remember the remarks 
 concerning the division of the Union, attributed to me on p. 
 6, of the pamphlet. I did allude to this objection to the doc- 
 trines of abolition, and made also some remarks upon it. But 
 they ar.e carried out more fully in the pamphlet. It would 
 have been better to have included the added remarks in brack- 
 ets. But this was neglected, not however with the intention 
 to deceive. [It is easy to explain this omission. Mr. Scotts 
 wrote the pamphlet, superintended its printing, correcting 
 proof &C.;, under circumstances very unfavorable to entire ex- 
 actness and perspicuity. The pamphlet was written and ready 
 for circulation within one week, during all of which period he 
 had numerous Conference engagements to attend to. Under 
 such circumstances, it is not wonderful that in reporting his 
 own speech, he should at times forget his character as a re- 
 porter, and carry out his thoughts as if they were constituent 
 parts of the delivered speech. It is indeed a matter of sur- 
 prise that many other such mistakes did not occur. — ed. PHrL.] 
 I am again accused of misrepresentation, in attributing to 
 Bro. Wynans the remarks made on p. 10, about "mui'dered 
 wives and children" &c. My sole intention in these was to 
 show, that the brother meant, such would be the effects of 
 abolitionism, if its measures were carried out. This, I pre- 
 sume, he will not deny was his meaning. — [Mr. Wynans did 
 not deny it either then or subsequently — kd.] Mr. Scott 
 made some further remarks on this charge, of which our notes 
 are insuflicient to warrant any report. In our opinion he 
 
( 73) 
 
 fully acquitted himself of the charge of falsehood or intention- 
 al misrepresentation. 
 
 Mr. Scott made a few remarks in reply to Dr. Bangs' ob- 
 servations on reporters of speeches, &,c. He (Mr. Scott) 
 considered a public address, public property, especially 
 when delivered on a public subject. In regard to this, 
 members of Conference should be governed by public usages, 
 until a special order was taken. No requisition of silence <:»r 
 secrecy had been made on the members. All that could be 
 done, where there was misrepresentation, was to disclaim it. 
 This was a tax public speakers were compelled to submit to. 
 
 Mr. Scott occupied about an hour and a quarter in his re- 
 marks. He manifested the same calmness, sell-possession and 
 dignity — the same christian forbearance and meekness of tem- 
 per — which had characterized all his previous exhibitions in 
 the Conference. Nothing offensive in his manner, spirit or 
 language, could at any time be detected. In not a single in- 
 stance, was he called to order by the chair or any member of 
 the Conference; except indeed, the instance already noticed. 
 All this was wonderful — especially to a beholder — consider- 
 ing the greatness of his provocations, the scandalous nature o' 
 the charges preferred against him, and the unfaltering perti- 
 nacity, the unmitigated severity, which marked the language 
 and measures of his opponents. 
 
 We may remark, that no speaker that followed him, chose to 
 contest with him a single point he had assumed in his justifica- 
 tion. Perhaps we should except Mr. Wynans, who stated 
 that the ground on which he charged Orange Scott with false- 
 hood, in particular, was, not that he did not state his argument 
 •correctly, but that he stated directhj the opposite to what it 
 really was. 
 
 Mr. Wynans then rose, not to make a speech, but to state 
 a few things in explanation. He had never charged Orange 
 Scott with falsehood, in the Jirst^ second or third degree : he 
 had thus charged the anonymous author of the Address. He 
 could not have gone to O. Scott and asked an explanation ; 
 for he did not know he was the author. Here Mr. Scott in- 
 terrupted him by saying he had not suggested this course, but 
 that Mr. Wynans ought to have demanded, in open Confer- 
 -ence, who was the author, and his name would have been 
 forthcoming. Mr. Wynans remarked, that he did not think it 
 becoming to Imnt up every skulker who might choose to de- 
 range his speeches. If he had known the author of the 
 pamphlet was Orange Scott, he would have charged him as 
 Orange Scott, He had hoped that rio member could be guilty 
 of such an outrage. O. Scott had been hinted at by some as 
 the author of the Address, but he had met all such suggestions 
 with a prompt negative. He really had conceived an ex- 
 7 
 
( 74 ) 
 
 alted opinion of that man's intelligence and integrity; but lie 
 was now obliged to surrender it. 
 
 He did not, he.repeated, charge 0. Scott with falsehood for 
 not stating his argument correctly; but because he stated it 
 -lirectly opposite to what it was. One third of the members 
 ofthe Conference had come to him and asked him, whether he 
 would suffer such a misrepresentation to pass unnoticed? 
 
 An investigation of ten days, he thought, would bring them 
 no nearer to a decision on this resolution. He professed to 
 be opposed to any further procrastination. The Conference 
 had heard both sides of the question. For his own part, he 
 considered tJie misrepresentations contained in the pamphlet 
 hliherately false statements, and made with design. He did 
 not deem a response to what had been said, becoming the dig- 
 nity of the Conference. 
 
 Mr. Early made a few remarks, which we could not exactly 
 apprehend. It seemed to be the wish of the most prominent 
 of the southern members, to urge the Conference to an imme- 
 diate decision on the question. An adjournment was moved, 
 for the regular period for recess had come and was past; a 
 vote having been taken by which Mr. Scott was permitted to 
 continue his remarks fifteen minutes beyond that period. — 
 The motion to adjourn was carried — Messrs. Early, Wynans, 
 Smith, Payne, and most of the southern members voting 
 against it. 
 
 Wednesday Anternoon — May 25. 
 After the clerk had read the resolution under consideration, 
 Mr. Ostrander, of the New York Conference, after making a 
 few remarks in a tone, too low to be distinctly audible, 
 moved, that the resolution be referred to a select committee. 
 His reasons, as well as we could heai them, referred to the 
 benefit of having it so altered as to secure more complete 
 unanimity in passing it. 
 
 Mr. Sanford, of the same Conference, spoke also in favor of 
 the reference. He condemned the address, not for stating 
 what was absolutely and palpably false, but for so mingling 
 truth with what was false, as to present the matter in an un- 
 candid and dishonest light. Entertaining this view of the 
 address, he could not support the resolution, because it charged 
 on the member against whom it was directed, palpable false- 
 hood. 
 
 Mr. , (a gentleman whose name is unknown to us) 
 
 was against the reference, as he believed the pamphlet to be 
 just what the resolution described it to be. 
 
 Several short speeches, or rather, single remarks, were 
 iuade at this stage of the proceedings by members— plainly 
 indicating, that the reference was altogether unacceptable to 
 the most violent and uncompromising portion of the Confer- 
 
( 75 ) 
 
 ence. So decided was the feeling manifested, that the mover 
 ofi-the reference was induced to withdraw his motion. The 
 attempt was now made, not so much to secure the passage oi 
 the resolution, — for to any observer, this appeared fully cer- 
 tain — as to bring about great unanimity in voting for it. — 
 ' With this view, Mr. Crowder, of the A-^irginia Conference, 
 made some i-emarlis intended to show that there was in the 
 resolution no impeachment of the motives of the author — that 
 there was nothing levelled against him jfjcr507z«//i/ — that it was 
 \hQ pamphlet, and this alone, wdiich was now under considera- 
 tion, and which it was intended to condemn. 
 
 This view of the subject did not appear altogether to satis- 
 fy Dr. Ruter of the Pittsburgh Conference. He would be 
 pleased to see such a subject disposed of with an unanimity 
 that all must feel was desirable. There were many who 
 would be disposed to join in a vote of condemnation, who, yet. 
 thought the resolution ought to undergo a modification; which, 
 without undue harshness, would be sufficient to relieve those 
 who were charged w'rongfully by the author of the pamphlet. 
 from any odium it might attach to them, and furnish at the 
 same time, an indication sufficiently decisive, of the sentiment 
 of the Conference in relation to the matter. Feeling thus, 
 and thinkino; thus, he regretted that the motion for referring; the 
 resolution to a select committee had been withdrawn. Ho 
 thought it his duty to renew it, which he now did. 
 
 Mr. Roszell rose, apparently a good deal chafed at the dila- 
 tory progress of the proceedings, now again attempted to be 
 further delayed by a renewal of the motion to refer. Ho 
 spoke with his wonted animation in opposition to the refer- 
 r.nce. He thought, the publication of the pamphlet an of- 
 fence of great enormity, an outrage of singular aggravation, 
 and that it was properly met by the resolution, which w'ent 
 10 condemn it in unqualified terms. And who among us, 
 asked Mr. R. does not look upon the pamphlet in this light — 
 who among us is not prepared to bestow on it unqualified con- 
 demnation — and who among us is not prepared to sustain a 
 resolution which utters this condemnation in the most appropri- 
 tite terms? But, continued Mr. R. some find alleviation"for the 
 imworthy conduct of the author in the fact of his having un- 
 hesitatingly and openly avowed himself as such, before this 
 Conference. Pretty alleviation — creditable excuse! when 
 this was done not before but after an investigation of the mat- 
 ter was set on foot in this body ! And will brethren urge 
 this as a sufficient cause for sending the resolution to a com- 
 mittee — for consuming still more of the precious time of this 
 Conference! Why, sir, shall we delay still longer for such a 
 reason as this, to condemn, in terms becoming it, a gross 
 misrepresentation, calculated to injure us? If this conduct of 
 
( 76 ) 
 
 tlie author be mentioned, I would say, sir, that he ought in ad- 
 dition to an avowal of his agency, in such a matter, to come 
 forward and express his regret and his sorrow for the of- 
 fence he has committed. 
 
 Do you suppose, continued Mr. R. that the reading of this 
 pamphlet has been confined to the members of this Confer- 
 ence — that they are the only persons who have handled this 
 hiflammatory and odious document? Far from it — it has been 
 despatched abroad in large quantities — and with other incendi- 
 ary materials, it has been sent off to the west \easi\\.o be scatter- 
 ed throughout the community. For such conduct as this sir, no 
 language is too strong. It is an insult to this Conference, and 
 it is a duty we owe to ourselves to support our own charac- 
 ter. He concluded by saying, he hoped to answer all the ar- 
 guments that might be brought forward on the other side, when 
 the subject was put into a position, to make discussion on the 
 merits, p-o/),-//'; and in the meantime, that the resolution would 
 not be referred. 
 
 Dr. Capers of South Carolina, made a few remarks in a 
 very spirited style, in opposition to the reference. What, 
 said he, would be the effect of such a course? Would it not 
 iustly be that we lacked courage to meet the exigency? 
 What o.ther action could a committee recommend? Have we 
 not the truth now staring us in the face? If we act not, at 
 once in conformity to its requirements, the impression must go 
 abroad, that we are wanting in courage. 
 
 Mr. Bowen, of the Oneida Conference, objected to the 
 resolution itself, and read a substitute for it, which he intend- 
 ed at a proper time, to offer. He did not believe, that to pass 
 the resolution as it ivas, before the Conference, would be bene- 
 ficial. Some of the brethren, whilst they thought the brother 
 had not given as full a view of the case as the circumstances 
 called for, yet believed that he had acted honestly. In this 
 view, the terms employed in the resolution were not accepta- 
 ble to them, and they believed, others less exceptionable 
 might be used which would enable the Conference to accom- 
 plish all it ought to desire to accomplish, that is the warding 
 off of injury from themselves^ In/ invalidating the pamphlet. 
 
 Mr. Drake, of the Mississippi Conference, opposed the re- 
 ference. He thought, a committee could not act on the sub- 
 ject, now before them, nearly so advantageously as the Con- 
 ference itself. In answer to the objections, taken by some 
 to the resolutions, as impeaching the motives of Mr. Scott — 
 he declared he did not so interpret them, nor did he suppose 
 they would be so interpreted by others. He did not consider 
 the resolutions as impeaching the motives of the writer — 
 the object was. the pamphlet. It was this which was doing 
 the mischief, and it was this which, at a distance, would be 
 
( 77 ) 
 
 set down, as irue:-rTo prevent this, it is the duty of the Con- 
 ference to say, it is not true. The pcutrplikt it was, that 
 would serve to increase the number of abolitionists — it was 
 the influence of it, and not the cliaracter of the author, that 
 the mover of the resolution, doubtless, had in view in introdu- 
 * cing it in the Conference. 
 
 [It was a saying of Lysander, the tyrant of Athens, that 
 when the Lion's skin jjvoved too sho7't, he eked it out uith the 
 Fox's tail. The Southern gentlemen — part of them at least, 
 — seem somewhat inclined to practice the same device. And 
 A-et the attempt in this instance, was one of astonishing bold- 
 ness and eiirontery. To say in one breath, of a man, that he 
 has told a ^palpable falsehood' — and in the next, to argue 
 with his friends who are to be persuaded, by this means, that 
 his motives are not brought in question, is indeed adding insult 
 to injury. The attempt at such a fraudulent imposition on the 
 one hand, and the stupidity which could be imposed on by it, 
 on the other, is no small proof of the disqualifications of both 
 parties for the ministry. Men who can use, and men who can 
 believe, such an argument, — are but badly qualified to contend 
 in God's magnificent and awful cause.] 
 
 Mr. Early, of the Virginia Conference — commenced his 
 remarks by expressing his sorrow, that a motion to refer had 
 been made. He had often remarked it, that when a whole 
 deliberative assembly w-^s just ready for decided action, an 
 officious proposition was offered, as in the present case, to di- 
 vert it from its course. But if it be true, the brethren are 
 not prepared for a frank and ready decision, let the resolu- 
 tion lie on the table. But has it come to this? That we have 
 met here — some of us travelling a thousand miles and more — 
 others sufiering privation in leaving our homes and our fami- 
 lies unprotected from danger, it may be, during our absence 
 — and have no power even to protect our own members and 
 this body from insult — from aggravated and false statements? 
 Will any one say, that the guilty ought not to be censured 
 even? Sir, we have no energy. But if the majority of this 
 Conference have no energy — not enough of it, to protect 
 their own honor from insult and degradation, — be it known, 
 that there are in the Conference those who have — and who 
 OUGHT TO BE BY THEMSELVES. You liave refused once to refer 
 — if you refer it now, what will be the efiect? 
 
 What, sir, you have, but the other day, denounced aboli- 
 tionism — and yet do you talk of referring such a writing 
 as this pamphlet? To what does all this protracted debate 
 amount? Is it not plain, that it tends rather to increase sym- 
 pathy for the author of the injury, than to do justice to our- 
 selves? And shall we be accessary to such a result as this 
 in the case of the author of the address — of one who is guiltv 
 7* 
 
(78) 
 
 of bringing into this body a pamphlet of an incendiary char- 
 acter — or of him who is acting concurrently with the vilest 
 miscreant here, (the editor of an incendiary paper in this city, 
 who, violating the laws of the state where he lived, is com- 
 pelled to seek a refuge out of its limits,) and who has been, 
 twice tried and sentenced to three months hard labor in the 
 house of correction by the laws of his own state? And shall 
 it be said, under these circumstances, that this Conference has 
 no power of correction — no power to pass censure ! It is full 
 time, for you sir, to speak out — to testify that you have some- 
 respect for yourselves — to say that you have some regard for 
 your hono7\ x\sk the oldest member of this body, if he ever 
 witnessed the disturbance of a Conference, by a member af- 
 ter this manner — if ever such a case occurred before? Sub- 
 mit to this sir! If we submit to this, we are prepared to sub- 
 mit to any thing. 
 
 [Although a considerable number of the spectators were in 
 some measure, prepared for such an exhibition as that of Mr. 
 Early, by prelibations of his temper, in the former debates 
 of the Conference on the subject of abolition — yet the rude- 
 ness of his language, and the ferocity of his manner, both in 
 lielter harmony with the calling of his overseer, than that of 
 a minister of Jesus Christ, produced and evident shock on the 
 majority of those present. It furnished occular demonstra- 
 tion of the odious supremacy which the spirit of oppression 
 acquires, by long and uncontrolled domination, over the spiiit 
 of love; and gave, so far as one instance could, decisive, evi- 
 dence of the irreconcilableness of the religion of the Gospel, 
 with the slavery of the South. 
 
 The persons supposed to be alluded to, by Mr E. towards 
 the conclusion of his speech, were Mr. Scott and Mr. Storrs, 
 both members of the Conference, and the editor of the Phil- 
 anthropist, who was in the gallery as a spectator; and who, 
 !)y the rules of the house, was not permitted to make any 
 reply to this assault on his feelings and character — made in 
 the presence of hundreds of spectators, and unprecedented, 
 so far as is known, in any professedly religious assembly, that 
 has ever been convened in this country. 
 
 When Mr. Early had ended his lemarks, a gentleman -whose 
 name we are not enabled to ascertain, moved to lay on the ta- 
 ble the motion to refer, then under consideration. This was 
 carried by a large majority. 
 
 The original resolution was again read: — 
 Dr. Bangs, of New York — commenced his speech by say- 
 ing, he would not detain the Conference, if he thought they 
 were ready to vote — but, he was sure they were not ready, 
 he would make a few remarks. [The Doctor was here, stop- 
 ped by a member of the Conference approaching, and speak- 
 
( 79 ) 
 
 fng to him in a low and subdued tone. They whispered to- 
 gether a few seconds — when the Doctor resumed some- 
 what in the following strain.] Things are in a strange pos- 
 ture. There is an incendiary paper printed in New York — 
 whilst its editor is /^ere, in the Conference. [Dr. B. was sup- 
 posed to allude to Zion's Watchman, a Methodist n^ewspaper in 
 New York, edited by La Roy Sunderland, who is in favor of 
 free discussion on all subjects, not even excepting slavery^ 
 the peculiar favorite of the American Church. The person 
 alluded to as 'editor,' we suppose was either Mr. Scott or Mr. 
 Storrs — the last of whom furnished for that paper brief 
 sketches of the proceedings of the Conference.] Nor is this 
 all, sir — not only by this paper, are the courtesies of good 
 breeding and gentlemanly conduct violated in the publication 
 of the proceedings of the Conference — there is too, an incen- 
 diary print liere — in this city — pursuing the same unjustifiable 
 and ungentlemanly course. There is a perfect harmony 
 among them. And what is the object of the abolitionists? 
 Has not this same subject been sufficiently discussed? And 
 has not the mind of this Conference been made up and settled? 
 Is it not certain there will be no change here ? Sir, sir, I 
 greatly deplore it — I greatly lament, that these firebrands are 
 yet thrown in upon the combustible matter wherever it is to 
 be found. What, sir, let me again ask, can be their object? 
 Is it to make converts? They can entertain no such hope. 
 Is it to bring the Conference to their views? This must be 
 still more hopeless. No, sir, they are doing evil that good 
 may come. Is it not doing evil, to misrepresent — to garble 
 — to publish our speeches without submitting them, before 
 publication, to the speakers? Is not this doing evil that good 
 may come? 
 
 They are under the necessity of holding out a good object 
 to the world: — But what do they, what can they expect? Do 
 they really look forward to the emancipation of the Africans 
 in the south? Do they really expect to convert the south to 
 the doctrines of abolitionism? Do they really expect to con- 
 vert this Conference to abolitionism, and that we will begin 
 the work of slave emancipation? No, sir: as well might they 
 lay their shoulders to the Alleghany mountain, expecting to 
 move its huge mass, as to look forward to any such events as 
 those just mentioned. No, sir, they don't expect any such 
 thing, and I would vote for the resolution as it is, as quickly 
 as if it were clothed in softer terms. Truly things have ar- 
 rived at a strange condition! That we are to be detained here 
 on this»" miserable and perplexing subject" — ^to have thrown 
 in upon us most incendiary pamphlets, abounding in misrep- 
 resentations, gross and palpable, and there is to be no note of 
 disapprobation or of censure! An individual printer is to be 
 
( 80 ) 
 
 Jiere in our midst, inditing, lor the purpose of propagating, un- 
 truths — and yet we must be silent, we must not say they are 
 wrong — they are falsehoods. Shall we be more tender, 
 and alfect to use gentler language than an apostle? What, 
 sir, was the language of the mild Jolin with oflenders? "He 
 that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is 
 a LIAR, and the truth is not in him." And shall we be more 
 delicate and forbearing to any man, who, using the privilege 
 granted to all, of being at our debate, shall turn himself into a 
 REPORTER of our proceedings, and thus break in upon the 
 courtesies of the place, and flagrantly violate the hospitalities 
 conferred upon him? Has any deliberative body been thus 
 abused, thus insulted? Does not Congress — Do not all legis- 
 lative assemblies reserve to themselves the selection of their 
 own reporters, over whom they keep a strict supervision — 
 who submit to members their speeches for correction, before 
 they dare publish them to the world. But here, it would seem 
 to be otherwise. Sir, I do not believe in such doctrines. [It 
 will be seen, that, in this speech the Doctor repeated, what 
 he had said the day before, in reference to the Editor of the 
 Philanthropist. He was probably informed, that his first 
 broadside had not taken full eifect, in consequence of the ob- 
 ject at which it was directed, not being present. But that of 
 to-day, was discharged point blank at Mr. Birney — who was 
 sitting in the gallery opposite the Doctor, and who, in all like- 
 lihood was pointed out to him by the gentleman who inter- 
 rupted him, at the beginning of his speech. Two strange fan- 
 tasies seemed, for the time being, to have taken possession of 
 the Doctor's mind. The fu'st was, that the General Confer- 
 ence ought to possess the same power over the reporters of its 
 })roceedings, as that which, in the greenness of his notions, he 
 had ascribed to the Congress of the United States. The se- 
 cond was — that the abolitionists were desirous of committing a 
 "literary theft" on some one or more of the Doctor's speeches. 
 
 Before the Doctor had finished his slashing lampoon, his in- 
 dignation rose to a fearful height. The spectators, all, looked 
 on him with amazement — some., with pity.] 
 
 It now seemed, that the Conference were ready to proceed 
 to a final vote. Mr. Scott rose and moved, that Jiis name be 
 inserted in the resolution instead of the word member — so 
 that who w\as intended might be fully known. 
 
 Dr. Bangs moved to lay this motion on the table. It was 
 accordingly laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Sorin, of the Philadelphia Conference, now rose, and 
 after making some biting remarks on the subject under con-, 
 sideration — the resolution itself — proceeded to give his opin-- 
 ion, how indecorous it was in any one to take notes of the 
 proceedings of the Conference, with a view ofpublishingtheuii 
 
( 81 ) 
 
 to the world. He moved a resolution that "such note taking 
 was considered by the Conference as highly indecorous," &e. 
 In order to give additional force to his remarks and to recom- 
 mend his resolution, he said, the business of taking notes had 
 not only been pursued on former occasions during the session, 
 but, that it was now going on in this house. The attention of the 
 Conference was here directed to that part of the gallery where 
 Mr. Birney was sitting, making memoranda of the several 
 speeches. When the resolution of Mr. Sorin was offered, it 
 was responded to by two distinct, sympathetic, ameti's. There 
 was, about this time, some little confusion in the Conference, 
 occasioned, perhaps, by their near approach to the final vote. 
 In the bustle and anxiety for thi«^ event, Mr. Sorin's motion 
 received the go-by — the Bishop remarking, "this was a sepa- 
 rate matter." 
 
 At this stage of the proceedings, Mr. Ruter asked permis- 
 sion to be excused from voting on the resolution. According 
 to our recollection he was excused. Some intimation was 
 given, that others would desire the same" favor. Mr. M'Fer- 
 rin, of the Tennessee Conference, remarked, with some degree 
 of petulance, that it was not against the rule for members to re- 
 tire from the room — that in this way they might avoid voting. 
 
 The vote v^^as then taken on the original resolution, which 
 was passed by ninety— seven m the affirmative, to nineteen 
 in the negative. Many, it is supposed, did not vote, as the 
 whole number in the Conference was more than one hundred 
 and fifty, and but few had left for home. 
 
 Mr. Storrs now moved, that he and others who had voted in 
 the negative, should be permitted to have their names entered 
 on the Journal of the Conference, as voting against the reso- 
 lution. The debate which was about rising on this motion, 
 was soon quelled by another, to lay it on the table. This 
 succeeded by a large majority. 
 
 Mr. Roszell moved, that the proceedings be published in the 
 Christian Advocate and Journal, of New York, and the West- 
 ern Christian Advocate, in this city. The Conference then 
 adjourned. 
 
 GRAND FINALE. 
 
 The report of the committee appointed to draft a Pastoral 
 address to the Methodists throughout the United States, was 
 presented by the Chairman, Dr. Bangs, on Thursday morning 
 the 26th May. It contained a severe article on abolitionism.. 
 Speaking of slavery in the states, it said — "Whatever au- 
 
( 82 ) 
 
 thority Congress may exercise over slavery in the District of 
 Columbia and the Territories," it has no power to touch the 
 subject in the states, &c. 
 
 x\s soon as the Report Vi'as read, Mr. Early, of Virginia,, 
 moved to strike out of it all that related to the District of 
 Columbia. He said the Report was perfect without it — that 
 the nation was divided on that question — and that tlie Com- 
 mittee on Slavery, in the House of Representatives, had just 
 reported, that Congress had no jjoicer to abolish slavery in 
 the District. 
 
 Several other gentlemen from the south spoke of striking 
 out, and one of them said, — if the Report went to the world as 
 it u-as, this feature in it, wouklbe differently construed. Some 
 Vv-ould infer, that the General Conference believed that Con- 
 gress had power to abolish slavery in the District, and son;e 
 would draw an opposite inference. 
 
 Mr. Scott said he would like to ask, whether he should un- 
 derstand Mr. Early as saying, that the committee in the House 
 of Representatives, had reported that Congress had no power 
 to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the Ter- 
 ritories. The chair stated, that this was what Mr. E. had 
 said — but that he was mistaken. The committee referred to, 
 had not expressed an opinion on that subject. [They have, 
 and a strange one it would be in other times. The}' say in- 
 ■substance, that the expediency of continuing slavery in the 
 District, is to the full, as obligatory on Congress, as if its per- 
 petuation was provided for by the Constitution. Ed. Phil.] 
 
 Well, continued Mr. Scott, the whole country, with but few 
 exceptions, are of opinion that Congress has power to abolish 
 slavery in the District. Many of the southern members of 
 Congress acknowledge this. But, sir, this Report expresses 
 no sentiment on that subject — and, why this disposition to 
 avoid any allusion to slavery in the District of Columbia? If 
 this part of the report should be struck out, an impression 
 will be made, that we believe the entire responsibility of the 
 .continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia and the 
 Territories, stands on a different ground from what it does. 
 We ought to contribute to keep up this distinction- No harm 
 can grow out of it — and by doing so, we shall avoid being 
 misunderstood. I have been sorry to see such a disposition 
 in the General Conference, when the subject came up, to keep 
 slavery in the District and in the Territories out of sight. 
 Why is this? 
 
 Mr. Roszell — said, he was astonished at the remarks of the 
 brother last up. He was indeed a strange anomaly in a 
 Methodist Conference. He did not think God ever suffered 
 another such a man to be connected with such a body; — his 
 conduct was ridiculous, [we believe, such conduct as was ob" 
 
(83) 
 
 served toward Mr. Scott, is well fitted for disconnecting him 
 and all others who value religious liber ty more than ecc/mr/^- 
 ^zca/ poi^'cr, from " such a body. " Ed. Phil.] 
 
 Mr. Paine, of Alabama said he hoped no brother would 
 disgrace himself by replying to Mr. Scott, [The chair here 
 cried, "no personalities!"'] 
 
 It is to be remembered that Mr. Scott, took the ground 
 occupied by the committee that had made the report — one of 
 whom was a slave-holder. The other members were Dr. 
 Bangs and Mr. T. A. ]\Iorris. For advocating the report as 
 the committee presented it, Mr. Scott was denounced as if he 
 had been guilty of some enormous oflence! 
 
 Mr. Wynans — said, the brother from New England had a 
 right to his opinions — and also to express them. His manner, 
 compared with old Mr. Roszell's was mild. He was for strik- 
 ing out, (Slc. 
 
 The committee came together and agreed to strike out 
 what related to the District of Columbia. The passage 
 struck out by them w^as that oflered as an amendment by 
 Mr. Hoag, of the Oneida Conference — but it was lost, 3! 
 voting for it and 71 against it. Mr. Husted of Maine, then 
 proposed an amendment recognising slavery as an "evil'" — 
 in the very words of the Methodist Discipline. This was re- 
 jected by a majority so large, that the vote was not counted. 
 So the General Conference refused to express any sentv 
 ment against slavery. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 The following minutes of the proceedings of the General Confer- 
 ence are entitled to the first place in the foregoing account, but it was 
 not determined to insert them, at all, till it was too late to give them 
 any otherplace than that which they now occupy. 
 
 FROM THE PHILANTHROPIST. 
 
 Mr. Editor — Believing that the discussion of the subject 
 of slavery has a direct tendency to promote the cause of 
 abolition, I propose taking minutes, so far as I shall be able, 
 of what may be said and done on that subject, during the ses- 
 sion of the General Conference, and furnish the same for 
 your disposal. A Spectator. 
 
 Monday, Mat 2. 
 
 The subject of slavery was first noticed in this venerable 
 body by the Rev. Wm. Lord, Delegate, from the British 
 Wesleyan Conferenfce. At the close of a very able and con- 
 ciliatory address, on presenting to the Bishops an address 
 from the Wesleyan Conference, Ite alluded to that part of it 
 which referred to slavery in a most dignified manner, remind- 
 ing them of what he said they all knew before, that the Wes- 
 leyan Methodists in England, were in toto opposed to sla- 
 very, and while they observed great prudence in relation to 
 the subject of emancipation, yet so soon as they saw that the 
 good of the cause of God required it, they were prompt, 
 unanimous and persevering in supporting the cause of aboli- 
 tion. He closed by saying, the body whom he had the honor 
 to represent, would wish their fatherly council to this body 
 so to be understood, as to mean that it might abolish slavery 
 as soon as it could be done safely. 
 
 Tuesday, May 3. 
 
 The address from the Wesleyan Conference was read and 
 referred to a committee of three, to prepare an answer as 
 soon as practicable, that both the address and answer might be 
 published together according to former usage in such cases. 
 
 Wednesday, May 4. 
 
 The chairman of the committee presented and read an an- 
 swer, which, on account of its severe reflections both on the 
 American abolitionists and the Wesleyan Conference, was 
 objected to, and recommitted for amendment. 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 Thursday, May 6. 
 
 This report was again presented in a somewhat improved 
 form. It was framed, the chairman said, on the principle of 
 compromise between the extremes of their great connection. 
 But yet it was objected to. 1st, by some of the southern 
 members, because it expressed a readiness to embrace every 
 opportunity to ameliorate the temporal and spiritual condi- 
 tion of the colored population. 2nd, by the northern mem- 
 bers, because it seemed to complain of a want of sympathy 
 on the part of our British brethren, and contained no distinct 
 declaration either of the great evil or sin of slavery, or their 
 opposition to it as a church. Also, because, it was liable to 
 be understood as denying to the General Government the right 
 to legislate on slavery in the District of Columbia and the 
 Territories, as well as in the States. The Committee, how- 
 ever, said that they did not intend thus to be understood, but 
 the Committee refused to amend it in that particular. 
 
 H. B. Bascum pi'oposed an amendment to obviate the diffi- 
 culty of the south, respecting, embracing every opportunity to 
 ameliorate the condition of the slaves; by adding the words 
 "as we have ever done." Thus giving uniform character to 
 the means that have been used heretofore, and those that shall 
 be used hereafter. 
 
 Mr. Capers thought that the best course would have been, 
 not to report at all on that part of the document respecting 
 slavery. But he thought no harm could follow from the re- 
 port in its present form, if it was understood to have no bear- 
 ing on the peculiar relations in the south. Brethren might 
 believe as they pleased in respect to the matter, but mind 
 how they speak and what they say, or they would be suspec- 
 ted of designs against existing relations, and thus kindle an 
 unhallowed flame and forever shut the door of access to the 
 unfortunate negro. 
 
 The amendment carried, and the report as amended was 
 adopted by a large majority. 
 
 O. Scott moved that the address and the answer be printed 
 and published together in their official papers. But this was 
 objected to, and the further consideration of the subject was 
 laid on the table without much discussion. 
 
 The above is about the true character of the discussion on 
 slavery thus far had in this venerable body of ministers. As 
 I write from memory, some unimportant inaccuracies, princi- 
 pally verbal it is believed, may appear in these minutes, but 
 the substantial features of the debate, I am confident are re- 
 tained. 
 
 From the treatment of this subject thus far, I am fully con- 
 vinced that the southern members are divided in respect to 
 the best course for the General Conference to take. Some 
 8 
 
( 86 ) 
 
 think that no action at all, not even the mentioning of the sub- 
 ject, would be best-others think that a unanimous declaration 
 against abolitionism would be far preferable. But both par- 
 ties perfectly agree in the object desirable to be attained, 
 viz: an entire cessation of operations for emancipation now 
 and forever. About twenty of the delegates from the north, 
 principally from the New England Conferences are firm abo- 
 litionists, and of course desire that something should be done 
 by this venerable body possessing the highest jurisdiction of 
 the Methodist Episcopal Church. Something too, that shall 
 declare to the world, that they are what they have always 
 professed to be, 'convinced of the great evil of slavery.' 
 This minority no doubt will do their duty in supporting steadi- 
 ly and firmly their asserted, but invincible principles. 
 
 The balance of the northern members seem to agree, that 
 ' slavery is a sin, but stagger at the thought of assailing it. To 
 this number may be added the delegates of most of the Confer- 
 ences from the middle and western States. They will not hold 
 slaves, and they will not attack slavery, except it exists 
 among themselves. And it should be said in commendation 
 of the Baltimore Conferences, if we are correctly informed, 
 that though they are situated in a slave-holding community, 
 yet among the whole of the preachers, not one of them holds 
 a slave, nor do they allow their people to buy or sell, except 
 to free them. This is quite different from the state of the 
 Conferences farther south, and goes far to confirm our opin- 
 ion, that necessity does not oblige christian Ministers to hold 
 property in men, though they may be surrounded by a slave- 
 holding community. 
 
 Monday, May 9. 
 
 A petition was presented by J. A. Merril, signed by 151 trav- 
 ing, and 49 local preauheis, praying for the restoration of sev- 
 eral i*ules on slavery, which had been expunged from the dis- 
 cipline of the church about 30 years. It was moved by J. A. 
 Merril, and seconded by O. Scott, that it be referred to a se- 
 lect commitee, with instructions to report, at, as early a period 
 as practicable. Dr. Bangs said that he had hoped that the sub- 
 ject of slavery would not come up at all before that body. But, 
 he was now convinced that they could not blink it; that they 
 had better meet it fairly, — therefore, he was in favor of the 
 reference. It was acordingly referred to a committee of 
 seven. 
 
 John Early said, the Union could be preserved only by the 
 influence of religous denominations. — The Episcopalians 
 were respectable for intelligence, but their number was small. 
 The Baptists had lost their bond of union, in their dissentions 
 about immersion. The Presbyterians, though a large and in- 
 fluential denomination, were agitated from the centre to the 
 
( 87 ) 
 
 circumference by this 'afflicting subject,' (slavery.) Tiie 
 Methodist Episcopal Church had in her organization a bond 
 of union, sufficiently strong to accomplish all that is desirable 
 for the safety of the nation. She was looked to for unanimous 
 action on this subject, and that action must be wholly to stop 
 the agitation of it. Let abolitionism be denounced by her 
 from Maine to Illinois, and it would place her on a command- 
 ing eminence that she had never yet enjoyed. 
 
( 88 ) 
 
 LETTER FROM GEORGE STORRS, 
 
 On board Steam-Boat, Ohio river,") 
 May 27th, 1836. J 
 
 Dear brother Birnet — When I saw you night before last, 
 I did not think of leaving Cincinnati without seeing you 
 again. Circumstances which I will not stop now to detail, 
 led me to determine to leave yesterday morning at 9 o'clock. 
 I had not one moment to see you previous to going on board 
 the boat. 
 
 I send you herewith a copy of the Protest, which we had 
 intended to present to the General Conference, in the case of 
 brother Norris and myself. The course taken with brother 
 O. Scott, and the refusal of the Conference, to let those of us, 
 who voted in the negative in that case, record our names on 
 its journals, determined me, and the others, whom 1 had time 
 to consult, to withhold the Protest from the Conference, and 
 publish it at once. 
 
 The censure passed upon brother Norris and myself, inas- 
 much as I considered it an assumption of authority not be- 
 longing to the General Conference, determined me, that, so 
 long as that censure rested upon me, I would not preach during 
 its session, at any appointment made for me by the commit- 
 tee on preaching. For the first three weeks of my stay at 
 Cincinnati, the committee gave me no appointment. After 
 that, they appointed me to preach at Dr. Wilson's church 
 Sabbath evening last. Immediately on learning the appoint- 
 ment, 1 addressed the following note to the chairman of that 
 committee : 
 
 "Brother Swormsteadt — unless the vote of this General 
 Conference, censuring two members of this body, as guilty of 
 "unjustifiable conduct," is reconsidered and rescindedy I shall 
 feel myself under no obligation, to fill any appointment made 
 for me, by the committee on preaching. 
 
 George Storrs." 
 
 While brother Norris' and my case, was before the Confer- 
 ence, application was made by a Presbyterian minister, to 
 the committee on preaching, for us to preach for him on Sab- 
 bath following. He was told that our case was under con- 
 sideration, and it was not known, how it would be decided; 
 and therefore, the committee refused the application. After 
 it was decided, and we were pronounced guilty of "unjusti- 
 fiable conduct," I was read off" to preach as above; [at Dr. 
 Wilson's.] I did not choose to fulfil the appointment. I did, 
 however, preach twice on that Sabbath, for the minister who 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 had petitioned for me the week previous. A hue and cry has 
 been raised, 1 have been told, (and I have learned more partic- 
 ularly about it since I left Cincinnati,) that 1 preached abolition 
 right out. 1 neither mentioned abolition nor slavery. I en- 
 deavored to encourage christians to obey God without waver- 
 ing. If that was preaching abolition^ why then I did preach 
 it. I have come to the conclusion, that it is impossible for 
 any man to preach the whole gospel and duty of man, without 
 preaching the principles of abolition, whether he designs it or 
 not. I have no other apology to make for a sermon, that 
 seems to have disturbed the anti-abolitionists so much. 
 Yours in the Gospel of Liberty, 
 
 GEORGE STORRS. 
 
( 90 ) 
 
 TO THE BISHOPS AND MEMBERS IN GENERAL CONFER- 
 ENCE CONVENED AT CINCINNATI. 
 
 We, the undersigned, members of this General Conference, 
 respectfully request that we may have the privilege of re- 
 cording our Protest, on the journals of this Conference, against 
 the doings and vote of this General Conference in the case of 
 two members the re of, "who," to use the words of the Confer- 
 ence," are reported to have lectured in this city, recently, 
 upon, and in favor of, modern abolitionism." We protest a- 
 gainst the doings of this General Conference, because we be- 
 lieve those doings were unconstitutional, anti-Methodistical, 
 not warranted by the discipline of the church, and in opposi- 
 tion to the plain letter thereof. 
 
 In the first place, this Conference have taken up a"rejoo7'i" 
 of the couductof two members of this body, without attempt- 
 ing to prove that that report is true. — They have pronounced 
 their conduct ^^unjustijiahle ; and have proceeded to resolve. 
 " That they disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the con- 
 duct of two members of the General Conference, who are re- 
 ported to have lectured in this city recently, upon, and in 
 favor of modern abolitionism. 
 
 If the conduct of those two bretheren is unjustifiable, as this 
 General Conference have said, — to say the least, it was 
 ^Hmprudent conduct, " to use the language of our discipline. 
 What then was the course to be pursued? Was it to bring 
 their case at once before this body and condemn them, as 
 guilty of "unjustifiable conduct!" We think not. In our 
 discipline. Chapter 1, Section 18, Question 2. "What shall be 
 done in cases of improper tempers, words or actions ? Answer, 
 The person so offending, shall be reprehended by his senior in 
 office. — Should a second transgression take place, one two or 
 three ministers or preachers are to be taken as witnesses. If 
 he be not then cured, he shall be tried at the next annual Con- 
 ference, and if found guilty and impenitent, shall be expelled 
 from the connection, and his name so returned in the minutes 
 of the Conference." The same section provides for "an 
 appeal to the ensuing General Conference." 
 
 It is plain, that this General Conference in its action, in re- 
 gard to the two members censured, have entirely overstepped 
 all the previous steps directed to be taken by our discipline. 
 We conceive, that it is clearly evident, that the General Con- 
 ference has no such power; and that they have, by this act, 
 done that, which is unconstitutional; for one of our "restrictive 
 rules," so called, in Chapter 1, Sec. 3, numbered 5, expressly 
 says, "They [the General Conference] shall not do away the 
 privileges of our ministers or preachers, of trial by a commit- 
 
( 91 ) 
 tee, and an appeal. " And yet this General Conference has, 
 to all intents and purposes, in the case of the two brethren 
 done away that privilege, and at once tried and condemned 
 them, as guilty of ^^unjustifiable conduct,,'''' by that body from 
 which there is no appeal. However unjustifiable their con- 
 duct might have been considered to be, to us it is clear that 
 this General Conference had no constitutional power to pass 
 this summary sentence, by which ministers of our church are 
 pronounced to be guilty of "unjustifiable conduct;" and then 
 order it to be published in the public periodicals. These 
 brethren had violated no rule or regulation of this General 
 Conference. We, therefore protest against the doings of this 
 General Conference in their case, and request that this protest 
 may be recorded on the Journals of this Conference, and pub- 
 lished in our periodicals with the doings of said Conference. 
 Cincinnati,, May^ 1836. 
 
 J. F. Adams, 
 Jared Perkins, 
 C. D. Cahoon, 
 
 LiHu coTT, Delegates from New Hamp- 
 
 bAMUEL Kelly, > u- n c 
 
 ■ri T c5 ( shire Conference. 
 
 hi. J. bcOTT, 
 
 Samuel Norris, 
 
 SCHYLER ChaMBERLIN, 
 
 George Storrs, 
 
 J. A. Merrill, 
 
 Isaac Bonny, I ^^j^ ^^^ f^^^ ^^^ ^ 
 
 Charles Vergin, > i j n r 
 
 r\ Qi C land Conference. 
 
 UraNGE feCOTT, 
 
 Phineas Crandall. 
 
H283 8?iil 
 

 
 
 • .*^ 
 
 / .. 
 
 
 
 
 V^^ 
 
 
 \ 
 
 "^^ 
 
 
 ^^ ••T*' ^0 
 
 «*!,. * 
 
 
 r^.* J* \ -^W^i^.V^ ^O %^ 
 
 : ^"-n^. V 
 
 \. **' "'■ 
 
 A^i - 
 
 ,0^ \5. ') 
 
 4^' 
 
 
 c *•:-. 
 
 A** *ali&* '^ i^*^ 
 
 "^ ^9. •••'•A <. '4 
 
 
 

 
 
 : ^*^"-* 
 
 
 
 -^o' 
 
 
 
 •*» • * V ■*-* ■■ • • " « V '"^ » • » 4-1 
 
 ^ „ .i^V, •, 
 
 ..^* ••^te.'-. ■\.^** :'Mlk-^ ^-..^