AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY by Editor

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 1, 1858

AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY.

By Editor

The Annual meeting of this Society was held in the Reformed Dutch Church, Lafayette Place, Wednesday, May 12, 1858. A very deep interest was felt in relation to this meeting, and before the day of its gathering, it had been determined to admit only Life Directors, Life Members, and Officers of the Society into the house, and these only on the presentation of tickets previously obtained.

Preparatory meetings were held Monday evening and Tuesday morning, to decide upon a course of action to be pursued by those who regarded as wrong and revolutionary, the refusal of the Officers and Managers of the Society to comply with the instructions given them at the last Annual Meeting. The feeling of these meetings—that the refusal of the Committee to obey these instructions was blameworthy, and the reasons assigned by them for the refusal unsatisfactory—was nearly if not quite unanimous. But on the question of future measures there was a marked difference of opinion. A large majority of those present were united in the belief that it was best to ask nothing more than that the Society should reaffirm the vote of last year, and instruct anew the Committee about to be chosen, to carry out the views of the Society as then expressed. Some contended that this was all that was wanted, others that with this issue

they could be successful, while the asking of more would certainly secure defeat.

A minority of the meeting insisted earnestly that as slavery was a sin against God, and a crime against man, it was the duty of the Society to treat it as they did other sins, and that the Executive and Publishing Committee should be required so to deal with it. At the meeting of Monday evening, Chief Justice Hornblower, of New Jersey, made an earnest christian anti-slavery speech showing clearly where his sympathies lay, and that he could be in favor of no compromise with those who professed to be good christians, and yet held their fellow men in slavery. Mr. Lewis Tappan also regarded slavery as a sin, and insisted we had no warrant for instructing men relative to duties arising out of a sinful relation, and to be performed by them while continuing in that relation. Their first duty, is to break off from their sin by righteousness; and we had no right to turn their attention from this, by pointing out to them other duties supposed to arise out of their continuing to sustain a sinful relation. The Tract which the Committee had in print last year, and afterwards suppressed, was one that never ought to be published. In it, Bishop Meade, it is thought, assumes the rightfulness of slaveholding; he bases some of his appeals to masters on the assumption that they have the right to claim, as their own, all the time of the slave, not only for six days, but for seven, and argues in favor of their giving their servants religious instruction, on the ground that it will add to the market value of the slave. Such a Tract never ought to be issued by any religious Society. We are glad to see that the National Era proposes to publish a somewhat full report of the remarks made by Mr. Tappan.

A Committee had been appointed to propose a plan of action for the next day, who reported in favor of resolutions substantially like those introduced at the Tract Meeting by Judge Jessup. Mr. Tappan proposed to amend this report by introducing the words "Whereas American Slavery is a sin," &c. Rev. Dr. Cheever said the only ground on which the Tract Society had any right to meddle with the subject of slavery was that it was a sin against God, and argued in favor of demanding that it should be treated as such. Rev. Mr. Clarke, Rev. Mr. Thurston and others sustained this view.

Rev. Dr. Bacon said he thought he might say with certainty that there was no mind so degraded as not to know that this "great institution (slavery) was a gigantic wrong and sin," but he was opposed to the amendment asking the Society to declare it to be such. Dr. Hawes, Dr. Ide, Dr. Palmer, Rev. Mr. Patton, Bartlett, and others, also opposed the amendment, some on the ground that the sinfulness of slavery was sufficiently expressed in the resolutions of last year, others because they thought it better to say nothing about it.

The amendment was rejected, and the report of the Committee adopted. The resolutions offered at the meeting of the Society the next day, by Dr. Tyng, Judge Jessup, Dr. Thompson, and John Jay, were in accordance with this report.

The proceedings of the Tract Society's meeting on Wednesday have been published and widely circulated in the daily and weekly papers of this city and others, but we want to lay before our readers the resolutions passed, and those rejected, showing both what the Society did do, and what it refused to do.

The Report of the Publishing and Executive Committees gave a statement of the reasons of these Committees for withholding action on the resolutions of the previous year. These reasons, and the arguments to sustain them are substantially the same as those which they have before sown broadcast over the land.

Bishop McIlvaine was present by invitation, and moved that the action of the Committee as just reported be approved.

After a speech by Dr. Tyng in favor of a substitute to Bishop McIlvaine's resolution, he moved that the Bishop's resolution be laid on the table to take up his substitute. The question was called for amidst great confusion, and put to vote. It was lost by a large majority.

Judge Jessup then offered the following amendment to Bishop McIlvaine's resolution:

Whereas, at the annual meeting of this Society in 1857, the following resolution was unanimously adopted, namely, "That the political aspects of slavery lie entirely without the proper sphere of this Society, and cannot be discussed in its publications, but that those moral duties which grow out of the existence of slavery, as well as those moral evils and vices which it is known to promote, and which are condemned in Scripture and so much deplored by evangelical christians, undoubtedly do fall within the province of this Society, and can and ought to be discussed in a fraternal spirit;" and

Whereas, the precise intention and meaning of the Society in the provisions of the said resolutions is deemed doubtful by the Executive Committee and others; therefore,

Resolved, that the said resolution be hereby reaffirmed, and that the Committee now to be elected are instructed to carry the same into effect.

The amendment was voted down by a large majority. A scene of great confusion followed in which attempts were evidently made to prevent the minority from being heard. Dr. Bacon, however, got the floor, and opposed the resolution of approval. He was followed by Dr. Bethune in behalf of the Tract Management, and by Dr. Thompson in opposition. Dr. Thompson read passages from the Tract Sambo & Toney, and offered the following amendment which was laid on the table:

Resolved, That while the Society accept without question the statement of the Publishing Committee, and their reasons for delaying to publish any new tracts, in accordance with the fourth resolution adopted last year; yet, inasmuch as there is now issued by the Society a tract instructing servants in their duties, the Committee be directed to publish a tract on the duties of masters, according to the New Testament.

After several short speeches Prof. Crosby offered the following amendment, which was laid on the table:

Resolved, That it is expedient that no tract bearing upon the relation of master and slave be issued at present, and that the circulation of the tract Sambo and Toney be therefore stopped.

Bishop McIlvaine's motion was then passed by a very large majority.

John Jay then offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That nothing issued by the Publishing Committee should express or imply the Christian lawfulness of the system of American Slavery.

This was also laid upon the table, and it now became evident that anything the minority might offer would be rejected.

When the President announced that they would now go into the election of an Executive Committee, Dr. Bacon mentioned that action had been taken by the Boston Tract Society, which might have a bearing upon this election. The following letter was then read:

To the Board of Directors of the American Tract Society in New York:

GENTLEMEN: It has become my duty to communicate to you the following resolution:

At the forty-third annual meeting of the American Tract Society in Boston, holden on the 25th day of May, 1757, the following resolution was adopted:

Whereas, It was understood by those who were active in effecting the union between this Society and the American Tract Society in New York, as happily set forth in a brief history of this Society and its relations to the Society in New York, recently published by this Society, page 41, that the wishes of the Society in Boston would be duly regarded in the election of their Publishing Committee:

Therefore, we would respectfully suggest to the New York Society, that it would meet our wishes should they elect annually one of the members of their Publishing Committee from the Executive Committee of this Society; and that a copy of this vote be forwarded to the Board of Directors of this Society in New York. A true copy from the records.

Boston, Sept. 2, 1857.

Dr. Bacon said that, in accordance with the above request, he would nominate, as a member of the Publishing Committee, Rev. Mark Hopkins, D. D., President of Williams College and a member of the Boston Publishing Committee, in place of Rev. Nehemiah Adams, who was not a member of that Committee. The ballot then proceeded, and resulted in the choice of the old officers. The whole vote for the ticket was 419. Dr. Nehemiah Adams received 387; the other 52 were cast for President Hopkins.

The mass of the Assembly then retired, and the Annual Report was presented and approved.

We do not apprehend any evil result from this action of the Tract meeting; although by it the Society seems to have receded from its position of last year. Indeed we think it better that this result should have been reached, than that the Society should give circulation and apparent approval, to the pernicious sentiments of Bishop Meade's pamphlet, above alluded to. Another year, we hope higher ground will be taken and the Society be asked to treat this "gigantic wrong and sin," as they treat intemperance and other sins. Were the officers or members of the Tract Society themselves, or their children, in the condition of the victims of this stupendous wrong, we think there would be little difficulty in the way of their reaching such a conclusion. Can they carry out the great law of love to their neighbor, while they neglect to take it in his behalf.—Am. Missionary.