1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b05d847039de8f3d04d13bba3f5a2597.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=LpblqKPNnP7cnc0MoDd9yPjfPb352KPK9fjSFryEv-DWyLr-q9yGfmX%7EpLvcMwXsfPuG09JVrntEkSgpC609x1dkIl8HJWKMU8Mn2puFjQ6jEMhbl7Em6N1aAz7iUlXkscH0cy16TymYdVMootB9S7E-65u0x8nF2m%7EfrYy%7E60-T3a6vW23V7F6iuCCm2WIivYBovlR67RrTRRtrCq-X7OgUpwozEv-5iRwdp1Zkt6MwFJkvXFIN4lE54TpG%7EtH7XQy%7EDBLZl2rvxxXfCQ3rzc5qYKIovgyqjhDFe3EJByEeX-DvzNnUNLxjL-9bIVRj6OJgQzzXf4dTTHUfS0OXJA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
a97d637342f4bc16382d50fd2aa2f3cc
PDF Text
Text
PRICE THREEPENCE.
No. 1 OF ANTI-SLAVERY TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.
THE
AMERICAN BOARD OF MISSIONS
AND SLAVERY.
|-Xw
& Begrmt
■
OF THE CORRESPWi>E>NCE IN THE “ NONCONFORMIST ” NEWSPAPER;
TO WHICH IS ADDED,
-
AN ARTICLE ON THE FALL OF DR. POMROY,
AND HIS CONSEQUENT DISMISSAL EROM OFFICE,
BY CHARLES K. WHIPPLE, Esq., OF BOSTON, U.S.
■K '
:
’/'WuHW®
EDITED BY
|F . - JOSEPH A. HORNER,
HON. SEC. TO THE WAKEFIELD ANTI-SLAVERY ASSOCIATION.
“ It is right to have an expansive benevolence—to take into our regard the
world and the race; but where foreign charity is but a defence against home
kindness it is a base sentimental sham. Thousands will cry over compressed
feet in China who are quite unaffected by souls compressed in America. That
religion should compel mothers in India to cast their babes into the Ganges
shucks every sensibility of some men’s souls, who can see no occasion for grief
that commerce snatches from the dusky mother, in America, her babes, and
casts them forth to slavery,—a worse monster than was ever bred in the slime
of the Ganges or the mud of the Nile.”—Henry Ward Beecher.
LEEDSPUBLISHED BY J. B. BARRY & Co., 18; TRINITY STREET.
Printers to the Yorkshire Anti-Slavery Societies.
MDCCCLX.
�TO THE FRIENDS OF THE SLAVE.
This Pamphlet forms the first of a Series of Anti-Slavery
Tracts for the Times, which are especially designed to
awaken English Christians to a knowledge of the fact
that the American Religious Bodies are the bulwark of
Slavery.
In this important work the English Anti
Slavery Societies are earnestly invited to unite.
Donations in aid of gratuitous distribution may be
forwarded by private friends of the cause, and will be
thankfully received.
It is requested that Societies and others taking large
numbers will send their orders as soon as possible to
Joseph A. Horner, Hon. Sec. Anti-Slavery Association,
Wakefield.
March 1st, 1860.
�AMERICAN PRO-SLAVERY MINISTERS IN ENGLAND.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Sir,—I perceive by your impression of Wednesday last, that at the
late meeting of the Congregational Union, the President held out
the right hand of fellowship ” to the Rev. Dr. S. L. Pomroy,
Secretary of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions, accompanying it with a “ cordial welcome ” in the name
of the delegates, I cannot say that I was surprised at reading this,
for this is not the first time that English Christians have been en
trapped into giving a “ cordial welcome ” to pro-slaVery ministers
of religion •. but I must say that I felt extremely grieved to see the
Congregational Union “ welcoming ” a man who is utterly un
worthy of their confidence. Let those who joined in this “welcome”
•read the following, which appeared in the Boston (U.S.) Liberator
for March 14, 1859, in answer to some questions which had been
asked concerning this Dr, Pomroy and the board of which he is
Secretary :
“ The second inquiry as to whether Dr. Pomroy—now stealthily in England
- Receiving the people as secretary of the board—was ever identified with the
anti-slaverv movement, we answer in the affirmative. He early espoused it,
and was for several years an officer in the American Anti-Slavery Society, and
also in the New England Anti-Slavery Society; but he at last shamefully
apostatised, and was bribed to silence by the proffer of the office he now fills, and
has utterly repudiated that movement which he once so warmly advocated.
' His attempt to make capital for himself, and obtain favour for the American
Board on the strength of his old connexion with our cause, is equally dis
honest and jesuitical.”
From this it will be seen that Dr. Pomroy is thoroughly pro
slavery, and has been bought over by the pro-slavery party. If
rHwjything were needed to prove what is stated in the Liberator, his
conduct during his visit to Leeds, a few months ago, supplies it.
At that time he was reminded by Wilson Armistead, Esq-, Presi
dent of the Leeds Young Men’s Anti-Slavery Society, and others,
of Mrs Stowe’s and Dr. Cheever’s denunciations of the pro-slavery
fciaracter of the board he represents. As he continued to make no
reference to slavery in public, Mr. W. H. Pullen, hon. sec. of the
Anti-Slavery Society, addressed a calm and dispassionate letter to
him, requesting him to reply to the charges which had been made
and stating that unless he did so, it would of course be assumed
that he had
to say in defence. To this letter he vouchsafed
�4
no answer, and therefore we are compelled to believe him “ verily
guilty ” on his own silent testimony.
The American Abolitionists have long complained of the coni
duct of Englishmen on the slavery question. M e can hold public
meetings, and pass anti-slavery resolutions ; but when the time
comes for action we disgrace ourselves by giving “ the right hand
of fellowship ” to the pro-slavery party—thus more than undoing
the good we may have previously done. Such shameful incon
sistency is deeply to be regretted, as it not oniy strengthens the
fetters of the slave, but also injures the cause of freedom. I need
not enlarge upon the subject, but it is painfully suggestive, and at
the present time, when the slaveocracy are making systematic
attempts to corrupt the moral sentiments of Englishmen, and when
the honoured name of Joseph Sturge will be no longer known in
connexion with the anti-slavery movement, I would that every man
who loves liberty and hates despotism should lay it to heart, and
determine to be neither directly nor indirectly implicated in the
support of slavery. We have a right to demand proof of anti-sla-s
very antecedents before we give a “ cordial welcome ” to any
American; and until we do this we shall have a repetition of such
scenes as the late meeting of the Congregational Union has witj
nessed.
With sincere respect, I am, sir, your obedient servant,
Wakefield, May 20, 1859.
JOSEPH A. HORNER.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Sir,—The London newspapers—reporting the annual meeting of
the London Missionary Society—state that the Rev. Dr. Pomrov of
the American Mission, was one of the speakers on the occasion!
Slavery in America is sustained by the religious bodies, and lheir
members visiting England take part in religious movements. White'
this is the case, it is only fair to all parties to inform the public of
the relations which such visitors sustain to slavery. Permit me!
therefore, to refer to the position which Dr. Pomroy occupies
this important subject. He is one of the secretaries of the Ameri
can Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Now againM
that board 1 bring three charges—First, that one of its slaveholdipg
members murderously proposed, in Virginia, to burn the ab^fl
tionists ; secondly, that its missionaries baptize slaveholders without
requiring them to repent of their slaveholding sins; and, thirdly,
that they have declared that the Bible does not prohibit the sale of
human beings. These are but a specimen of the numerous charges
which the friends of the slave bring against that board. I now
submit thejH' ol’mud chilliviimc g gitrad.ci^n.
�5
First, that one of the slaveholding members of the board, mur
derously proposed, in Virginia, to burn the abolitionists. . If your
readers will please refer to the Key to “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” part
4th, chapter 1st, they will read as follows respecting Dr. Plummer
—(I have ascertained that he is a slaveholder and a member of the
board, and have published it extensively in the United States) :
“ The Rev. W. S. Plummer, D.D., of Richmond (Virginia), a member of
the old school Presbyterian Church, is another instance of the same sort. He
was absent from Richmond at the time the clergy in that city purged them
selves, in a body, from the charge of being favourably disposed to abolition.
On his return, he lost no time in communicating to the ‘ Chairman of the
Committee of Correspondence’ his agreement with his clerical brethren.
The passages quoted occur in his letter to the Chairman :—‘ I have carefully
watched this matter from its earliest existence, and every thing I have seen
or heard of its character, both from its patrons and its enemies, has confirmed
me, beyond repentance, in the belief that, let the character of abolitionists be
what it may in the sight of the Judge of all the Earth, this is the most med
dlesome, imprudent, reckless, fierce, and wicked excitement I ever saw. If
abolitionists will set the country in a blaze, it is but fair they should have
the first warming at the fire. * * * * Lastly, abolitionists are like
infidels, wholly unaddicted to martyrdom for opinion’s sake.
Let them
understand that they will be caught (lynched) if they come among us, and
they will take good heed to keep out of our way. There is not one man
among them has any more idea of shedding his blood in this cause than he
has of making war on the Grand Turk.’ ”
I come now to the missionaries—those labouring among the
Cherokee & Choctaw Indians. These, it is well known hold slaves,
In some instances, a hundred slaves are held by one Indian. In
the Anti-Slavery Advocate for April last, is a letter from Charles
K. Whipple, Esq. of the United States, describing the pro-slavery
policy of the above board, from which the following is an extract:
‘♦■Complaints had been made that their slaveholding church members were
(accustomed to sell children away from their parents; and the whole body of
missionaries, in a letter signed by the Rev. Eliezer Butler, Moderator, and
^gv. S. A. Worcester, Clerk, reply as follows:—‘ In regard to the separation
of parents and children, we must first remark, that it is one of those things
which are not forbidden by any express injunction of Scripture.’ ”
The board and its missionaries deserve the severest censure
of the civilized world; but ought not that censure to rest with
equal weight upon the secretary also—the Rev. Dr. Pomroy ?
Thanking you, sir, for an opportunity of placing these charges
aiid proofs before the public, I am, &c.,
Aidborough, Suffolk, May 20, 1859.
EDWARD MATHEWS.
�6
MR. PULLEN’S LETTER TO DR. POMROY.
Dear Sir,
Leeds, 29th January, 1859.
By public announcements I perceive that you are to lecture, on
Monday evening, in the Music Hall, on behalf of the “ Turkish
Mission Aid Society.”
As we are informed that that society has severed all connexion
with the American Board, of which you are a secretary, we have no
objections to urge against that society whatever. But there area
as regards the American Board, a few difficulties which present
themselves to our minds, which we should feel obliged if you could
remove.
We understand, that in America the cause of emancipation is
greatly retarded by those who, imbibing the spirit of our Living
Redeemer, should be its greatest advocates and supporters. We are
aware that in the southern States slavery is fostered in the Church,
and promulgated by those who profess to be Christ’s ambassador^
on earth, that not only do southern but many of the northern
Churches refuse to denounce slaveholding as a sin ; and that many
of the large and influential religious institutions, such as the “Tract
Society,” “ Sunday School Union,” &c., pursue the same course
of action ; that foremost among these is the American Board, which,
by its apparent pro-slavery policy, has caused much anxiety - amh
trouble to those who are seeking, by righteous and legitimate
means, to overthrow this accursed system of oppression.
It has been asserted that the American Board is pro-slave^ in
policy if not in open avowal, though we fear the latter could be too
well substantiated. Having heard this, we feel it our duty, bbfdte
taking up arms, to examine the charges preferred against it. All
the evidence we have received goes far to substantiate the fact, and
we call upon you, therefore, for the sake of the peace of the Chinch I
—for the sake of equity and justice,—for the sake of the slave held
in fetters—and for the sake of our impugned Christianity—if it /U
possible, vindicate the policy of the society you represent. If not',
labouring under earnest convictions reluctantly arrived at, wq ffiei
it our duty not to remain silent upon the subject. We consider' the
Choctaw and Cherokee Indian tribes a living proof of your proslavery missionary efforts. From your own reports we gather the
principles which have actuated these efforts. We have the -testi
mony of Dr. Cheever, Mrs. Stowe, and others whom we greatly
esteem ; and all these tell us that your board has pursued^ most
dishonourable course of action, making it unworthy of a Christian
name or Christian support.
If this be the case, it must not be said that you were openly
welcomed in England, and our Anti-Slavery SocieSes were silent
spectators of the scene.
�1
We await your reply and are prepared to give the matter a calmf
unprejudiced, and caretui consideration. Much as we regret to
Bppose a professedly good and holy cause, yet we shall feel called
upon to make known our earnest convictions to the world, if those
convictions cannot be disproved. Your reply by letter, or in your
lecture on Monday evening, would be esteemed a favour,
By your obedient servant,
WM. II. PULLEN,
Committee Rooms, 7, East Parade.
Secretary of tlie Leeds Young Men’s
Anti-S>lavery Society.
From the British Standard, May 27, 1859.
REV. DR. POMROY.
“ Certain parties are hereby given to understand that we decline to drag
this gentleman before the British public as “ equally dishonest and Jesuitical.”
Before we can apply such language to such 'a man we must have far higher
authority than Mr. Garrison and his Liberator, which for many long years
has poured the foul slime of unscrupulous slander and envenomed malignity
on multitudes of the wisest and holiest men of the present generation.
That Dr. Pomroy declines to “ answer ” the insolent letters addressed to
pirn does not prove that he is “ verily guilty ”; but only that he is a man
of sense and verily discreet: standing on his character, and confidently
leaving it to defend itself.”
Note.—As those gentlemen whom the editor of the British Standard, in language more
expressive than elegant, terms “eertain parties," (ala Pimch) had never asked him to “drag’*
either Dr. Pomroy’s or any other person’s name before the limited portion of the “ British
public" who read his paper, this modest (!) disclaimer was wholly unnecessary.
From the Nonconformist, June 1st, 1859.
THE REV. DR. POMROY.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
-J fyti.
Sir,—The Rev. Dr. Pomroy has found a champion in the British
^Standard, the editor of which paper seems to think that the readiest
way of clearing the Doctor's character is to asperse the good name
of William Lloyd Garrison. If I were disposed to be uncharitable,
TEpionld remind the reverend editor of the Standard, that in thus
acting he is only imitating the policy of the pro-slavery party in
America; but as I do not wish to say one disrespectful word of a
deluded person, I shall simply remark that Mr. Garrison is not the
man to be frightened by the blast of a penny-whistle, even though
it be blown by the editor of the British Standard.
The Standard ignores the Rev. Edward Mathews’s letter
altogether, and asks for “higher authority” than “Mr. Garrison
�8
and his Liberator before applying such language [vide Nonconformist
last week) to such a man.” There are many who would consider
Mr. Garrison the very highest authority, but as the British Standard
is evidently not of the number, I will adduce further proofs of what
I stated last week. The name of Dr. Cheever and his noble
exertions on behalf of the slave are “household words” in England,
and therefore his testimony cannot but be esteemed. Concerning
the American Board of Missions, Dr. Cheever writes:—
*• It has been announced that a new Slave State is to be presented for
admission into the Union, embracing the territory of the Choctaws and
Cherokees, under the teachings of the American Board of Commissioners for
Foreign Missions. It would seem that those teachings have had no little
influence in bringing about this event, and consequently a most serious
question presents itself as to the attitude and responsibility of the Board in
this matter. * * * It cannot be questioned that if, from the outset, the
gospel had been plainly set against this sin, the sin, and not the gospel, would
have been abandoned.”
Besides Dr. Cbeever many others have denounced the pro-slavery
character of the Board, and amongst the rest, Mrs. Harriet Beecher
Stowe has spoken out boldly. In September last Mrs. Stowe wrote
as follows in the New York Independent:—
“A new Slave State is to be formed of this race, of whom our Missionaries
have been so many years the teachers; and their laws, in regard to slavery,
are to the full as savage and contrary to the gospel as those defended by the
other Anti-Christian Churches of the South.
A new Slave State! What a monument for Mills, and Newell, and Judson
to look down on from heaven! and now the Board wish quietly to withdraw
from the responsibility of their protege.
Suppose our missionaries had gone into States, as John G. Fee goes into
Kentucky, proclaiming the true gospel of liberty to the captive, and opening
of the prison to them that are bound—founding churches on principles of
strict anti-slavery communion. They would have been driven out, say you ?
How do we know? Fee is not driven out of Kentucky. One lone unaided
man, with no organised body at his back—with nothing for him but truth and
God (alas, that we should always count God as nothing!) John G. Fee is fight*,
ing in Kentucky the battle which we weep that it was not given to us and ours,
to fight in the Indian territories. He is fighting it successfully—necessities,!
afflictions, distresses, only make him stronger. Anti-Slavery Churches are
rising round him, feeble indeed in their beginning, but mighty in moral force;
and every inch which Chiistianity seems to gain under such auspices, she
really does gain.
All progress in moral things, founded on compromise with evil, is like the
advance of a runner who is tied to a post by an India-rubber band—he may
seem to go on, but the moment he rests, snap comes the pull of a recoil, and
all goes back.
When the American Board lets go responsibility for these churches, how
long will it be before the multiplied vices engendered by slavery, the licentious
ness, the cruelty, the habitual dishonesty, will sweep a polluted flood, over
whelming all that they have done? And deny—dispute it as they may,it will
for ever go forth to Christendom,—‘ This Slave State was educated by the
American Board.’”
&
�9
I submit these facts to your readers, and I think that until the
British Standard can answer them with something more than mere
vituperation, the verdict of honest freedom-loving Englishmen will
still be “verily guilty.”
“By their fruits ye shall know them,” and the “fruit” of the
teachings of Dr. Potnroy and his colleagues is a new Slave State;
therefore we “know them” to be pro-slavery, without Mr. Garrison’s
confirmation of the fact.
I am, dear sir, your obedient servant,
May 27, 1859.
JOSEPH A. HORNER.
From, the Nonconformist, June 15, 1859.
MR. JOSEPH A. HORNER AND THE AMERICAN BOARD.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Sir,—Within a day or two I have had my attention called to a
letter published in your paper of the 1st of June, signed by Mr.
Joseph A. Horner, in which he quotes certain communications of
Dr. Cheever and Mrs. Stowe, which appeared in the New York
Independent. As those communications came before the public
last autumn, after I left the United States, I have had no opportunity
to examine them. My sole object in this letter is to mention a few
facts, which may have a bearing on the interpretation of the
language used by the gentleman and lady just named.
1. The communications, quoted by your correspondent, grew out of the
action of the American Board at its last annual meeting in Detroit, in Sep
tember, 1858; at which time the report of a Committee was adopted, recom
mending that “the Board be relieved, as early as possible, from the unceasing
embarrassments and perplexities connected with the missions in the Indian
territory.” These “embarrassments” all spring from slavery, which has existed
in the Cherokee and Choctaw Tribes for more than a century. The object of
the above recommendation was to bring the missions of the Board, in that quar
ter, to an end—which will, without doubt, be accomplished at no distant day.
2. Dr. Cheever is a corporate member of the American Board, and he and
his congregation have been regular and liberal contributors to its funds till
within a year past certainly, and I have no reason to doubt have done the
same this year. At any rate, if he or his people have withdrawn, and declined
further contributions, it must be of a recent date; I have heard no intimations
of it.
3. Both the father and the husband of Mrs. Stowe are corporate members
of the Board, and have always been its warm friends and supporters, and I
have no doubt are so still. The same may be said of the Rev. Henry Ward
Beecher, the brother of Mrs. Stowe, who, with his congregation, has been a
regular contributor to the funds of the Board; and so have other members of
the Beecher family, so far as I know. I have no reason to doubt that
Mrs. Stowe fegtill a friend of the Board, though she may be anxious to cor
rect what she deems an error in its doings.
�10
4. The New York Independent, in which the letters of Dr. Cheever and
Mrs. Stowe were published, is an unequivocal friend and supporter of the
Board. Its oldest editor has long been among its prominent corporate
members; I allude to the Rev. Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, Connecticut. It®
other editor is the Rev. Dr. J. P. Thompson, of New York City, equally a
friend and patron; and so are both the congregations of these two gentlemen.
The office editor is the Rev. Joshua Leavitt, whose name is not unknown in
this country; he also is among the friends and patrons of the American Board.
Dr. Cheever and Mrs. Stowe are among the regular contributors to the columns
of the Independent. If therefore, the Independent, by its defence of the Board,
is chargeable with pro-slavery tendencies, what shall be said of Dr. Cheeve®
and Mrs. H. B. Stowe ? The fact is, there are some people in the world—I
wish the number were greater—who can see a fault in a man, or in an institu
tion, without wishing absolutely to kill either of them, especially when, with
a little care and patience, that fault may be remedied.
5. At the last annual meeting, a committee, to whom the general subject
had been referred, brought in a report, which was adopted by the Board—I
think unanimously—as expressive of its views and wishes. It is as follows
“ At Hartford, in 1854=, the views of the Board were clearly and definately
expressed, in regard to certain laws and acts of the Choctaw government,
which were designed to restrain the liberty of the missionaries as teachers of
God’s word. All the action of the Board since that date, and so far as we are
informed, the action of the prudential committee also, has been in conformity
with the principles then put upon record.”
.:
“ Your committee have reason to believe that the position of our missionaries
among the Choctaws, is one of much difficulty and peril. Among the various
religious bodies in the States nearest to the Choctaw nation, there has been, as
is well known, within the last twenty-five years, a lamentable defection from
some of the first and most elementary ideas of Christian morality, insomuch
that Christianity has been represented as the warrant for a system of slavery,
which offends the moral sense of the Christian world, and Christ has, there
by, been represented as the minister of sin.
Our brethren among the
Choctaws are in ecclesiastical relations with religious bodies (the Presbyterians^
in the adjoining States, the States from which the leading Choctaws are deriving
their notions of civilisation and of government. In those neighbouring States,,
and in the Choctaw nation, the missionaries are watched by the upholders of
slavery, who are ready to seize upon the first opportunity of expelling them
from the field in which they have so long been labouring. By the enemies of
the Board and of the missionaries, our brethren are charged with what are
called, in those regions, the dangerous doctrines of abolitionism. At the same
time they are charged, in other quarters, with the guilt of silence in the
presence of a great and hideous wickedness.”
“ It seems to your committee desirable, that the Board should be relieved, as
early as possible, from the unceasing embarrassments and perplexities con,
nected with the missions in the Indian territory. Surely the time is not far
distant, when the Choctaw and Cherokee Indians, and half-breeds, will stand in
precisely the same relation to the missionary work with the white people of the
adjacent States; and when the Churches there will be the subjects of home
missionary more properly than of foreign missionary patronage.”
:■ “ On the whole, your committee, with these suggestions, recommend the
report of the prudential committee, as referred to them, be accepted and
approved.”—Extract from Report o/1858.
I will only add that the Indian territory has not been organised
into a State; nor has any proposition to that effect been laid before
�II
Congress. Whether it will ever be done; is among the things
covered with the mists of futurity. It may be—it may not be. If
the attempt should be made, it is quite uncertain whether it would
succeed.
Very respectfully vours,
S. L. POMROY,
Sec. A. B. C. F. M., Boston.
7, Adam Street, Adelphi, June 14, 1859.
From the Nonconformist, June 29, 1859.
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF MISSIONS.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Dear Sir,—“ Save me from my friends” may well be exclaimed
by the American Board, for Dr. Pomroy has given his employers,
“the unkindest cut of all.”
He affirms that Dr. Cheever and
Mrs. Stowe are staunch friends of the Board, and tries to convey the
Impression that they write in its defence—a flagrant mis-statement,,
which the extracts in my last letter clearly disprove. But granting,,
for the sake of argument, the truth of his assumptions, then the
Board must be bad indeed when all that they can urge in its defence is, that it has led to the formation of “ a new Slave State.”’
With a charming simplicity, which would be very refreshing if
it were quite genuine, Dr. Pomroy informs us that, in consequence
of the “embarrassments” which beset the Board, they intend to
discontinue the mission to the Cherokees and Choctaws.
In other words, having encouraged the Indians to commit a great
wrong, they wish to escape the censure which the sinfulness of
their conduct has evoked by beating an ignominious retreat from
the scene of their disgrace. Instead of repenting of their sins, and
demanding the release of his victim by the slaveholder, they, like
Pilate, wish to wash their hands of the consequences of their own
acts. A course of action like this may meet the views of a pro-,
slavery Board of Missions, but I very much question whether
anti-slavery Englishmen will not understand the true nature of this
n^nceuvre. however Dr. Pomroy may try to hide its real meaning.
Your readers will mark the characteristic caution with which
BU^ Pomroy approaches this subject. He does not venture to deny
the charges of Mrs. Stowe, Dr. Cheever, and others. He dare not
do it. All he can do is to try and destroy their effect by a roundabout statement which aims at nothing, and proves as little. One
paragraph which he quotes as proof of the anti-slavery position of
the Board expresses more than he intended
�Surely the time is not far distant when the Choctaw and Cherokee Indians
will stand in precisely the same relations to the missionary work with the
white people of the adjacent States, and when the Churches there will be the
subjects of home missionary more properly than of foreign missionary
patronage.”
Now Dr. Pomroy cannot deny that slaveholding does exist
amongst these Mission Churches, and therefore it follows that the
American Board, according to their own declaration, do not regard
slaveholding as inconsistent with a profession of religion, and that
they recognise slaveholding Churches as worthy fellow-labourers in
the great field of home and foreign missions.
_ That the views of the missionaries may be clearly shown, I will
give some extracts from their own published opinions. In a letter
to the Board, they say:—
“ In regard to the separation of parents and children, we must first remark
that it is one of those things which are not forbidden by any express injunction
of Scripture.”
Again they say:—
“In regard to rejecting any person from the Church, simply because he is a
slaveholder, we cannot for a moment hesitate. For we regard it as certain that
the Apostles, who are our patterns, did deceive slaveholders to the communion of
the Church;, and we have not, yet been able to perceive any such difference
between their circumstances and ours as to justify us in departing from their
practices in this respect.”
With regard to the buying and selling of slaves, they are equally
plain spoken :
“Occasional exchanges of masters are so inseparable from the existence of
slavery, that the Churches could not consistently receive slaveholders to their
communion, and, at the same time, forbid all such exchanges. We regard it,
therefore, as impossible to exercise discipline for the buying of slaves, except
in flagrant (!) cases of manifest disregard to the welfare of the slave.”
This is pro-slavery enough for the most ultra South American ]
and yet, with a hardihood which is characteristic of the double
dealing of the Board, they add:—
“We trust that we shall not for this be looked upon as advocates of slavery.
We are not so. We lament and deplore the existence of such a system,—our
feelings, our example, our influence are against it. But to make the adoption
of all our views respecting it, and a corresponding course of action, a test of
piety and a condition of fellowship in our Churches, is what we cannot in
conscience do."
Your readers may have seen during the great Anti-Corn-law
agitation a cartoon, in which Sir Robert Peel was represented with,
two faces : on one side, he smiled on the farmers with promises
of protection, and, on the other, conciliated the masses with the
assurance of cheap bread. The American Board are in an analogous
position. On the one hand, they are in fellowship with the slave
holder, and wink at his delinquencies, whilst, on the other, they try
�13
to win favour amongst the anti-slavery party by a judicious enuncia
tion of anti-slavery professions which, taken in the aggregate, amount
to nothing so long as practice is opposed to precept.
Dr. Pomroy may urge, in reply, that the statements I have quoted
were made by the missionaries some years ago; then I say, so much
the greater the guilt of the Board in allowing them to act in its
name until the present hour.
I am, dear sir, your obedient servant,
Wakefield, June 17, 1859.
JOSEPH A. HORNER.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Esteemed Friend,—The last issue of the Nonconformist con
tained a letter from Dr. S. L. Pomroy, intended to ward off the
damaging charges made against the American Board of Commission
ers for Foreign Missions, in regard to their complicity with slavery.
This letter may be divided into two portions—the one intended to
show that the American Board is now desirous of colsing its com
plicity with slavery; the other, that H. B. Stowe and Dr. Cheever
are implicated in the present position of the Board.
[Having quoted the extracts given in the letter above, our corres
pondent proceeds:—]
Being thus exposed, on the one hand, to the murmurings of their
pro-slavery missionaries, and, on the other, to the pressure of the
anti-slavery part of their subscribers (which has been the cause of
the talk against slavery on the part of the committee) it is not to
be. surprised at, that in 1858, they should be desirous of being
relieved from the “ unceasing embarrassments and perplexities con
nected with the missions in the Indian territory.” But can it be
considered any proof of anti-slavery feeling that they should wish to
shift the responsibility on to the shoulders of the “Home Missionary”
Society, which would be the result of the admission of these tribes
into the Union as a State.
We have seen that, in 1858, the Board endorsed the views
expressed in 1854, and that then they had “acknowledged with
gratitude to God the wisdom andfidelity” with which the Prudential
Committee had been advising and directing the missionaries in
conformity with the principles asserted by them in their corres
pondence, reported in 1848. It is evident, therefore, that the
position of the Board now is much the same as it was eleven years
ago. What that was has been shown above.
The attempt to implicate Mrs. H. B. Stowe in the proceedings of
the Board is as feeble as it is dishonest. It is evident that she
cannot be held responsible for the conduct of her relatives; and
the fact of her contributing to the New York Independent is no
�14
proof that she sympathises with or defends its general policy
particularly as some, at least, of her communications are made in
order to expose the pro-slavery character of different religious’
bodies, one of which is the American Board of Commissioners for
I am, respectfully,
Foreign Missions.
N. N. K.
June 22, 1859.
Note.—Although Dr. Pomroy remained in England some months after this, he did not
dare to question the preceding facts.
This silence proved that he had nothing to urge in
reply.
From the Nonconformist, November 9, 1859.
THE AMERICAN BOARD OF MISSIONS AND SLAVERY.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Sir,—Your readers will not have forgotten the correspondence
which took place in your columns a few months ago, concerning
the relations of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions to slavery. At that time, Dr. Pomroy, one of the secr@*
taries of the board then in England, tried in a very dishonest manner
to evade the charges of complicity in slaveholding which had been
brought against them. He did not positively deny the alleged
facts—that he dare not do, but being forced to say something, he
very clumsily attempted a reply, which was nothing more nor less
than a piece of refined Jesuitry. My purpose in again referring to
this subject is to direct attention to the annual meeting of the
American Board, recently held in Philadelphia. Slavery was of
course warmly discussed, and those who defended Dr. Pomroy and
the board as entirely anti-slavery will do well to remark that the
fact of the Choctaw and Cherokee Mission Churches being slave*'
holding was never disputed. Throughout the sittings the speakers
were unanimous on that point; and yet Dr. Pomroy told the min
isters of Leeds that the board was “ now (in January last) anti
slavery,” and on the strength of this he was warmly welcomed.
The Leeds Young Men’s Anti-Slavery Society protested against it
at the time, but all to no purpose; their statements were disbelieved
and in consequence the Dissenting Clergy of Leeds rest under the
imputation of having extended the right hand of fellowship, to the
pro-slavery representative of a pro-slavery Board of Mission®*!
I do not suppose for a moment that this was not the result of
ignorance, I believe that all those who received Dr. Pomroy are
warm friends to the slave, and I only allude to this in the hope
that it may act as a warning. No American minister ought to be
welcomed to our pulpits who cannot prove that he has been an
abolitionist when in America. If he is really anti-slavery he will
be proud to do so.
. At the late meeting the Bev. Dr. Cheever delivered a splendid
�15
philippic, in which the truckling of the Board to slavery was made
■clear as the noon-day. The following extract shows its spirit:
Bk‘ The Board ought to have placed themselves in absolute and total opposition to this wickedness in any shape. As a Board of Commissioners for the
salvation of the African race, they might annually have renewed their testi
mony against slavery, and their demand for its abolition in various appropriate
and powerful modes. At any rate, they should careiully have avoided sanc
tioning it even in appearance. They have had it for forty-eight years directly
in their way, directly beneath their power, directly calling for action. against
it. Under the system of inaction and indifference it has so maintained its
ground that at length not only the ecclesiastical bodies that maintain the
system which ma.kes them the reproach of Christendom stand ready to receive
and nourish the slaveholding (Mission) Churches, but the politicians and the
whole slaveholding policy and power of the United States are waiting to
receive a slave state,—a new slave state—into lie Union, from under the
favourable tuition and moulding of the religion of the Board during fifty
years!"
Dr Cheever moved the following amendment to the report con
cerning the Cherokee and Choctaw Mission Churches :
“ Your committee add, that in the opinion of the board, the holding of
slaves should be pronounced an immorality inconsistent with membership in
any Christian church, and that it should be required that these missionary
Churches should immediately put away from themselves this sin, and should
cease to sanction it even in appearance.”
The feeling of the Board on the subject is clearly shown by the
fact that this resolution found no support whatever, except-that it
was seconded by Dr. Cheever’s own brother. It was “ laid on the
table ” unanimously. Dr. Pomroy made great anti-slavery pro
gressions whilst in England, why then did he not support Dr. Cheever
at this crisis ?
The conclusion which the board did arrive at was in favour of
the discontinuance of the Choctaw Indian Mission. Dr. Cheever
wanted to hold on to the mission, and purify the churches by
expelling the slaveholders. Thus the Board having taught the
Choctaws to hold slaves, and having in consequence been denied
the subscriptions of many rather old fashioned Christians who could
not bring their minds to support a Society for the Propagation of SlaI tbry in Foreign Parts, have now turned their backs on their/mode's,
hoping in that way to escape the unpleasant results of their wicked
ness As the National (U.S.) Anti-Slavery Standard remarks—<•
Thfev show no signs of repentance; their movement is not macle in such a
manner as to entitle them io the least credit, or to give the least hope that
they are disposed, to help their ‘ neighbour who lies wounded and bleeding, on
the other side.’ ”
Dr. Cheever presented a memorial against the slave trade, which
was practically “burked,” being referred to the Prudential Com
mittee, who are little likely to take an anti-slavery position so long
as the notorious Dr. Nehemiah Adams, who, in his “ South-side View
of Slavery,” recommends the re-opening of the foreign slave trade,
�16
is one of the members. It is worthy of note that Dr. Pomroy
opposed Dr. Cheever’s memorial, because, as he said, he thought
there was not time to take proper measures—-a common excuse in
in America, for shelving the slavery question, and one that is per
fectly transparent.
The National A. S. Standard sums up as follows :—
“ In conclusion, we beg our readers—and especially the English readers of
the Standard—to remark that the Board have shown their pro-slavery char
acter in these four ways, in the important session which has just closed<
“ 1. By their unanimous refusal to adopt Dr. Cheever’s resolution, declaring
slaveholding an immorality, incopapatible with membership in a Christian
Church.”
“2. By their evasion of Dr. Cheever’s memorial against the slave trade.
“ 3. By their continued license to the slaveholding churches, and pro-sla
very missionaries of the Cherokee mission.
“ 4. By their continued neglect to enforce measures of Christian reform
upon the Choctaw Mission, and by their avowed motive in ultimately discon
tinuing that mission, namely, not to get rid of sin, but to get rid of trouble! ”
I submit these facts to the careful consideration of those whom
Dr. Pomroy imposed upon in England, and at the same time I
would recommend every lover of pure and undefiled religion to
place no dependence upon the bare assertions of any American,
whether he be a Doctor of Divinity or otherwise. If he says he
“ hates slavery as much as any one,” and yet cannot prove that he
has exerted his influence against it, he is only uttering what he
knows to be false. I have learnt by experience that American
ministers will stick at nothing in order to gain a welcome when
they visit us.
In conclusion, I beg, sir, to thank you most sincerely for your
kindness in opening your columns for the discussion of this subject.
1 have been assured by many ministers and others that some good
has been done, and, as an abolitionist, I am grateful to you for
having granted the opportunity.
Believe me, dear sir, your obedient servant,
Wakefield, Nov. 5, 1859.
JOSEPH A. HORNER.
From the Nonconformist, Nov. 16, 1859.
THE REV. DR. POMROY.
To the Editor of the Nonconformist.
Sir,—In addition to what I have already stated, allow me to add that
Dr. Pomroy has been boasting of the reception he received whilst
in England. According to the newspaper report of the late meeting:
“He (Dr. Pomroy) spoke of the great prosperity of the American Board,
and of the favour with which it is regarded abroad, especially in Great Britain
where its missionaries are regarded amongst the noblest men engaged in the
work of the Lord."
Those who welcomed Dr. Pomroy will probably demur to this,
as I know that many of them neither regard the spread of slavery
�with “ favour,” nor its propagandists as engaged in “ the work
of the Lord.”
I am, your obedient servant,
[Wakefield, Nov. 12, 1859.
'
JOSEPH A. HORNER.
“ We have sent our missionaries to all quarters of the globe; but how shall
they tell their Heathen converts the things that are done in civilized
America ? How shall our missionaries in Mohametan countries hold up their
heads and proclaim the superiority of our religion, when we tolerate barbar
ities which they have repudiated ? A missionary among the Karens, in Asia,
writes back that his course is much embarrassed by a suspicion that is afloat
among them, that the Americans intend to steal and sell them. He says:—
‘ I dread the time when these Karens will be able to read our books, and get
a full knowledge of all that is going on in our country. Many of them are
inquisitive now, and often ask me questions that I find it very difficult to
answer.’ ”—Harriet Beecher Stowe.
THE CASE OF DR. POMROY.
While Dr. Pomroy was absent from this city a short time since, the letters
received at the Missionary house, directed to him, were opened by one of the
under secretaries, as most of them relate to the business of the Mission.
Among these opened were some which tended to criminate Dr. Pomroy,
shewing that he had either been guilty of criminal acts which would destroy
his moral character, or that he was the victim of a conspiracy to extort money.
The letters were returned to the envelopes, and placed upon Dr. Pomroy’s
desk to await his return. On his return he saw that the contents of the let
ters were known, and he at once made a statement to the other secretaries of
what he averred were the facts in the case, and requested them to present
that statement to the Prudential Committee. This was done, and Dr. Pomroy
himself then went before the committee and made the same statement, which
was in substance as follows;—‘ Some time since, while he was walking out in
the evening, he was accosted by a well-dressed female, and, at her request,
accompanied her to her home. Whilst in the parlour conversing with her, a
man came in, and under the threat of exposure forced him to sign a note for
500 dollars, which he did, and subsequently paid it. A short time after he was
enticed by another female into another house, and there two men assailed
him and forced him to sign another note for 500 dollars, which he subse
quently paid. Another woman, by the representation that she was suffering
with a dissipated husband and destitute childen, enlisted his teelings, and he
opened a correspondence with her, and subsequently paid 500 dollais to get
his letters back, which he did, and destroyed them. He admits these state
ments to be true, and has placed his resignation in the hands of the Pruden'tial Committee.—New York Paper.
When a man in Dr. Pomroy’s position, and with his intelligence and expeH&ce—not a raw simpleton from some rural district, bnt a man who has
seen much of the world’s ways and much of human nature—a man now
almost sixty years of age—is involved in such relations with wicked women,
more than one or two—that he pays hush money, not only once, but twice,
kKg&I four times—when he has made the shameful payment, in one instance
for the reeavery of letters which would have disgraced him, and has done it
not at the advice of some timid friend to whom he went with his dreadful
burden, but at the advice of so dexterous a lawyer as the late Mr. Choate—
when it comes to light that out of limited means he has paid to wicked men,
�•the vile accomplices of wicked women, an aggregate of some two thousand
dollars—when it is announced that the conspirators who obtained his monejt
are known to the police, and may he prosecuted if he will initiate the pro
ceedings—when, under all this, he remains silent, explaining nothing, and not
even asking the public to suspend its judgement—surely it is’ time for us all
to acknowledge that, whether the man has or has not committed crimes not
yet charged upon him, the exposure which has taken place is far less of an evil
than that the man should have continued to wear the mask of concealment.
To say that the man who, having brought himself into this position, not only
hides the shameful facts from everybody—save his legal adviser—but keeps
the office which he cannot keep for a moment, save by that concealment, and
not even confining himself to the performance of his official work—volunteers
to make himself conspicuous on British platforms, with devout exhibitions of
religious sensibility—-must not be spoken of as having worn a mask, is not
what the occasion requires, in our way of thinking.—New York Independent.
RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE SEVENTH AND NINTH
COMMANDMENTS.
By Charles K. Whipple, Esq., of Boston, U.S., Author of Relations of
Anti-Slavery to Religion, de., de. *
Ths following notice has lately appeared in all the newspapers,
religious and secular, in Boston, and thence has been circulated
all over the country, and sent over to England :—
To the Public.-—Facts have recently come to the knowledge of the Pru
dential Committee of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mis
sions, deeply implicating the moral character of Dr. Pomroy, and rendering
it impossible that he should longer retain his official position as a secretary of
the Board. He has resigned, and is no longer to be recognised as an offieeM
of the Board. The facts referred to have no connexion with his official action.
By order of the Prudential Committee: (Signed)
R. Anderson, Clerk.
CHARLES STODDARD, Chairman.
Boston, November 29th, 1859.
The explanation of this sudden and decisive action, appearing
immediately after the card above quoted is, that the Prudential
Committee of the American Board have accidentally discovered
that Pomroy has, on three different occasions, paid large sums of
hush-money to buy the silence of three women who made charges
against him. What wonder that, after this, they should say, it is
‘ impossible that he should longer retain his official position as a
secretary of the Board ’ I
Whatever may be the faults of the American Board of Com
missioners for Foreign Missions, no one can say that they approve
or favor, or apologise for, or acquiesce in, adultery, as far as
heathen countries and the free States of the American Union are
concerned. In all these regions, they are careful to guard a purity
as free from suspicion as from sin ; and, as soon as the character of
one of their officers falls under the suspicion of this guilt, they
feel that he is no longer a suitable person to transact their busi»
* Mr. Whipple is well-known in the United States as the author of several important
works on slavery. English readers will find quotations from his writings, in American
Slavery and Colour, by William Chambers.
�19
K ness, and they require his resignation as the alternative of imme| diate expulson. If they should ever be charged with favouring
7 the commission of adultery, or allowing it to pass unreproved
I among their Northern Corporate and Honorary Members, and
especially among their official servants, they can point to the case
I of Dr. Pomroy as a triumphant vindication.
, If a Turk, unacquainted with the peculiarities of the popular
E American religion, and unacquainted with the lives of Southern
■ members of the Board, should ask the reason of this unsparing
■ severity against adultery, they would tell him that this act is a
■ violation of the seventh commandment of the decalogue. He would
I naturally infer from this, that the whole of this code is held in like
■ veneration, and that the disregard of any other of its provisions
■ would be visited with the same severity. But sueh a conclusion
I would show his ignorance of the peculiarities above mentioned.
The ninth commandment of the decalogue forbids lying as
stringently as the seventh forbids adultery. It is said that a strict
| ___ ■ constructionist once attempted to excuse his violation of truth by
IS saying that it uros! /»rkmTYiii+Arl for Ti1Q tiAirrhVmni* ATld Tin'h 4 fJOTHTlS't
was committed ~Prw his neighbour, and not ‘ against
his neighbour.’ But no such theory of the meaning of the ninth
commandment has been openly assumed as the correct one, even
by the New York and Boston Tract Societies, and certainly not
by the American Board. They would undoubtedly declare it to
forbid all 1 saying of that which is not.’
This very Dr. Pomroy who has just now, under suspicion of
adultery, made a compulsory resignation of his secretaryship in
the American Board, told a deliberate lie in regard to their posi_ tion during his recent visit to England, repeating it as often as he
R was met by a statement of ths facts respecting their Cherokee and
K Choctaw missions. It had become known to a portion of the
■ English people, that slaveholders were admitted as Christians into
T the churches established by those missions; that the missionaries
I insisted upon so receiving them; that the Prudential Committee
I never at all prohibited such admission of slaveholders—and never
made the least objection or showed the least repugnance to this
wicked practice, until importunate remonstrances were repeatedly
made by a portion of their patrons in the northern states; then
they hinted to the missionaries the expediency of taking away the
occasion of such complaints, all the time carefully avoiding the giv
ing of ‘decisions and instructions,’ against the practice in question.
And when, in his visit to England, Dr. Pomroy found these facts
known, and the knowledge of them (of course) Operating to the
discredit of the Board; he turned the tide, for the time, by this
deliberately false statement—‘ The Board now hold ah anti-slavery
position.’
y
I
I
�The Board soon had information of this lie, told in their behalf
and for their credit. The clerical dignity, the solemn and serious
aspect of Dr. Pomroy, (‘well fitted,’ as Bev. John Waddington,
of London, remarked at the late Annual Meeting, ‘ to represent
the Board in England,’) gave currency to the statement for a time,
though investigation soon showed its utter falseness ; but neither j
then nor since have they called Dr. Pomroy to account for this®?
falsehood. Are we to infer that they think the ninth command
ment less obligatory or less important than the seventh ? or that
the violation of some or any of these commandments is palliated, 9
or excused, by being done in advancement of ilieir purposes ?
These are important questions. We have no hope of their being $
answered at the call of abolitionists by the prosperous and powerfull body in question, who absorb the voluntary contributions v,
of the country at the rate of more than a thousand dollars a day,
but expend so much more as to leave them, this year, sixty-six \
thousand dollars in debt. They are accustomed to seem to ignore <1
American abolitionists, while they are secretly working to counter- ■
act them. Their position in regard to the anti-slavery movements
remains precisely as it was in 1837, when they adopted, and in 1839,
when, after discussion, they re-affirmed a resolution forbidding
those missionaries, in their employ, who had embraced anti-slavery
principles to use the paper and presses of the Board, (the only
means of printing within their reach,) ‘to print any letter, tract, or
appeal ’ remonstrating against slavery, ‘ with a view to its being y
sent to individuals, or communities in the United States.’ Their
missionaries still labour under this dis-qualification for using their
experience of the pernicious and depraving influence of slavery 1
abroad, in direct opposition to the slavery they have left at home.
But English abolitionists can, if they will, extort answers to tlidse
questions, as well as to the additional questions, which should now
demand of the Board, in thunder tones, from every evangelical
Church in Great Britain. Why they did not purge the Choctaw
Churches from slaveholders, instead of, or previous to, cutting them
adrift? and—Why they still suffer their Cherokee church
members TO HOLD, BUY, AND SELL SLAVES, WITHOUT LIMIT AND |
WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION ?
Leeds : Printed by J. B. BarRt & Co., 18, Trinity Sheet.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The American Board of Missions and Slavery: a reprint of the correspondence in the "nonconformist" newspaper: to which is added an article on the fall of Dr. Pomroy and his subsequent dismissal from office by Charles K. Whipple
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Leeds
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Series: Anti-Slavery Tracts for the Times
Series No.: No.1
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by J.B. Barby & Co., Leeds.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Whipple, Charles K. (Charles King)
Pomroy, Swann Lyman
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Horner, Joseph Alfred (ed)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1860]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
J. B. Barry & Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Slavery
Anti-Slavery Movements
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The American Board of Missions and Slavery: a reprint of the correspondence in the "nonconformist" newspaper: to which is added an article on the fall of Dr. Pomroy and his subsequent dismissal from office by Charles K. Whipple), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5227
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
American Board of Commisioners for Foreign Missions
Anti-Slavery Movements
Conway Tracts
Slavery