se matters far aloof from the
cause of abolition. Our good friend, H.C. Wright, with the best
intentions in the world, is doing great injury by a different course.
He is making the anti-slavery party responsible in a great degree, for
his, to say the least, startling opinions. I do not censure him for
them, although I cannot subscribe to them in all their length and
breadth. But let him keep them distinct from the cause of
emancipation. This is his duty. Those who subscribe money to the
Anti-Slavery Society do it in the belief that it will be spent in the
propagation, not of Quakerism or Presbyterianism, but of the doctrines
of Immediate Emancipation. To employ an agent who devotes half his
time and talents to the propagation of 'no human or no family
government' doctrines in connection--_intimate connection_--with the
doctrines of abolition, is a fraud upon the patrons of the cause. Just
so with papers. Brother Garrison errs, I think, in this respect. He
takes the 'no church, and no human government' ground, as, for
instance, in his Providence speech. Now, in his prospectus, he engaged
to give his subscribers an anti-slavery paper, and his subscribers
made their contract with him on that ground. If he fills his paper
with Grahamism and no governmentism, he defrauds his subscribers.
However, I know that brother Garrison does not look at it in this
light.

"In regard to another subject, '_the rights of woman_,' you are now
doing much and nobly to vindicate and assert the rights of woman. Your
lectures to crowded and promiscuous audiences on a subject manifestly,
in many of its aspects, _political_, interwoven with the framework of
the government, are practical and powerful assertions of the right and
the duty of woman to labor side by side with her brother for the
welfare and redemption of the world. Why, then, let me ask, is it
necessary for you to enter the lists as controversial writers on this
question? Does it not _look_, dear sisters, like abandoning in some
degree the cause of the poor and miserable slave, sighing from the
cotton plantations of the Mississippi, and whose cries and groans are
forever sounding in our ears, for the purpose of arguing and disputing
about some trifling oppression, political or social, which we may
ourselves suffer? Is it not forgetting the great and dreadful wrongs
of the slave in a selfish crusade against some paltry grievance of our
own? Forgive me if I have stated the case too stro