At the opening of the meeting at Good Water, Mr. Wood laid aside the letter of June 22nd ’/48. This was a subject we were not to discuss. He then introduced, by way of compromise, as we understood it, certain articles to show that there were principles, or modes of expression, in relation to slavery, in which there was substantial agreement. To these articles, though not expressed in every particular as we could have wished, (and after some of them had been modified by oral explanations,) we gave our assent, for the sake of peace. We hoped it would put an end to agitation on a subject which had so long troubled us, and hindered us in our work. We took it for granted that the Committee had yielded certain important points, insisted on in the letter of June 22nd ’/48. This gladdened our hearts, and disposed us to meet Mr. Wood’s proposal in a spirit of concilliation and confidence. We are not skilled in diplomacy, and had no thought that we were assenting to articles which would be considered as covering the whole ground of the letter of June 22nd. The first intimation that we had been mistaken, was from a statement made by Mr. Wood, in New York, that the result of the meeting at Good Water “involved no change of views or action on the part of the Prudential Committee and Secretaries.”
In Mr. Wood’s report to the Pru. Com. which was read at Utica, the Good Water document was placed in such a relation on to other statements, as to make the impression that we had given our full and willing assent to the entire letter of June 22d. The Com. on that Report, of which Dr. Beman was chairman, say, “The great end aimed at by the Pru. Com. in their correspondence with these missions for several years; and by the Board at their last annual meeting; has been substantially accomplished.”
This is a result we had not anticipated. We can not consent to be thus made to sanction principles and sentiments which are contrary to our known, deliberate, and settled convictions of right, and to what we understand to be the teachings of the word of God. We are fully convinced that we can not go with the Committee and the Board, as to the manner in which as Ministers of the Gospel and Missionaries we are to deal with slavery. We believe the instructions of the Apostles, in relation to this subject, are a sufficient guide, and that if followed the best interests of society, as well as of the Church, will be secured.
We have no wish to give the Com. or the Board farther trouble on this subject. As there is no prospect that our views can be brought to harmonize, we must request that our relations to the A.B.C.F.M. may be dissolved in a way that will do the least harm to the Board, and to our Mission.
We have endeavored to seek Divine guidance in this difficult matter, and we desire to do that which shall be most for the glory of our Divine Master, and the best interests of his cause among this people. We regret the course we feel compelled to take, but we can see no other relief from our present embarassment. Fraternally and truly yours,
(Signed) C. Kingsbury C. C. Copeland
C. Byington O. P. Stark
E. Hotchkin
[51] That the Buchanan administration did endorse pro-slavery policy and actions requires no proof today. The findings of the Covode committee of investigation, 1860, are in themselves sufficient evidence, were other evidence lacking, of the intensely partisan and corrupt character of the Democratic régime just prior to the Civil War. Of the officials, having Indian concerns in charge, the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs are, for present purposes, alone important. Buchanan’s Secretary of the Interior was Jacob Thompson, who had formerly been a representative in Congress from Mississippi and had thrown all the weight of his influence in favor of the Lecompton constitution for Kansas [Rhodes, J. F. History of the United States, vol. ii, 277]. After his retirement from Buchanan’s cabinet, Thompson served as commissioner from Mississippi, working in North Carolina for the accomplishment of secession [Moore’s Rebellion Record, vol. i, 5]. A. B. Greenwood of Arkansas was Commissioner of Indian Affairs in Buchanan’s time. He also had been in Congress and, while there, had served on the House Committee of Investigation into Brooks’s attack upon Sumner. He formed with Howell Cobb of Georgia the minority element [Von Holst, vol. v, 324].
[52] Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Report, 1860, p. 129.
[53] Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Report, 1859, p. 172.
[54] Greenwood to Rector, March 14, 1860 [Indian Office, Letter Book, no. 63, p. 128]; Greenwood to Cowart, March 14, 1860 [ibid., 125].