HICKORY, Sept. 17, 1853.

FRIEND DOUGLASS: DEAR SIR:—I can now
inform you concerning our County meeting,
held in Washington, on the 30th ult. The
friends of freedom have again organized, and
formed a ticket for the fall election. This,
I believe to be the first full ticket for liberty
in this County since the year '48. From
what I can see and learn, it appears that the
cause of human freedom is held quite as sa
cred in this vicinity now, as at any former
period. Even in the Associate Presbyterian
Church in Hickory, there is evidence of great
change in the sentiment on politics since last
fall. I suppose I would be very safe in say
ing that three-fourths (3/4) of the voters in
that congregation voted for slavery last fall;
but the evidence I have of their doing so no
more, is the fact that the same individuals
commenced on last Sabbath, after their pas
tor debaring all who would not use all the
means God has placed in their power for the
abolition of slavery. This, in plain Eng
lish, you know, was debaring both the Old
School Democrats and Whigs. Again; he
also stated, in his preliminary remarks on
the same occasion, that this feast was pre
pared for those who love God—and those
only.

The question I have been called on to an
swer here, naturally arises, "Can a Balti
more Platform Whig or a Democrat love God?"
To this plain question, which has lately been
rather pressed upon me, I shall give a plain
answer; and, as John, the beloved disciple
(beloved, I suppose, on account of his extra
ordinary philanthropic mind) has taught us,
that "If a man say I love God, and hate his
brother, he is a liar." We may safely infer,
as a general rule, at least, that all who par
take of the Lord's Supper say to the world
that they love God, while all who vote for
such principles as are set forth in the late
Baltimore Platforms, prove to the world that
they hate their brother, or brethren. The
above answer I think plain enough; but there
were certain classes among those voters last
fall, who were so ignorant as to say they
could vote for Pierce and Scott without en
dorsing the principles held by those men and
platforms. Such peurile persons may possi
bly be excused, on account of their minds be
ing two immature.

Another question has been asked me,
which, I must confess, I am unable to an
swer, and that is, "What will the Associate
Synod of North America do with these min
isters belonging to the body who debar all
who vote for slaveholders, &c., from com
munion?" You will find their act on the
subject of voting for immoral character, in
the number of the "Evangelical Repository,"
containing [t]he minutes of Synod for 1853—You can procure a copy from some of your
secede neighbors, and I would be glad to
see the comment you would make on it. You
will there find an act passed by that great
body of ministers that will truly startle you,
on account of its inconsistency. It is not
only inconsistent with the creed of that
body, but it is inconsistent with itself; for,
in the first articles, the ministers are all
called on to warn the people against voting
for slaveholders, &c., as being the greatest
sin extant; and in the last article, they grant
their members the liberty of voting for any
kind of characters they please, and all will be
right. We therefore must conclude that the
way matters now stand in the church, a man
may and will be censured for small offences;
but cannot, nor will not be for committing the
greatest crime, the officers of the church
themselves being the judges.

Yours most respectfully,

GEORGE BUCHANAN.