Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-10-23
Western A~nti-S!avery SOciCty---Dr.
BaiIey---MOck Dign.t1.

1t is exceedingly unpleasant for us to speak
of men and parties claiming to be anti-slave-
ry, as we are often obliged to do. And vet
it is "A duty from which we dare not shrink.
Though the admirers of those men, and the
supporters of those parties should call US cap
tious, illiberal, and uncharitable and lImid
friends should whisper words of caution, vet
our duty is the same, and we should be I'M
worthy the name of abolilionists if we hesi-
tated to perform that which we believed truth
demanded at our hands. The simple enforce
ment and illustration Of great principles is
far more pleasant to us than personal contro-
versy, and yet the presentation of the former
frequently leads TO the latter. We may con-
denim slaveholding in the abstract, and yet to
make that condemnation felt, it is often me-
cessary to say "Thou art the man." The
Western Society felt such necessity imposed
upon it at Its last Anniversary; in expressing
its sentiments in regard to the Mexican war,
it was lmpelled by its sense of duty to name
in its resolutions Cassius NJ. Ciay and DR..
Bailey, and to speak of the latter IN a manner
exceedingly exceptionable to his friends and
himself. DR.. Bailey believed that the Soci-
ETY. had done him injustice, and in order to
place his actions in a favorable light before
its members, he asked permission to define
his position through the columns of the Blu
gle. His right to do so was, of course, free
ly acknowledged, aud the flvors of our cor
respondents, some of which had been waiting
for insertion a long time, were made to give
place to his article, which occupied nearly
an entire page of our paper, covering, we pre-
sumo, more space than all we have said against
his war position, this article included. Was
not that fair and honorable on our part! And
did not DR.. Bailey, in the very fact that he
desired their publication as opponents of his
position in regard to the war, invite criticism
upon them?
In an article written some weeks afterward.
In which we commented upon one or two
points In his defense, we called the attention
OF our readers 10 a statement made therein by
himself, that under certain circumstances, he
would fight the allies of Mexico, and that all
who believed in the right of self-defense, and
would not do so, were riIe traitors, and ought
to be expelled from the country. This senli-
ment We showed to be mobocratic in lis cha
racter and tendency. Our position was so
Palpably true, that not only Disunionists, but
others agreed with US we have now in our
mind a prominent Liberty party man and as
warm a friend as DR.. Bailey has, who declared
the sentiment was mobocratic, and said thai it
would expel him from the country. Ought
doctrine, which would nave appeared highly
worthy of condemnation if uttered by a pro-
slavery Democrat, be passed by without no.
tlce because it comes from a Liberty party
editor, and that editor DR.. Bailey! We have
no such respect for persons, no such reve-
renee for the character of any lnan as to COM
pei us to silence, and so far as we are con-
cerned, he shall not unrebuked, hold M TO
public odium as vile traitors, men who arc
to say the least-as true friends of the slave
as himself, and declare they should be expell-
ed from the country. If he did not mean
what he said, or if he now repudiates such SEN
tlments, he should not try to shield himself
behind his anti-slavery character-explanation
or retraction is due from him.
When d.. Bailey felt himself agarieyed