Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-01-09
To the Editors Of the BugIe.
Yours for humanity,
NJ. d.

To the Editors Of the Bugle.
A correspondent in your paper of the 10Th
ult., asks whether Comeouterism compre
bends ''coming out from the support of slav
cry by using its products" | will not at
tempt to define "Comeouterism." Duty, |
believe requires that we should come out so
far as is possible from the support Of slavery
in every particular. If, then, by using the
products of slave labor, we do in reality up
hold the system of slavery, it certainly is the
duty of abolitionists to abstain, SO far as is
practicable, from the use of these products.
To the second question of our friend, as to
whether it is consistent for an Ohio abolition
list to use or traffic in the products of slave
labor, different answers will doubtless be
given, as different opinions relative to this
matter are held by the friends of the slave.
For my W part | am of opinion that abo-
l~itionists may use slave grown productions
without acting inconsistency with their prin-
ciples. l am well aware that those who diff
fer from me upon this subject, offer reasons
for their views having a strong appearance,
at least, of FEASIBILITY. They tell US, that
as the master can have but the robbers rights
to the fuits of the slaves toll, and having
only this can of course transfer no better
we, in receiving these ill-gotten gains, are,
at best, but the receivers of stolen goods; and
are as bad as the thief. To this it may be replied
that he who receives stolen goods is not all
ways as bad as the thief; as it will not be as
serted by any one, that the individual who
takes stolen property into his possession with
a view Of restoring it to its rightful owner is
chargeable with guilt; or that he who receives
such property under circumstances which
forbid of its being returned directly to its
owners, yet recognizes the owners claim up
on it, and uses it wholly for his benefit, can
be rightfully charged with injustice towards
the owner, or with a violation in any sense
OF moral principle. When the true friend of
the slave takes into his possession the pro-
ducts of the slaves labor, and uses it, recog-
nizing the real owners claim upon hin, and
devoting himself to the redemption of the
bondman-he does not it seems to me COMM,
any wrong so far as this matter is concerned.
1t may fairly be presumed that we have the
slaves consent thus to use his property; for
if he understands our object he cannot but
consent and thank us for our course; and G.
ven if he knows nothing of our intention or
existence, we are still justifable so long as
we use his property wholly for his benefit.
To this it may perhaps be replied, that those
who use the proceeds Of the slaves labor, do
so rather with a view to their own benefit,
than his. Such, Ireply again, are not true abb
olitionists. If they were so they would la
Dor to the extent Of their ability, for the
slaves redemption, and use what they re-
ceive of his, as well as whatever other means
they have, to advance the cause of freedom.
The fault of such is not that they use the pro-
ducts of the slaves labor, but that they use
them for their own benefit, while they dis
regard his cries for deliyerance. Their fault
is not that they are inconsistent abolitionists
but that they are not dJOAtionists at all
Such of course, are not included in our
friends questions.
If, then, there be inconsistency on the part
Of Abolitionists, in using the fruits Of the