Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-12-25

these philosophers will find il as hard to con-
vince the average Of men in possession Of the
usual allowance Of senses, that the Constitu-
ton is anti-slavery, rs Lord Peter did to per-
suade his brothers Jack and Martin that the
brown loaf was an excellent leg of mutton.
have not had the pleasure Of seeing any
ct your recent writings or speeches, and do
not know exactly where You now stand as
to this matter. | remember. indeed. that
some time ago you held opinions as 10 the
Constitution somewhat similar 10 these /
have just animadverted upon. But as re-
member also that You stated, Inadvertently.
of c]ourse.) that the clause relating to the
slave trade was a proof that the Constitution
was anti-slayery, because il proridcR (Dr tie
a]joiiion gf the STARE fradc in 1908. icheyccs Il
only J0rGafc lis suppression Jgjorc that times |
cannot but hope that a more accurate study
Of the clauses in question may have led you
to a different view Of their character. | can
hardly conceive that a man Of business and
lin a good sense) a man Of the world, like
you, can fail to perceive that a at0 is a fixed
fact and not n floating opinion; aud that its
intent is determined by the known purpose Of
the Lawmakers and by the construction of the
courts, and not by the whims, %fancies, or even
consciences Of private individuals.
humbiy conceive that it is not for you TO
give yourself airs Of superior virtue over Mr..
Philips, and TO read him lectures of political
morality. Your position is in no wise a high
err or better one than his. Won both acEnoTTl-
| edre The bindinr antbori,v or ,bo NatioraI
compact, and arc thus conserving together to
| empIoy Inc whole power Of the nation for the
security Of slavery. Your agreement is sub
| stautiaI. Your difference Is merely formal
If YOU are both RIGHT in vour views as TO the
Constitution. then Mr.. PbiIlips is riobt in his
views Of political action under il. There is
no reason " Inv STAKEHOLDER should NOT he
a candidate for the Presidency. under This
Constitution. Such an ostracism AS Won pro-
nose is the hcirht Of Injustice. You have
no riult TO nut men as GOOD n, Won are. in the
| eve Of the Constitution. thus under the ban
! Of the rerublic. hold the aroumcnt of MIR.
! Giddinus on this point to be irrefraoabla:
that. assuming it To- be ripht for any one to
vote under the presen, Constitution. il is I'M
constitutional to refuse to vote Tor a man be-
cause he is a Shareholder. Ii is more than
unconstitutional It is a breach Of faith. \
violation OF the substantial pledges Of the M
tional charter.
You will pardon me, my dear sir, if the
prophetic air you assume in eXhorting Mr.,
Phillips and the Anti-Slavery Wings to re-
peh'alce' slflAes nae as qulle as IudIcrous,
as absurd as iaTcicai, as Mr.. Phillips de.
runciatlonS OF liannum and Pearson could
possibly nave appeared to you. l ioIhear to
call to my aid the vulgar, though %lorclble, IL
Illustrations OF such a predicament as yours,
will not compare your position 20 that Of 5a-
tan rebuAIng sin, or Of the pot calling the ket-
tie black; because they over-iiIust-ate the
case, and would imply that consider it, on
both sides, one OF more deliberate wickedness
than | am willing TO attribute to either Of you,
But, my good sir, you must not iatter your
self that it IS your mission to sit, Jonah-iike,
under your Third party gCurd, and seli-right,
ooUsiy testify against the Wing Nlneych
for 10! you are yourself within The embrace
of the accused walls Of the same doomed
cry wan lnen' Involved IN a common gn'I'
and d common uahger' Only TO De AVOIDED Oy