Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-07-09

'F.a
itself at least, and could not for a time be-
lieye bis readers would be obliged to accept
that article as the best and only defence that
cause would Afford. But the very fact that
it has been sustained no better, by one whose
ability to DO justice to a worthy subject car
not be disputed, affords strong evidence to
the friends Of tie free labor enterprise, lh.t
their cause stands upon a peunaneu, basis.
lie not only alleges lhat nothing could
be gained" by pressing the irco labor subject
upon public attention; That it would be "a
waste Of time" &C., but sets down as "pre-
p|asfcrgtY and unjust" those who " attempt to
seek the subycTaion Of slavery by refusing
the use Of lis products, or "attach moral guilt
to the consumer Yet | understand him to
d" attach moyat gUiN to the consumer" by say
ing that ohicg persons lhan good abol1ioniols
eanHo! innOcenhy use those products!
We are told by his editorial, that to regard
the consumer Of slave labor products, as a
supporter Of the system, is an error yet the
SAINT editorial tells US that these consumers
good abolilionists excepted) are guilty for
using them!
He imputes great credit to "the truly con-
scieulious" who abstain, but must have for
gotten that those are the individuals who Sat
,arh moral guilt to The consumer" and who
therefore lie under this charge of prlgoSicrOuS
injustice!
IIo considers it not susceptible Of clear
I 1,r,.,-tr-.i..N ,l.f - j. ,--.Y g.. ,eo tho /
productions Of slave labor, that it should be
=. left TO the individual conscience" and that
" no man" could reduce the question TO prac-
lice. Yet after laying down these conscience
~soollers for abolitionists, lie has arraigned
The anli-abolitionis;s, as guilty for leaving the
subject TO d" individual conscience" for not
reducing to practice this I" impracticability."
He says the free labor abolitionists care
bound to be rigidiy consistent" Does he t
mean Mty only should be sol Are we to d
ask others 10 do what we call " Impractical
ble"! {
But why are anti-abolitionisls . not inno- {
cent" in using these products? The answer
must be that it is u pro.slayery ~(slavery sus-
NalIIlHJ dIt' 4 lOli tIi4o NtilCihStpH tltlC hP- 1
pears to be no escape. Then we find the {
ground taken by w. l.. Garrison and others
to be this that pro-sllveTy acts by those who !
labor in the slaves cause, are jUstifaje!- {
The pro-slavory church-member nor the voter
for the yeriest stakeholder, need ask for no
broader license than this. If anti-slavery ID
Dor will atone for the support | render 10 the
slave system, by purchasing OF the slayehol-
der his i~ll-gotten gains, the same labor will
exoneraie NE from guilt when for a similar
reason (pecuniary gain) | vote for Henry
Clay and a high tariff. And why may net
with as good d plea purchase John G. CAL
houn'5 slaves and with their (the slaves')
consent set them to work for me while | 60
forlL, to advocate the cause Of human rights!
1t need not be replied that the slave would
not in this case have a right to give his con-
sent, if he can, as Stephen s. Foster asserts,
and as Garrison implies, give his consent to
the anti-slavery lecturer TO use the proceeds
Of his unpaid toll ritter they had passed thro'
the hands of his master. he can give that con-
sent 10 his master. Or in other words, he
can consent TO be Il Stare that by virtue Of the
robberics committed upon him, the advocate
Of his rights may obtain his food and clothing
cheaper, and be thus enabled to devote tie
more time to the cause Of human liberty =
But who gave the slave a right to consent to
a morql ,crong? To build up an Anii-Slave-
ny Society upon the alleged justice Of using
the products OF the labor or the slave, as one
! of its pillars, will be about as wise, as just,
as consistent, as TO establish a Free Repub-
lic'' with slavery for one Of lis %"corner stones"
The obvious intent Of Gdrrison's argument is
to show the difficulties of abstinence. Why
not give the Notwithstanding anti-abolitionist,
+ the advantage Of these difficulties, and not
charge guilt upon individuals in an inverse
ratio 10 the light they possess!
TO the hurch-membe or the voter who
talks about 'lhe difficulties" of Comeoutism,
he has shown no quarters; yet it has not
been conceded nor is it 10 be taken for grant
ed, that belonging to any church or voting
under the United States Constitution, does
= more to sustain slavery than the use of the
&C products of slave labor. BY abstinence from
the latter no majority is required to produce
an effect, nor is age or sex excluded from the
privilege Of a vote at the merchants counter,
!, 1t requires but little argument to show that
the consumers of any commodity have the
entire control over its production and manu-,
~facture, and that at their edict the same shall
/ live and prosper, or die.
l understand his position, however, to re
o. quire Of all persons to abstain till they be
'e come good aJOEiiOnists, then all may with i'm.
De punlty participate with the Shareholder in hi: