Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-08-06

sary that the President, when called upon TO
suppress domestic violence, should clearly
understand upon which side the State author
tiles are ranged, for how can he shoot down
the men who are in arms against the State,
unless he knows which party it is is thus array
ed Forcible resistance to the avs of a State,
is, as all will probably admit, domestic vio-
l%ence, no matter what may be the character
Of those laws. For one citizen of Ohio TO
attempt TO enslave another citizen, would be
a case Of domestic violence, inasmuch as
slaveholding is contrary to the law of this
State. Such a case, however, would not con-
stitute domestic violence in Virginia, provi-
ded the citizen to be e~nslaved was the child
Of a slave mother, for that would be an act
according 10 law, and he who resisted it
would be guilty of domestic violence. If
these States should call upon the General
Government to interfere in the cases suppos-
ed, the President has no right, says Giddings,
10 inquire whether in either case the men in
arms against the government are slaves or
shareholders. Granted. But how is he 10
know which party of men are in arms against
the government, except by receiving the tes-
timony Of the State upon this point. If Ohio
assures him that the kidnaprer is violating
her laws, the duty of the President becomes
clearly this TO compel the kidnapper to yield
obedience TO those laws, 10 let go the man he
has attempted to enslave, and submit to the
legal penalty for the outrage Of which he has
been guilty. So also if Virginia assures him
that the rebellious slaves refuse to yield obe-
dience TO her laws, refuse TO be held as pro-
perty by their masters in accordance with the
slave code, the duty of the President is equal
" clear. There is here something more for
the United States 10 do, than merely part the
combatants and let the slaves escape. The
supremacy of the law is not vindicated, do
mestic violence does not cease until the slave
is reduced to obedience, and the letters refas-
tened upon his limbs. This is wha. the North
does by virtue of her constitutional compact,
and if this is not fighting for slavery, the Eng
fish language has no meaning. 1t may be a
very pretty theory, that when a case of do
meslic violence occurs within a slave State,
ard the General Government is called on to
aid that State in suppressing it, that all lis
officers and soldiers have to do, is to part the
combatants as a couple of fighting dogs are
parted, and then left to 60 where they choose.
Instead of applying this theory to the slaves
of the South, apply it TO another case, and its
absurdity will be apparent. The Virginia
slave is condemned to lifelong imprisonment
in slavery the Ohio counterfeiter is senten-
ced to five years service in the peniientiary
at Columbus. Should either of them resist
the execution of their sentence, he would be
regarded as a violator of the peace, as one
guilty of domestic violence. The con7ict es-
capes from his cell, the Sheriff makes pur-
suit, but is unable, even with the aid of the
entire State to retake him. While engaged
in a contest with him and his friends, the
United States officer steps in, puts an end to
the actual violence, and allows the escaping
criminal to do just what he has been fighting
with the hope of gaining-exercise the privi-
lege Of locomotion unmolested, leaving the
Sheriff in utter surprise at this novel mode of
hiuiiltuihihS thC outiOlltJ VI tIC io"o u "
hio. Strange as this procedure may seem,
the officer and his men have at least the au-
thority of Joshua r. Giddings for it, inasmuch
as to apply to this promoter of domestic vio-
lence in Ohio, the doctrine he applies 10 the
insurgent slave in Virginia, his declaration
would read thus I: when the military pow
er has suppressed violence, though the crimi-
nal and his friends should flee from the Sher-
lift at that very moment-should leave that Of
ficer within gun-shot Of him-there is no pow
er in the President to command officer or men
to seize the escaping criminal or the other ri
oters, and place them in the hands of the
Sheriff." Every one can see that such an
, application of the principle laid down by
Joshua r. Giddings, could never have been
contemplated; and yet it would be as cODsti-
%tutional, and as legally reasonable in this case,
as in the one he presents.
In concluding our remarks upon this point,
, /, we wish briefly to refer to an expression in
: the extract quoted. Speaking of the military
: power it says, sit is their duty TO shoot down
q any man who may be found in arms against
the Government When the slave of Vir-
4 ginia refuses obedience to the slave-code OF
o that State, and makes resistance with force
: and arms, is he in arm against the Govern
mentl Is it the duty of the military to shoe
him down! By so doing does the soldiery
fight in defense of slaveryl Does the Con.
s%tilution require this of them? Do they act
as the agents of the people! To all these
70 questions, an affirmative must be given.
= In speaking of the clause relating to the
capture of fugitive slaves, he saws.