Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-02-26
COMMUNICATIONS.
Political and Moral wv
February G, 1877.

If Mace in the ediloriaks Of that paper.
think If the editor had been arguing in favor
Of "Li6eriy Party" political action, he would
have reversed the philosophy there urged
against the political action proposed by Owen.
What has caused this radical change in the
Doctors opinions which has induced him to
discard political action! Or is it that he has
moi changed-that he is free from prejudice
in this case, and can see things more clearly
mot obscured by his party spectacles-not
having in his case a party to defend! ]
should rather imagine the latter to be the
act, inasmuch as | have not discovered that
he has abjured his political creed relative to
the Liberty party. But TO his position in
the editorial referred to.
"Our own opinion Isl" says the Dr.. .' that
no scheme Of reformation can be successful
which attempts TO elevate the inGiuidnuI
chiefly or exclusively by operating on %soricty.
The only efficient rode Of changing the Az
gregate is by changing the parts of which it
is composed"
Let US extend this philosophy 10 the Liber-
~ party, and see if it will not suit their case
as well as it does Mr.. Ovens. The DR..
does not deny that Mr.. Ovens plan of
government would be better than the one we
now have but rather admits such 10 be the
fact by his arguing that Political reforma-
ton, of itself, is of no avail. Well, then,
surely if, in the case of Mr.. Owen, Political
reformation would do no good, why will it
when brought about by Liberty party? The
two cases are parallel-the only difference is
that one proposes a change of one part, the
other # another part; while in many respects
both would agree as 10 the change that should
be made.
The Dr.. is right when he supposes Mr..
o. to be wasting his strength in a wrong
channel in his attempts TO reform mankind
by law; but he is tcr0ng when he thinks that
Liberty party will do the work in that way.
plans, even though they should be adopted,
and admitting them to be far superior to those
now in operation-why is it, that they would
fail 10 benefit the condition of 'indiuiduaS'
or 'socieiy.' will the DR.. or his political CO.
adjutors answer this question? They cannot
and stand on political ground. We will let
the Dr.. answer. In the editorial referred 10,
he adds, in his arguments to prove The i'm
p~srtance Of law, constitutions, statutary enact
ments or governments to better mankind
"The history Of the world records sudden
changes in the forms of government. Mo-
narchy has, at times, been instantly substi-
tuted by democracy democracy, not unfre-
quently, has given place just as speedily TO
military despOtism. =
Even these changes, however, were not per.
manent, did not appear in their maturity at
once, unless there were preliminary modifi-
cations of character or circumstances adapted
10 the new order OF things. We have never
heard Of a whole people assembling in con-
venticn and by 4 formal resolve altering their
habits and customs, and revoluiionizing their
whole internal life.
But the reformatory movement must COM
mence and be carried on am9ng the individ-
ual elements of society. " y The REFORM
atory process, if pushed much beyond the
point to which the great majority Of indiyid-
uals have advanced, will prove a failure"
Surely it will. The whole tale is told
1t is this: if you make laws ahead of the
people. they "will be a failure" And why !
Merely because public opinion, In republican
governments, is Mw. For the simple reason
that all history of our country proves that il
the law requires the people TO do better tina n
they wish TO do, they disregard it; and al
30, if it requires them to do lrOrse than they
wish to, they will not regard it. What 9TH
er reason, Dr.. What good, then, does the
law do! You may say that it will do good
when it accords with the will of the people.
But, surely, if they will only obey the law
when they toiSh to, and not then because the
law dictates it, but from the simple fact that
they would do it IdU or no law, the dw does
no good. What good would it do for a man
every morning to resolve to do, through the
day, Just what he intends to do, resolre or M
resolve, and attach a penalty thereto for a vi
olaiion which he did not intend 10 make, AM
which, should he make, would not call fortl
punishment! But may be some politician
would dissent from the DR.. and argue tina
law does protect The people. | would as
when would say with Samuel Lewis, a
Harveysburgh when on his electioneeriu
tour last summer, that there was never
greater hunbug attempted to be palmed o.
on the people since the father Of lies frs
commenced inveniing bumbugs, than tina
LaW protects the people," "You may say
Mr.. l.. heap up your laws as high as tn
tree tops and mankind will be no better
All we ask is, that the iaw gel out Of tie wa,
and let AuRaniiy aduanee."
In proof of the Dr's. and Lewis positions
that law is woIthless-that moral powe. ha
10 do tie wOrk-that public opinion is Law,
would refer the advocates of political ac,io
20 the burning OF PennsYlgania Hall-ih