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


in a score Of ways, into The U. S. treasury,
absolves them from any implication in the
sin of unfolding it! and that by an equally
mysterious process, the hire which the slave
holder receives from their hands for carrying
on his business affords no inceniire 10 The act!
that it partakes Of an entirely different char
acier from that paid him by the anti-aboli-
zionist, so that they neither supper slavery
nor the Government, though they afford TO
each that s~uSienance, Oiihout Which neither
could erisi!!
But Garrison complains of the "unkind ."
expressions and ordinations" in certain
free labor essays, &c. Are they more so
than these ordinations Of Free labor Friendsl
There must be more acrimony among the
free labor friends than | was aware Of, if they
have outstripped in severity his own animal
versions upon what he considers pro-slavery
conduct among others, and he is the last man
from whom | expected to hear such a COM
plant.
But what was the practice Of the leading
anti-slavery men Of lS3s-Did they not sup
port This same rro-slavery Government e.
Some Of them also ''strained at gnats,'' (were
free labor men) but they nearly all "swal-
lowed camels," %(voted.) Were they hypo-
critesl Thatwhich constitutes hypocrisy now
must have been hypocrisy then. Were those
pioneers (W. l.. Garrison and others shy
pocrites," who at the same time advocated
voting under the United States constitution,
and abstinence from slave labor produce?
The course of conduct Garrison prescribes
as proper TO pursue toward the free labor alb
olitionist, contrasts strangely in several par
t%iculars, with that which he deems il proper
to take in reference to others who are in ser
ror." Although they are "wasting their
time," attempting that which is ''preposter-
Gus and UNJUST" &c., he will not try to pre-
vent their labors from making ''as many pros
elytes as possible!" For some cause he
speaks entirely different to the political abo-
l%itionist. 1t would sound strange truly, to
hear him talking of ''not waging any oppOsi-
ton" against the latter!
Again he cherishes toward them (these
- preposterous !" free labor men and women)
"the highest personal esteem and honor for
their stern fidelity to their convictions of du-
ty." And while he regards their position as
ID most erroneous one, he will not consent to
reason with them, or try to prevent their ma
king proselytes! Altogether, it seems 10 me
an unusual course to pursue toward those in
error, for which | can conceive of no good
reason.
The CHASING Of the products of the labor
of the free operative of the North, or of Eu-
non-abstinence, is like the stale argument
against the A~nti-Slavery movement, still ring
ing in our ears, that the free operatives have
a higher claim on our sympathies than the
slaves: For the use of free labor produce
creates a demand for laborers, increases wa
ges and relieves the poor; whereas the con-
sumption of slave labor produce increases the
task Of the bondman, augments the demand
for slaves, and extends and increases the
power and dominion of the oppressor.
The one assists the poor, the other Cypress.
es him.
To answer some other objections, such a.
the contamination of the currency, &c., &c.
which have been met and refuted times innu
merable by writer's on the subject, w. l.
Garrison among the rest, would seem to,
much like preaching to an anti-slavery veteran
grown gray in the cause, the doctrine Of in
alienable rights, or the competency of III
slave to take care of himself. But what NOR
need be said TO destroy the whole force O
the objections TO the free labor cause raise,
in that editorial, than a sentence from III
same article where he admits that ''other per
sons" than good abolitionists, "%cannoi innC
Gently use" those products! Whocan regar
this as any thing short of a complete refuta
ton of all his preceding objections ha,
before heard s.. S. Foster allege that thos
who used slave labor goods, not being abo
litionists, were ''thieves and robbers" but
"HS NV PitpulSu " uCdI SuCu uGCldTdLlOn
from friend Garrison.
1t appears TO be the fate of all who attemp
to defend the principle of buying stolen goods
TO get involved in absurdities. For exampl
Stephen S. Foster at the late anniversarie
at New York and Boston, says Henry Gre,
in the A. S. Standard, declared that the us
of slave labor products rendered no al
S to the STAKEHOLDER. Compare this with h
It declaration at New Garden, that those VIII
S use these products (aboliiionists excepte,
were thieves and robbers Again at the la
n ter convention, after declaring abstinence 10
n 'just what the STAKEHOLDER desired of US
he avowed himself in Jaror of a free produ
If resolution and said he would vote for it.
n the arguments of the friends Of this eau