Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1851-10-18
Notice Of Mr.. Lewis, Erroneous Deduction, Bur.
lsigh's Endorsement Of the Western Re.
serve Political AbOlitIOnists.
SALEM. Oct. 10Th. 1881.

OEAh MAhlObs MUCH ODllReu IOI your lhNOE-
able notice of our Free Democratic Governors
speech and meeting in our place. The points
in his powerful argument were condensed, and
put in q clear and forcible manner, as touching
the pro-slavery action of the two great parties.
You say, "as we listened to the unanswerable
argument of Mr.. Lewis, mailing as he did the
responsibility of Slavery upon eveyy man who
voted for these parties, IL seemed wonderful to
us, that he did not sec that the argument was
as good against himself as against Wing or De-
mocrat. So far as their actual support was
concerned. That it would lie with equal force
against the government and the Union as the
laws enacted for the same purpose, by the gov
eminent and in virtue Of the Union; we ask
what can be clearer than his statementi The
parties support slavery therefore, to support the
equally clear that the national Union author
izing the action of these parties, equally sup
ports slavery with the parties themselves" BY
such modes of reasoning, anything, however
erroneous, or ridiculous, can be proven. Let
us try il by analogous reasoning. Here is a
ChNNh NhANh AoAhthJ AOh hHt puIpOSt Ol uC-
complishng specific objects, such as Bible or
Tract Society, and disseminating the Gospel in
heather lands; under this arrangement, or I'm
ion for laudablc purposes, two parties spring
up, "both are pro-slavcry in their action when
met as representatives in the capacity of "Board
of Foreign Missions" therefore, to sustain these
parties, who elect the pro.slavery representa-
tives, is to sustain slavery. "Is it not equally
clear," that to vote for good abOionsts to repre-
sent you in the board is to sustain slavery.
Now it seems to me, the reasoning is falla-
cious, it is begging tho entire question. To as
sumo that the Union formed for laudable pur-
poses, "to establish justice &c" that these pro-
slavery parties arc in their legitimate line of bu-
siness, carrying out the great objects of govern
ment, when they are passing the Compromise
Biz, including the atrocious iniquities of The
Fugitive Slave Law. put it to every i'm
partial reader, whether that is not the fair in
ference from the above extract, that the Fugi-
tive Slave Law, is but carrying out in good faith
our national compact, or as Webster has it,
dscharging our Constitutional obligations"
extremes will meet Do you endorse the doc
trne, that the Fugitive Law is but legitimate
Constitutional Lcgislatvei
/ am also glad to find our brother c. c. Bur-
leigh is giving his testimony to the whole
heartedness, kindness and liberality of our
Western Reserve Voting Abolitionists, who
were formerly represented as the most unprin-
cipled set of scamps, "that ever scourged the
backs Of women with cow-hide." Let us cul-
tivate more catholic spirit-and wherever we
find men truly and honestly at work, for the
overthrow ofthe great wrong in our land let
us bid them hearty Gods speed, and let us
leave the "grades," and "tones," of our aboli-
tionism to be passed upon, by posterity when
the results of our actions, shall be made mani
fest. J.H.
In answer to j. HIS question. We an
swer, Yes. The Fugitive Slave Law in its
object is "legitimately constitutional" The
compact provides for the recapture and re-
turn OF Fugitive Slaves. The Fugitive Slave
Law, does the same. Its manner of doing
it is in contravention of principles contained
in the written Constitution-bu both con-
template the same object, the return of the
Fugitive to his claimant, and both are to be
repudiated.
We attempted no argument in the article
referred to, aud therefore, are not guilty of
either erroneous or ridiculous reasoning"
MIR. Lewis niter proving that the Wing and
Democratic parties, support slavery, affirmed
as an inference that to support those par
ties, was to support slavery. We, taking it
for granted that the Union supports slavery
made application of Dir. Lewis inference
to himself For we were unable then as we
are now, to see, why it is not as really af-
fordng aid to slavery, to support pro-slave-
ry Union, as to support n pro-slavery party.
We have read over half dozen times, J.
HIS redictio ad absurd,im, and have tried to
feel foolish about the predicament it places
us IN but for our life we cant, because we
don't see how it applies to any thing we
have written. 1t does very well for his own
analogy, which he attributes to us-but we
beg leave TO disclaim the paternity of any
thing analogous TO it.
We have never for moment been guilty
Of supposing that the purposes of this Union,
as regards slavery were laudable, or for the
establishment Of justice. True, we did not at
tempt to prOue the Union pro-slavery-and
so must plead guilty to the charge of taking
that question for granted. But that granted,
or proved, and "good aboltiouists," have no
more business in the Union, than in the
Wing Party.
The original purpose of the Union may
have been either one thing or the other, and
SO may the purposes of the parties. Men
have been accustomed to attribute "laudable
purposes" to General Washington and Alex
ander Hamilton, in the organization of what
has now degenerated into the Wing Party.
So have also Thomas Jefferson, and his as
sociales received commentator of their pur-