Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-12-04


doubted. And again, with better candidates
and higher platform, they called upon us to
join them, declaring that whatever might have
been true of the party four years ago, they had
no,c attained position to which We could have
no reasonable objection, SO little did it differ
from our own.
By raising their platform then, they brought
it nearer to the level of ours How could this
be, If they before occupied higher position
We stand where we did four years ago. they
have progressed and have come nearer to u.s.
They must then have been behind us in 49,
must be behind us yet or at least, not so far in
advance of us as they then were in the rear.
But the position of the Free Democracy
canno: be in advance Of ours, because it is lower
than many Of the most enlightened members Of
the party approve, and tho objections which
such make to it, are so far os they 60, precisely
the same as are made by us. Tho Pittsburgh
Resolutions declare that tho "wholc question
Of Slavery and the cxiradition of Fugitive
slaves, should be left to the States; That
Slavery is " Sectional " whilc freedom is " Ma
tonal." No more Slave States, no Slave terrific.
ry--no na,ioaaii.el Slarery, and no national
legislation for the extradi,ion of Fugitive Slaves
is their language. Why such declarations: Is
Slavery less an Outrage, against man and a sin
against God, by being confined to the States:
Is the accurscd system the less horrible for be-
ing SECTIONAL" No more Slave States why
not say, no slave States. Is slavery moro en-
durable where 1.-TWO hundred years of legislation
have sanctioned and almost sanctifed iii
No national legislation for sending men into
bondosc! Is it worse for the nation to hunt
men for slavery than to make it the duty of the
States to lend themselves to such infamy?
Why, VIC ask, did not the Pittsburgh conven-
ton adopt the resolutions contained in the mi.
norty report presented by Gcrrit Smith, This
would have pledged the Party, to go against
Slavery erery rhe'e as against other forms of
piracy and murder, to go not merely against
new Slave States, but all Slave States, and
against al legislation for sending men and wo-
men back into Slavery. This was tie position
of Gcrrit Smith; this is our position, and the
adoption of such sentiments would have been
in accordance with tho views Of many of the
best men in the Free Democratic Party.
In refusing to take this position, the Free
Democracy stopped short of Us, and We cannot
so back to them, though 1t be true, as some of
them say they have since 48, como half way to
meet us. Why should we join them, when
even their own highest conceptions of right are
against thom-their truost and best men the
least satisfied with theiI position'
Once more VIC ask why did not the Pittsburgh
convention take the ground advocated BY Ger
rit Smith! lie argued that not only the Fugi-
tive Slave bill, but all cnactmonts State or Ma
tional, "Sectional" or gcnc.al, should be held
as forms Of lawlcss piracy; that they should be
all tramplcd upon, and that the vilcst of all
criminals, the STARE holder should bc treated lust
as though no attcmp; had been made to sane
ton his iniquity by the forms of law. Did the
convention deny the huth of this position,
morallys Such as did so, have never been
converted to anti.slavcry. lie who would
claim for tho perpetrator of the crime of ensla-
wing and mbrutng fellow man, any lcnency,
any countcnancc, any toleration, any commu-
extent to the pirate and the murderer, needs to
90 to work, to learn what he has never vet been
taught, - his simplest duty to his cnslavcd
countrymen. The people assembled in the
Pittsburgh convention, felt all this. Why did
they not say it We know well enough the
reason' They know it. Though they agreed
with Gcrrit Smith as to what moral duty re-
quired, they did not agree with him, that the
constitution of the United Statcs-the platform,
Of Tie nation, would sustain such principles, and
action in accordance with them.
The Free Democratic Party rcpudatcd the
Fugitive Slave law, because it believed it to be
unconstitutional 1t opposes the admission of
new Slave States, because the constitution alo,os
such opposition. But the party refuses to 20
against the old slave states,-or slavery in them
because it believes the constitution forbids such
action. /
Now VIC submit in candor-and we ask every
voting aboiitionist to answer for hirnself-thc
question, whether it is not his duty as moral
agent to labor not merely to prevent Slavery
extension, but for the abolition of Slareyv itself
in every way that can be morally used to put
down any other form of crime and outrage
Ii Slavery extension bo indeed so bad, it is
because of the intrinsic wickedncss of slavery
itself. 1t is the Inherent cnormity of the sys-
tenn that makes its spread pestilence and re-
turn to its horrors worse than death to the ily-
ing slave. We ask then, in the name of all that
is consistent how a true aholitionist can pledge
himself against attacking slavery as it now cx-
ists for the poor privilege of laboring politically
against its extension;
We claim that here is tho deep moral dclin-
qucncy of the Free Democracy as it was of
the Free Soil Party, and here their short sipht-