Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-12-25
"Thc Superiority Of Moral over Political
AciiOn."

"On Tuesday the day Of election, we par
ted company with Mr.. Pillsbury in Cleveland,
he there taking the cars for Buffalo, on his
way TO his home in New Hampshire. For
three months past, he has labored with us
most ordently and effectively TO present what
we consider the best means for the abolition
of slavery at no time since the organl-
zation of the Western A. :. Society, has
such labor been more needed, or more sue
ccssGllly bestowed. The general deliriun
consequent upon Presidential election,
makes il necessary for us to stand firm and
unwavering, that some evidence may be Civ.
en- that correct principles are potent to slls-
tain us against the seductive influence OF
politics and politicians, even though in a
crisis of theirs, they most earnestly implore
our aid. The superiority of moral over poll
tical action for the flrthernnce of moral re-
forms, Mr.. Pillsbury has most happily shown,
us all can testify who have been permitted
to listen TO his lectures; aud through evil
report and good report, uninfluenced 10y the
anu,hamas, censures or complaints OF rcli-
gious or political enemies, or the detection
of false brethren, lie has borne our banner
triutnphantly aloit, without concealmeut and
without compromise, proclaimug, "No
CNlbIl WIN III VI AAdlts
--Bugie.
In reading over the .4nii.,Sldrery BUgle,
and similar prints, we find much that is gen
uine, instructive, and to the point; much to
cheer and strengthen us in our humble en-
deavors TO promote the abolition of slavery,
the freedom aud advancement of our race.
And we are thankful that such prints exist.
Nevertheless, their conductors must pardon
US word offriendly criticism. We venture
to question the soundness of one of their fn-
vorite doctrines, i. c., "the superiority Of NOR
al over political action" This doctrine seems
to be almost a necessity, from the position Of
| those who believe in the non-voting theory.
To maintain that they are the most effective
opponents of slavery, they must show that
refusing 10 vote does something to increase
their moral power; and that this addition
gives them clear superiority over them that
vote. Now we deny that this alleged supe-
riority is well founded, in any such sense as
the Bugte and its friends use il. We sup
pose by moral action is meant appeals to the
understandings and hearts of men, by means
of the press aud the lecturer. Well, let US
take two men equally endowed with powers
fmind, equally eloquent, equally honest, aud
equally devoted to the dissemination of truth
on tile subject ofsavery, aud the one believes
that it is his duty to VOTE according to his
anii-slavery convictions, and does so; while
the other believes it TO he wrong for him to
vote according 10 his anti slavery convictions,
and he does not do SO. We beg to know
wherein the latter is superior TO the former.
Viewed from this point, the falncy of the
Bugie's doctrine is very plainly seen. We
ure wholly unable to see that anli-slayery
preaching by non-yoter is likely TO be any
more effective in turning men to anti-slavery
righteousness, than the same preaching by
an anti-slavery voter.
II it be contcnded there is presump,ive
evidence that man is seeking place and
power because he votes, aud that, therefore,
his moral influence is less with the people
The answer is that large drawback here
on the voter would still leave him even with
the non-voter, for the reason that most men
easily see that slavery could never he abol-
ished in this country by law, consistently
with the non-voting theory.
In saying this we would not be understood
as denying that our non-voling friends are
doing much good, nor would we at all ques-
ton the efficiency of MIR. Pillsburys labors.
f Douglass Paper.
We not only "pardon the friendly criti-
cism," but very chcerfully give our read
ers the benefit of it. 1t will, perhaps, be OF
little profit to the critic or oursolf, that VIC
should contend about tho superiority of our
respective measures. Better that with his
might, each one should do whatsoever his hand
fndeth to do, and in the way that to him is
best. In as much as the honest, faithful doing
Of what seems right, is one of the best means
of knowing what is right Nevertheless, We
feel disposed to give an equivalent in kind, for
the criticism.
The critic thinks our doctrine "almost ne
cessity from our position" This criticism is
not very hattering one. This however is no
evidence that ipis not most friendly In our
view, tho cause and effect is reversed. Our
position is absolutely necessity from our doctrine.
Time was when almost all nom voters, were
voters. Their changed position was the direct
and necessary result of change of opinion.
Tho objectionable paragraph of our correspon-
dent asserts "the superiority of moral over po-
litical action, for the furtheTanco of moral re-
FORMS" Docs the criticism design to assert,
that political action is superior to moral, for
moral purposes Hardly, we think, and yet
this is what its language seems to mean. If
not, is it, that mixed action-moral and politi-
calls bost We answer, that depends upon
| circnmstancns IL the nnliIicnl nntinn 10 In