Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-07-17
THE ANTI-SLAVERY BUGLE.

measure to your municipalities, the popular
voice may be more Immediately potential than
with you; but in Congress, which answers to
your parliament, it is but as the idle wind
which the Sovereign Slaveocracy that reigns
there regards not. We think we discern clear
ly that the Union of the Free with the Slave
States is at once fatal to the hopes of tho slaves
and increasingly dcmoralizing to the Free
States. And, therefore, we urge upon them
the duty Of separation, for their own sakes, as
we'll as that OF the slaves. There can be no al
Tentative but disunion. proceeding either from
the Free or from the Slave States, or the utter
and ignominious subjugation of tho former to
the latter.
Permit me, while upon this subject, to illus
trate the position of the non -juring abolition
lists BY some analogous cases in your own his
tory. Have you not always had non-jurors
among you, from Archbishop SancroIt and
Bishop Ken down to Baron Lionel dc Rolhs-
child aud Alderman Salonons, who have lost
or refused Office because they would not swear
to what they did not believe, or to what they
did not mean to do' Why did not the Duke Of
Norfolk and the Earl of Shrewsbury and the
other Catholic peers take their places in the
House of Lords, and help to pass the Enamel
patton Bill They had only to abjure the Pope
aud acknowledge the supremacy of the Kingi
Why did Daniel o'Connell, when he was sent
by Glare to the House of Commons, turn back
from the bar and return to Ireland, when his
voice could have helped so much the deliver
ancc OF his rcligioni lie had only the same
simrle ceremony to pass through. The answer
is in every ones mouth. Because no public or
private advantage could be well purchased at
the cost of telling lie. That is just our posi-.
ton. Even to accomplish the delivcrance OF
the slaves, lsupposing the case, which VIC utter
ly denyl we cannot do the mean, cruel and
wicked acts required by the Constitution.
Therefore, VIC cannot swear to do them even
with the mental reservation of breaking our
Oaths. Therefore, We cannot put another in our
place, by our vote, to do and to swear these
thing for us.
There is one sentence of Mr.. Scoblc's Intro
duction, to which must draw your attention
before leaving this topic, as a most cxtraordi-
nary union, not of simplicity and TRUTH" but
of simplicity and lalsehood. lie says Mr.. Gar
rison's party, "calling itself the American
Anti-slavcry Society,"" "haging discorered some
ne'c mode Of interpreting The Consultation ofA
United States, or rather, HAVING ARRIVED
AT THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL GOV
NO MATTER WHAT IT'S
FORM, OR HOWEVER MODIFIED, Is A
USURPATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS,
rcpudiatrs all political action" AS ain desi-
rous Of strictly observing the parliamentary dc.
ccnces of discussion / will not affirm that Mr..
Scoble knew the proposition above distinguish
ed by SMALL CAPITALS to be lie. But do af-
firm, most unhesitatingly, that it is Lie of
the First Magnitude. And, moreover, that if
Mr.. Scoblc did not know it to be such, he
might have known it, by a very brief inquiry in
the proper quarter. The American Anti slave
ry Society never took any such ground. If
any of its members have ever expressed opin-
ions which might be distorted and caricaturcd
into such statement, it was in their private
and their numerical proportion to the
members OF the Society is hardly appreciab,c.
The great majority of the Society have no fault
to find with the Constitution Of the United
States, except its pro-slavcry requirements
They arc quite ready to bestow or exercise
power, as soon as these impcdiments are remov-
cd out of their way.
The simplicity of the clause printed in italics
is quito as noticeable as the falschood of the
other. "Mr. GarriSon's party hare diScorered
some neio mode Of Interpreting tic Consultation Of
The United Statesr' 1t was they, was it, that
gave the generally received construction to the
pro slavery clauses; / wonder whether slave
ry itself was not an invention of theirs Mr..
Garrison and his party" are not so often in
the majority, that they can forego the rare luxu-
ry of that position on this occasion. But us It
respects their mode of interpretating the Con-
stitution," they have the numbers with them.
Their views are in entire unity with the opinions
of the Framcrs of that Instrument of every
statesman that has administered it, of every
Judge that has ruled upon il, of the entire
member of Congress of all parties, and of more
than nine hundred and ninety y-ninc thousandths
of the people. A very small number of per-
sons, of great excellence and sincerity, as well
as ingenuity, Of whom Mr.. Gerrit Smith is tho
leader hold, in intrepid contradiction of all this
array OF numbers and authority, that the Con-
stitution of the United States is an anti. slavery
instrument, that the clauses usually supposed
to refer to slaves mean nothing of the kind,
and that it is within the Constitutional power
of Congress to abolish slavery in the Statcs.---
We must humbly disclaim any merit of origi-
nalty in the views we hold of the Constitution