Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-06-11

~
ed to exercise, we committed great wrong
TO ourselves aud TO our neighhor. To this il
was made answer that the publication OF
truth is the greatest agency in the world;
that Jesus aud the Apostles had the tongue
alone, that Luther had no ballot. All this
was very true; but il remained true also, that
in all practical reforms, there wns pro-
gressiye movement from the era of speaking
TO the era of doing. II was very well to re-
sort TO the tongue at first but when we have
got public opinion on our side, we wanted
some means by which that opinion shall pass
into law, and so we 90 to the bnlIotb box.
But the friends on the opposite side said
No you must put that agency away
They throw US back upon the tongue alone.
The tongue alone would never enancipnie
the slaves ut the South. The tongue might
wng forever, aud all to 10 purl ose but the
time must come-aud il had come-when
the opinion of men must find its wny into
deeds. Aud now lac asked to he shown why
II was that he was to be denied the use Of a
power for that purpose which he found in
his hands, and which was rightfuly there?
Again, it said that we had come out from
the Wing party the Democratic party, and
the Church, and now il is time to come out
from the State. II seemed to him that there
was a wide difference here. The parties
were purely voluntarily and temporary in
their characier--made for convenience alone;
they imply no power whnisoever--gve, none
take none. The Church, II seemed TO him,
was of that character; an organization that
we need apply not for amy powers which we
exercise under IT, hut simply for the moral
influence II can exert. lf he found that that
moral organization was false To its trust, it
was his duty to separate himself from il. Il
he found that the Wing party or the Demo-
cratic party did not carry out his principles,
he should separate from it, aud seek some
other organization, with which lie could net.
But the State was n very different thing
The Stnte was ma organization which pro-
vidcd form for the exercise ofpowers which
we had right to exercise, and in separating
ourselves from the State, we cripple our
selves we cut of our own hands; we leave
ourselves no faculty but that Of speech
The question with him was, Had hu right
TO lay down this power at the feet of men
whom he knew would abuse it
II, then, there was such distinction rs lie
had set iOrh-ii, 10y tulernling, under protest,
n man in certain position, he clenredl dlhinself
from all guilt attached to that position
then he was right aud no blame attached to
him. II he tolerated him, under protest, for
the express purpose of putting an end to the
wrong, he oheyCd his own conscience (;
where was the wrong? Thut was his ques-
tiou, now and always.
The Constitution did not create the evil
hut only agreed, for certain time To tolerate
it; while il put within our hands the very
means for putting it away. lie meant To
comply with the spirit of that Constitution.
lie was willing, under u protest which no
man could nlisunderstand, 10 puss 10y the evils
which belong TO the Constitution, casting
them off from himself; aud lac did it for the
express reason that he saw his shortest way
of putting nn end TO them by pursuing this
course. Where was the wrong? Yet his
friends, in obedience to what lao deemed n
peccadilo Of conscience, refused TO Use the
power in their hands. II the day should
ever come when the vote of Northern free
men might set the slaves free, aud his friends
should still held the position they now do,
and say; No! No shall be understood 10
imply consent 10 Sluyory'-night not every
s'nve nt the South rise up aud say, Our
blood he on your garments. (Cheers.)
&. c. Bnrleigh, said, that with the force of
logic and u e force of moral sentiment which
his friend hah manifested, he only needed TO
discover one flaw in his premises, in order TO
stand side by siLe with them on the ground
of mo Union with shareholders. Ii seemed
10 him that the erroneous conclusion Ia which
his friend came was attrihnfnble TO his want
of appreciation of the difference between
government, an artificial thing, made by uian,
and society, n natural outgrowh of human
nature. Ii seemed to him that he (Mr. W.
contounded the distinction between the right
10 vote III the manner prescribed 10y the Con-
L.
and exert his influence, in a natural wny on
every subject which concerns human welfare.
In his mind, there was broader und clearer
distinction between these two things than
between some things which his friend had
held up as distinct. lie (Mr. b. denied ut
the outset that man had natural right to
uote, using that word in lis technical sense;
using it ia its broader sense, he admitted that
every man had n right to vote aud in that
sense, no more effective vote is ever cast, in
its bearing npon the politics aud religion of
this nation, that which was cast upon that
platform, from lips denouucng the COnstitu-
iion which gives tolerance to Slavery, de-
nouncing the government which makes itself
the engine OF oppression to three millions Of
our fellow counirynen. Indeed, he did not
see tie perfect consistency Of the preceding
speaker, for al one time lac told him that his
right to vote nt the ballot box was not de.
rived from the Constitution, that il belonged
10 him as n man, ns n member of the social
organization belongs 10 him MS one capable
of influencing aud OF heing Influenced and
then he told him that he (Mr. b. WINS guilty
Of derellction of duty because lie did uOl
go TO the polls aud vote under Constitution
which, while it Tolerated some evil, gives
him power which he might use for remoVn
of that evil lie believed that he (Mr W.
stated the exact truth in regard To IN
source Of the power which he conceived hl
had TO use the halot-boX, or which he cnI
have, while The Constitution is isrecognized a
the bond of our political organizations.
The government wus based upon far dill
ferent ground from that upon which the for
mer speaker would place il. No man can b.