Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-04-09

ldHeT " US nhu us tne uemngogUe. lie WHO
would reform his lellow-fnen must not com
mence by declaration of hatred against
them; and he who would mend his country,
cannot expect to succeed by excluding il
itom the pale Of his symraihies. Let him
defend il against false accusations; let him
seek the promotion of its interests; let him
give 1t full credit for nll the good in its char
ucter aud its acts; let him rejoice in its pros
perity, and speak hopefully of its future,
then, with propriety, may he deal freely with
lis laults, and expect to aid IN their correc-
ton.
Patriotism is not inconsistent with devotion
TO absolute right frank acknowledgement
of the merits of our lniIerlund is compatible
with the s,rictest fidelity to to truth; contempt
or defamation of ones country is not neces-
sarly proof of great moral heroisin or sub
lime virtue.
We did not charge the Era with hypocrisy,
but only with forgetfulncss for tho time being
This might have been right, or it might have
been wrong, for VIC do not suppose as the Era
intimates, that man is to think Of slavery
and nothing else. But VIC do hold that every
newspaper, and especially every anti-slavery
newspaper" is bound so to remember those in
bonds. rs not to seem to side with tho opprcs-
sor. The paragraph of the Era, docs minister
aid and comfort to that self satisfied pharisee-
ism, whit h lauds our nation and government at
the expense of truth, and helps to continue the
expressions Of the slave. In the article we
criticised, the Era did neglect to testify against
the oppressive " organic law" of the country.
For this mcrc neglect however, We should new
or have criticised il. But it did more; il ap-
provingly and triumphantly contrastcd that
law and the practice Of the government, with
the oppressive law of Tuscany, which impris-
oncd the Madiai, when according to the present
defence, the writer of this laudation was dis
tinctly remembering the fact tha, that Same
culogizcd "organic law" afforded no protcc-
ton of the rights Of conscience to a large class
Of its subjects. We do not charge tho Era
with hypocrisy, but We do with inconsistency,
in that while it opposes the pro-slavcry enact
mcnts of Congress, it defends and culogizcs so
very defective an organic law" as i. describes
ia this article.
We charged that the Era dcclAred one of two
things, either that the slaves were not ''immi.
grants sojourners or citizens" or else that they
were protected by the constitution. II admits
our iirst proposition that the slaves arc not
citizens, they arc numbered among one or all
the four classes named. viz: Inhabitants, resi-
dents, persons natires." And il also admits
that they ure not protected by tho "organic
law" in the rights Of conscience, for had thoy
been numbered among The classcs 81 protected,
its "sta,ement would have been false and de-
ceptivc." To us it was deceptive of the real
meaning of tho writer, for till his explanation,
we understood him to use .hc term "citizen,"
in its general, and not its restricted sense, and
so we think would the great majority of his
readers understand il; and this it was in part
that provoked our comments. Its ambiguity
therefore, il nothing else, would have entitled
it to the little notice we gave it.
We readily admit that tho constitution guar
antics protection 10 the classes specified, in the
exercise Of the rights of conscience, but this
guarantee is but dead letter. II affords no
protection, and it is by no means So clear to our
mind, as it seems to be to the Editor of the Era,
that the United States tho na.ion," affords
" full enjoyment of those rights" to any class.
We expressed our conviction that the Era
bestowed a most undcserved compliment upon
this nation, and it replies to us by lecture
upon our want of candor in not acknowledge
ing the good actually existing in tho nation,
and with rather earnest cxhortation to give
this government its due; an cxhorta,ion which
shall not be lost upon us.
But we were mistaken in surprising that the
Era had forgotten the existence of slavery. 1t
spoke with precision, and 'sclected" its " words
with special reference to it," We call tho at
ten,ion OF some of our friends in this region,
who assert for DR.. Bailey belief in the anti
slavery character Of the Constitution, to this
deliberately made and carefully weighed dec
laration. Not that the Era has ever advocated
any other views. 1t has not, so far as we know.
We wish the reader to look a. the sentence as
the Era has it, and in its conncxion. 1t asserts
that protection in the enjoyment of the rights
of conscience is limited by the nation and the
constitution, to "immigrants, scjourners, or
citizens and that such human beings among
US as are simply and properly characterised on
ly as inhabitants, residents persons, or ma.
tives," are utterly excluded from this prolcc.
ton. Surely a " nation" or an organic law"
which would make such distinctions, would
need some bolstering, and u considerable amount
of brazcn eulogy to make it respectable before
the world.
Now to save every body the trouble of
preaching another sermon from tho text, "Giye
the Devil his due we will say, that here in
Ohio We enjoy the privilege of speaking freely
on any subject we choose None need feel moro
free than we here in our sanetum, and we arc
quite willing that all The credit for this that