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

iions of your correspondent ~. ID. CRU the
AS. Bugle of the 25th ult, whether you join
issue with the President when he says, he
"beliyes involuntary servitude as it exists ia
different States in the Union is recognized
by the Constitution" and when lie iniers
consequently, that he believes, "thnt it stands
like any other admitted QegaD rights, and
that the States are entitled to efficient rem.
edies to cnlarce the constitutional provisions,
their legal rights) you soy:
awe answer No" ave believe with
Wings, Democrats and n gent ormy of Free
Soilcrs, that slavery has n recognition in the
Constitution; aud we really don't know how
10 con,ruvert the Presidents inference" & y
(See abovcl "And, therefore,, pe pM mol
sipeGr 10 support The Constitution, nor send any
body else to Washington to do it for u.s."
Like Doctors, thus, whom much dispute is
past,
You Sud your tencts all the same at last"
Truly, when we acknowledge the law that
binds the slave to his master, we 10 find some
difficulty in consistently asking for his free.
dom. Alas what pity, that in this late
dny-ihe middle of the 10Th century; men
are to he iound-ihose who would helriemd
the slave-ready TO throw around the slave
holder the cloak of the Law.
Would we do the sane were we to be
made the subjects of that Law? Are we
honest in doing it? Who of us but would
utterly dIsown the idea of calling that Law,
that would make us slaves? Not one. And
is it not in violation to all writers upon the
of Law, FROM the days of Milton down TO
the present. While it is an indispensable
prerequisite TO society aud a nalion's safety,
that its citizens should he law-loving and
law-ahihng people, it is obviously 10 less so,
that it should he understood TINT this arises
| from an obvious aud manifest principle of
LAW. That il protects and secures its sub
jec's in the enjoyment of all their inaliena-
ble rights, &c. And that when euactnents
fail 10 protect those rights, (let nlone snatch
them from its suhjccts) they fail to he Laws,
but nnii.laws," and should bc so regarded
and trampled under foot by every Iaw-abid-
ing and intelligent being.
Bu you say, you "believe with Wings,
Democrats. and great nrmy of Free Solers,
that slavery is LEGALt9 sand really don't
know how to controvert the Presidents in
ference" namely, that il should have a LIE.
GAL PROTECTION! / have no doubt
but your correspondent would think so, il
"renlly" dues seem right plausible that il
should be so =!
Noah Webster defines Controvert" 10
mean, "to dispute, 10 oppose hy reNsoning;' =
"to contend against by words or writing !"
"io deny and attempt TO disprove or con
flute :" to ngitnie contrary opinions"
But il the Shareholders claim to his "pro-
petty" can't he con,rovcrcd" consistently
with your teneis-If you can't consistently
dispute (for To dispute is to "con,roveri " the
slave holders claims TO The Protection OF
Government in reclaiming the painting lngi-
tive To his master-lf this is "reaRy' Your
dilemma; then for the sake of Mercy, JUS
tire, aud Christian principle, abnUdon your
position. But shall believe that YOU hay,
concluded not TO "oppose by reasoning !
"to contend against in words or writing; :
"deny aud attempt to disprovc,"-" coniiite'
those heaven-altestiug demands of the slave
power. NO! In the face OF all apparen
evidence, | shall claim, aud hope to hea
from your manly bosom, aud mastery pen
a
advocate the rights of the slave 10 the PRO
lection OF LAW; and in strains O
manly eloquence, such as had often wont /,
hear, hear from you "agitate the contrar,
opinions"
: But has ever the Shareholder, Whig, o
Democrat, said more9 Do they say ,h
claim of the master to the slave, is Constitu
tiO''al, is legdt, is a Idieih claim; and conse
qnen,ly ''prOtection Of Government in proteei
ing, in holding, in returning The fugitive TO hi
proper owner" Why, my dear Sir, whel
! the slave owner says he "reaiiy" "don'l"Eeel in
clined, you sOy "you really don't see how I,
! controvert the Presidents inference" Whei
the Wing and Democrat says, "he really can
see hOV TO dispute the siape holders claim 10 hi
, property" they bui utier your sentiments! Ac
, cordng to our definition (above) the Wing
4 and Democrats were only eight months il
l advance of you. "We," the Dsunionist
j in siencing agitation OH this subject, for Il
0 controvert" means to agitate the contrar
# opinions" "Pilot and Herod and Judas
d (iu your fgure) care friends when Liberty i