Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-03-12

conflict with the human law, then ] must
disobey the latter. But if the human law
be the Higher Law, and If il conflicts with
Gods law, then am bound to dsobey the
law of God. II the Constitution be the
"bigher law" then we, on taking our seats
in this House, and oil magistrates and legis-
lators, when entering upon the duties Of their
respective offices, ought not 10 take an oath
before God TO support the Constitution, but
ought to swear by the Constitution to sup
that first and God afterwards; provided it
be convenient ! say, then, that this doc
trine--which is one of the ofl:shoots of sla-
very--that there is no higher law than the
law of the State, is pnlpable atheism. And
yet il is perfectly we'll known to all who hear
me- and to all who frequent the purieus of
Congress, that there is no butt of ridicule so
common here, nothing which so readily and
so frequently raises the "ond lnugh that
speaks the vacant mind" as fling or jeer
at the higher law"
mir. SUTHERLAND. I ask the gentle
man from Massachusetts, whether it is pos
sibc that the higher law of Cod eau come
in conflict with the Constitution !?
'Mr. MANN. l think it would be better
to ask whether the Constitution comes in
conflict with the higher law.
Mr. SUTHERLAND / nslS the gentle
man IT every American citizen does not obey
the higher law of God when he obeys every
part of the Constitution And can any good
result from discussing these immatera nb.
stractions? Is not the spirit of the Const-
tuition in accordance with the higher law
Can you point to clause in the Constitution
which, when fulfilling to the best of my abi-
iiy, would make Inc violate the higher law of
God?
'Mr. MANN. Tha, is not the point.
MIR. SUTHERLAND That is the very
point. You and oihers-I say it with Ill
possible respect-disturb the harmony of this
House and the country, 10y trying to get up
issues upon abstract questions of morality,
which have nothing whatever to do with the
proceedings of this House, or with correct
public sentiment. II | should undertake to
make an iCsue between you aud me upon
this subject of slavery, il would he wrong.
Yet you get up here, and attempt to make
this issue before the country. You get M
AN issue upon an immaterial question OF
morality, which simply tends to excite men,
without amy practical benefit.
MIR. MANN. | hope the gentlemen will
not interrupt me further
IfMr. Mann had not been protesting LOYALTY
to the Higher Law'-if Mr.. Sutherlnnd's
question wns not in point-if it was not
made with the design attribute to it-ifM Mr..
Mann did not 'avod any reply and il he
did not task not to be iutcrrupted'-I confess
! do moi understand language. leave the
render, however, to form his own opinion.
IT MIR. Mann then made, or hns ever made
any answer to tho question thus PUT, and
which has been often put to the Free Sellers,
fhuve never seen il.
The third chnrge is, that my assertion that
Free Soilers maintain they have no right to
Interfere with slavery in the States, is a tissue
of misrepresentation
answer
i. la the speech above quoted, Aug. II,
1852, p. 13, MIR. Mann snys:-
And now, having shown what mighty
wrong suvery is, in aud of itself: having
shown what collateral debasement, cruelty,
aud practical atheism IT generates and diffil-
ses, let me ask, IT the political Free Soil party
do not go to the uttermost verge TINT patriot,
moralist, or Christian can go. telen IL consents
10 let slavery remain tOhere II is There is an
~ h'"NS NB luloC lcSlG IOT lllt
country, aud for the tribunal of history. on
this subject Free Solers are charged with
interfering wiM slavery i0iihin The jurisdiction
Of The STATES where it is. This allegation is
irhoLly uqyonded. Our iohoie effort has been
simply TO keep it within The Jurisdiction of
the States where it is. We would not have
il profane free territory. We would not al
low It to double its present domain; we
would not see IL blast with nameless aud in
Vulnerable woes, two thirds of our terrific
rial area on the Pacific consf, as il already
has two thirds OH the Atlantic. This is all
zoe hare done.
.. In the speech of Feb. Is, 1850, Mr..
Mann is so far from denying my statement,
that he seems never to have heard of INV. |
body who did wish to ngiinte for the aboIi- |
ton of slavery in the States. This is quite
probable, since now is the first time that he
ever recognized the existence of The LIBER-
AToR. In saying that they had no wish to
interfere with slavery in the States, have | |
the men whom MIR. Mann de-
scribes in the following extract?-
They the south complain of northern
agitation on the subject of slavery. nnd nor
thern iustigation of the slaves themselves
On the subject Of agitation" DENY thnt
the north has ever overstepped the limits of
their constitutional rights. Ihey hare neper
agitated The question Of SLAVERY in The states. II
has been only in regard TO slavery in this
District, or the annexation of Texas, or the
acquisition of territory for the extension of
slnvery, or the imprisonment of her own cit
izens IN southern ports, or a denial of the
invlolable right of petition sit has been oHlv
on such subjects that the north has lifted up
the voice of exposluation and remonstrance.'
In regard to instigating slaves 10 escape,
acknowledge there have been some instances
of it but they have been few The perpe-
traitors have been tried and severely punished,
and the north has 1c0i.iesesdi Il