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

fTm IN resisting slavery EXTENSION OR EN-
cRoAcHMENT, than have inhabited my bosom
since the first time opened my mouth in
public life.'
These, gentlemen, were his words, spoken
Mt Marshfeld, on the first day Of September,
1913. lf he were here to-day to address you,
could he speak any ,Cords more grateful to
your enrsY
The italics and capitals are Mr.. Monn's.
DO misrepresent Free Soil, when their
State Convention can imagine no words
from Webster's lips more greo!f1l than sim
pie pledge against slave extension or en-
croachment
See also his controversy with Badger.
Throughout his letters to Badger, and his
addresses to the Free Soil Conventions, the
same doctrine-ihat Free Soilers have no
concern for slavery in the States-occupies
a large space. 1t is so weven into the tex
ture Of those addresses, that to quote at ALI
one must quote the whole speech.
Mr.. Mann INSERTS that the Free Soilers
lIave no difficulty in swearing TO support the
Constitution ofihe U. S., because, with our
Interpretation oft, it requires us to do moth
ing in violation of the Higher Law of Cod
It will be rendered that, as I liuye shown
above, Mr.. Munn's Interpretation, the only
one lie has ever avowed, allows that the
Constitution orders the return of fugitive
slaves. will add other citations besides
those have given:-
'Thc constitution proceeds upon this doc
trine when IL prouiGeS for The recaptuTe Of .Gi-
giiiue sidpes. Why did it not provide for the
capture ofn fugitive horse or OK? Why did
in not provide that, IL horse or un OK should
escape from slave state into free state, il
should be delivered up, or he recoverable by
/ legal process2 Because horses aud oxen
are property, by the common consent of matt
kind. II needs no law to nuke them prop
eriy. They are property by the law of ma
tions, by the English common law, by the
law of every state in this Union, n,-,ciiie men
and comen are not IN escaped S'npe could
not be recovered before The adoption of The con-
shtution. The poirer 10 seize upon escaping
slaues cds one Of fhe motipsS for adopting H. p.
lg5.
'Aad will slnve, escaping to Great Bri-
tain, or TO any OF her colonial possessions, l,e
reclaimable? Examine Somersei's case Tor
an answer. No, sir. Neither the third
cluuse ofthe second section of the fourth mr.
ticlc of the constitution, nor the law of 1893,
will ever he extended over the Three King
doms or their dependencies p. 2l5.
'Or TO leave metaphor for literal speech:
The constitution of the United States gave
the most comprehensive and fundamental
guarantees in iavor of freedom, with here aud
there only an exception in behalf of slavery.
IL allowed persons who were held to ser
vice or labor, and who should escnpe into
other states, TO be retaken, but il also secured
the trial by jury 10 every person who sho'd
claim It on any question of life or liberty, aud
on all questions of property even down TO
the paltry sum oftwenty dollars.'p. $40.
The constitution says, he shall lie 'delv-
cred up There the obligation of that in
strunent ceases p. 354.
In those elaborate and able arguments
against the Fugitive Slave Law to which /
have referred, Mr.. Mann ransacks the whole
Constitution, avaling himself of every word
that will strengthen his points; but no where
does he bnsc single argument on this new
Interpretation, that slaves are not referred to
in what is commonly called the slave clause. -
lie expatates long and ably on the fact that
the Slave Act violates the law Of God, but no
where explicitly says that the return of a slave,
under any circumstances, or with any safe.
guards, violates the Constitution.
Now the question which l have so often
asked of Mr.. Mann and his friends. and which
Mr.. Sutherland asked him, repeat Do Free
Sellers, confessing that the Constitution orders
the return Of fugitive slaves, still find mo diff
aculty in swearing to support it, and maintain
that it requires nothing in violation of the law
of Coda
This question l have been putting to Mr..
Mann and other Free Sellers for years. In
this very letter, there is the same lack of ex-
plicitness. After all, Mr.. Mann does not tell
us what the Interpretation is which Free
Soiers put upon the Constitution. The Wings
have, it seems, asked the same ques ton before.
What answer they get, we see in Mr.. Mann's
speech, Sept. 10, 1861. OF their address, he
says -
1t goes into an elaborate pnllintion of the
Fugitive Slave law ITSELF Ii first attempts
TO shit the question by usking the Free
Soiers what they would do with regard to
the constitutional provision respecting es.
capped slaves. The views of the Free Soil
party on this point, and their purpose of
fidelity to the constitution, have been set forth
n hundred times. In further answer, there
fore, to this question, trust il is only neces.
sary TO remark, that the Free Soil pnriy ipiH
do tohGt They say, aud not pass ten long years
in asserting, and protesting, aud resolving,
and calling Earth and Heaven to witness
their devotion TO Freedom, aud then disavow
all they had ever avowed, and lorswear their
oaths.'
Now, frankly tell Mr. Mann, I shall con-
tinue to criticisc his speeches and those of his
friends, till get definite and explicit answer