Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-10-07
ANTI-SLAVERY BUGLE.
THE RENDITION CLAUSE,

oh the question, but only what we have time and
gain laid uefore our readers We very gladly give all
the light that is atanable, but don't care to repeat
old faacies which we have often given our reasons
for believing to be such. But Mr.. Copeland is very
desirous for its insertion, and we yield him the
column. If anybody shall be convinced of the
hnti'slavcry of this clause and all others, and
shall vote and act though he believed it, and
believed it to be of Importance, we shall have no
regrets but much joy at witnessing such consist
ency of anti-slavery opinion and action. But
those men land We know many hundreds Of them)
who profess to believe the Constitution antslavery,
and will yet vote for men who believe it pro-sla-
slavery, and will so swear to support it, can get
from small credit for their opinions on this sub
ject 1t is often mere subterfuge to shelter them
from the charge of pro-savery position, which
the Disnuionists make and sustain against them.
We do not that it affords them any advantage.
In the former case, their opinions and actions
harmoniously pro-slavery, in the latter, perhaps,
their opinions may be called anti-savery, but their
votes at with it, and most positively pro-sa-
very. And very correctly the general opinion that
it is decidedly discreditabc to beerer in the right
to practice the wrong. We have scripture for be-
licving that those who received the many stripes
were those who "knetC and did not"
Mr.. Copeland invites us to n discussion Of the
question with him. We beg to decline at this
timc are in the same predicament that he is.
We have nothing to offer which has not over and
over been presented with "variations' of argument
and illustrations, to the readers of the Buglc:
Whatever else this clause may mean, the nation
has openly "held and interpreted" it to mean
slaves. Washington so "hcld and interpreted" it,
when he signed the first fugitive slave law, did
Fillmore, when he signed the last and as have all
the courts and legislatures from that day to this
That is the great question to the slave. 1t shows
that something else is to be done besides forcing
an anti-savery Interpretation upon this clause
And more, it shows that Constitution that can be
so "hed and interpreted" with one consent, for
more than half a century, is not good enough for
the protection and government Of free people:
CoLUMDIANA, Sept 1G, 1854.
Bro ROBINSON Dear Sir: All who know any
thing of our past history will agree that at the
time of the formation of our Constitution, thou
sands of paupcrs of the mother country. thirsting
for the fabled liberties of the colonial settlers,
were hired by their stipulated agreements to
the captains of vessels to pay their emigration
to this country. Indented apprentices ''serre or
Mbor' for another by virtue of his own, or his
guardians contract. Condemned criminals are
justly held to 'service labor" but none have the
impudence to say they held property-to
call them slaves! This class of persons, (beng
in every sense of the term Free is numerousy
mentioned in the statutes, showing not only the
cessity of what is termed the rendition clause in
the U. S. Constitution, but confirms the above
The Article reads, Art. 4, See. Q no person held
to service or labor in State, escaping into an
other, shall, in consequence of any law or regula
ton therein, be discharged from such service or
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Strange as it would appear to any intelligent
person, mot Americanzed) this language is made
to relate to slavery-made tU mean the delivering
up of the fugitive slave!
Yet all must sce if this clause must be made to
relate to slavery-if TO render 'service or labor
makes slaves of persons" all of are, or should
be slaves, for by law of our nature we are, of
benefit to ourselves, "held to service labor
Again. if this Art. means slavery, and if this Ian
guage, land it is the least forcble, perhaps with
in the document, for liberty, )-if this language
makes the Constitution pro-slavery then all any
of us may be made slaves at the option of the leg
islature! Aye, again, the Constitution recognizes
laws to hold persons to "service or labor" when
due by legal contract slave acts hold persons to
service or labor, therefore, by this ttalum, slave
acts are constitutional! This profound sylogsm
is the great pillar of slavery in this country. 1t
has, if we are to judge by results, withstood all
the legal aeumen of this nation for forty, if not
for Rhy years If it continues for as long to come,
1t will then be time to PROFOUND the following-the
Constitution recognizes the right to acquire prop
erty-theft, robbery and murder are modes of ac-
quiring property, therefore theft, robbery and
murder are constitutional and lawful. But enough
of this, for we have any amount of it, and enough
is due.
Let us look at the language of this Art. once
snore, (Art. l. Sec. p Specially notices this class
of persons, "bound to service or labor" for num-
Der of years, and requires that they be counted
among the free persons; be counted as units in
making the basis of representation. The Article
reads, Cart. /, Sec. 2,) Representatives and d.
rrect taxes shall be apportoned among the several
States, according to their respective numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole
number of free persons, including those bound to
Scrpire for number Of years, and excluding lndi
ans mot taxed, three ffths of all other persons
Here we have it clearly and plainly expressed
that those bound to serUice or labor for number
Of gears are included 'cM tie free persons, are free
Positively free. Then how can it be claimed thai
those held to service, and in Art. 4, Sec. 2, are
not free, slaves unless ii is held that there is
difference in the Specification Of the words "helC
to service" and "bound to service" Noah Web
ster says there is difference in the meaning here
Where is the difference? and what? Once NOR
even the Supreme Court lays down the rule an'
languago-whero rights are infringed where fun