Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-09-29

sible for the acts of the majority. Divest it Of
party preferences-it is simple and easy of solu-
ton IA and b have a common object the result
desired is the same with both, but they differ in
their plans of operation. They both desire to
associate G with them, and act on the plan pre-
fered by him. G approves AS plan of operation
is not d bound to cooperate? Is he not entitled
tc on equal share of the beneftsin case of success ?
Must he not share equally in the loss in case Of
f~ailureY By endorsing the majority principle, is
he not q participant in their joint action ? Is he
not, therefore, equally responsible? Why not?
Objection is made to the motto " No Union with
Shareholders" because it is both i~mpolitic and
impossible. Why is it impoliticY Is it impolitic
ITO come out and be separate from wrong doing 2
ITO have no fellowship with the unfruitful works
of darkness 2"
If the objector understands that n protest against
the Union prohibits tho disunionist from p~lucking
fruit from the same tree which has supplied the
stakeholder, drinking at the same fountain, or
breathing the anne atmosphere or that the former
may not cooperate with the latter in acts Of justice
or deeds of philanthropy-if he thus understands,
he gives a latitude of meaning to these words
not endorsed by those whose motto they are.
There is no necessity for confession in the in
vestigation of moral questions, if We are only
simple and honest enough to take them on Their
own merits, apart from policy or time-nonored
usage. We all feel and know that there are acts
which are good because their tendency is to pro.
duce happiness they always do it, unless OBJ
structcd in their legitimate operation. We know
equally that there arc others of an opposite
character. Now, when such go to work to build
up the thing called government, in order to rem.
der it morally obligatory, all that is funGamen'
tai to the superstructuro must be Of the former
kind.
There is no lodging or blinking this conclusion.
The mar who attempts to evade it by ~sophistry
has yet something to learn which others cannot
teach him.
If "an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit,
then no government can besgood which embodies
a bad principle as an essential element.
Put the abstract question, Can man ~rightfully
OWE man ? and who will not answer, No? Yet
in the concrete, such ownership has a legal guar
antee in the United States.
Disunionists object to nothing in The laws ex
cept that which is intrinsically bad, and they
cannot consent to receive protection under n bat
law.
But how is disunion impossible eve canno
separate ourselves from the union of the States
There are threatenings, however, that such al
event will take place. The threatcnings here al
luded to, come from south of Mason and Dixon
line, and from q class that repudiates Garrisonism
Why do they threaten Not because disunion
lists demand the abolition of slavery wherever i
exists, but because Free Sellers refuse to estab
fish it where it does not exist. The South claims
slavery rs the paramount institution of the coun
try, and the North has given practical sanction t.
the claim up to this hour. Under that sanctions
f political sanction, mark have been perpetratet
al, the Sims, Burns, uanway and Williamson
outrages, and all those patriotic, "squatter sover
eighty movements, of which the recent Kansa
election is a choice specimen.
Disunion is possible. 1t is possible to abstai
from the products of slave labor. 1t is possibl
to avoid the payment of duty on imported article;
and it is possible to refrain from voting. The dis
unionist is not compelled to any of these if h
does one, or all of them, the responsibility rests o
himself. In the affair of taxation, or the pena
ty for non-performance of that which his conscienc
t forbids, it is not more his act than was the incal
ce%ration of Hanway and Williamson their acts,
t 1t has been said We cannot withdraw from tn
Government, so long as we remain in the countr,
: There would be no use for the two words, if cour
try and government, were SYNONYMS. Those VIII
g say thus, mean to tell us what we well know, tn,
s the acquisitions of law will be enforced. Do the
r c%onfound submission and co-operation9 Cannot the
distinguish? Disunionists can.
To conclude it is our duty to labor for the rero
nation of the inebr late but though. TO do thi
;, we must be in contact with him, is it essential thu
we identify ourselves with his class? So with tn
STAKEHOLDER, or any other wrong doer. We shoul
n bring all our influences to dissuade and deter hi
from the enron eous practice but will the instr,
mentalities wit h which he perpetuates the wron
be availing to the re former? A. G..