Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-11-10
Fro. the E,ie FREQ Anericau.
N0N-EXTENSION,

The common theory Of localizing and sectional
izing slavery rests upon a very tmsy and faulty
basis. lfnot directly, it is certainly indirectly alb
surd. As well seek to localize plague Il deadly
distemper or contagious pcstilence! An out
law is circumscribeG in his monstrosties. and
thefs by no compromise line or legislative barrier.
lie knows no law and follows no dictation but that
of his own base and iendish impulses. lie main
ains he has as much right one side of given
line as the Other-a fact no one can reasonably
contradict-and he proves the sincerity of his pre-
tence by plunging continually into new areas, now
here, now there, pilaging forever.
The impyacticaJHHy Of non extension, one would
think. had been thoroughly tested in this coun-
try, already, to destroy all faith in his efficacy.
Bargains and compacts with Slavery are found to
be void for they are easily broken as made. IN
the case of the famous but most inglorous Mis-
souri, Compromise, we have thorough cxempf-
cation of the utter treachery of the slave power
That compromise was non-extenson measure
q bargain that the villainy of chattel slavery
should not extend its black area beyond certain
parallel of latitude. But Slavery, naturally and
necessarily aggressive contemptuously scouts the
obligation Of the contract and leaps over the bar
rier which the legslation-the weak and foolish
legislation Of 1920, up. After such fair trial
OF tip efficiency of compromises and nonextension
tpocies, it is indeed strange that the North, whose
honor has been so grossly violated and whose con.
fdence has been so ruinously aggrieved, should
now take up the childish cry of Slavery section
al, Freedom NATIONAL and hug again to its bosom
the forlorn hope of limiting and localizing Ameri-
can Slavery
The limiting of Slavery is equal in aJsurdity
to that of restraining the liquor traffic. The non
extension speculation and the license system
both after the shabby style of political folly
The one aims to restrict and the other to restrain
ar evil. which, so long as it exists knows no limi
taton and no law The theory, in both instances,
is radically and essentially wrong If the buying
and selling of ardent spirits be wrong any where,
it is wrong eeery where. If the buying and sell
ing of human beings be wrong dRy where, it is
wrong erey where. A change of latitude cannot
change an immutable principle of right And
the reasoning in either case applies to both. -
Slaveholding and rums2lling are either tie right
or wrong. If right they a:e universally right
and Government has no right to crcumscribe or
10 2alize' them. If wrong, they are universally y
wrong, and Government is bound to treat them a
crimes and to abolish them. The masses now
plainly see the downright inutiliy Of the license
system as applied to rumsolling, but not yet DO
they begin to think the same Of slayehold.ng.-
They go for the total eXtirpaton and prohibition
Of the one, but why not for the other also? They
have no provsos or compromises with the rum
trade, why then with the man trade ? We car no
more regulate enc wrong than another; why strike
for the prohibition Of one, and ask only fer the
mere non-extensisn of the other. Consistency is
il jewel wherever found, and doubtless, the more
to be priced ON account Of its rarity.
Ii slavery be right where il is, nay, if the Con-
stitutiOn protects 1t where it is, Government ccr-
tanly has no right TO prohibit its extention over
all the territory Of the Union. So far from pro
hbting it at ALL it is bound to protect it every
where alike. The Constitution expressly provides
that 1.-THE citizens Of each State shall be entitled to
all the privileges and immunities Of the several
States. If the privilege" of holding property
in man" lie granted them, to the citizens of Nir'
gina, Congress, without absolute injustice, cannot
deny the same privilege" to the citizens Of Penn
sylvania. The Constitution may not protect a
practice in one corner of the Republic, which
/ is made criminal in another corner. If our horse
is oars in Pennsy lyana it is ours in Virginia and
the Constitution must protect US in the possession
of our property. If the Virginian's slave be $
/ in Virginia, it is also his in Pennsylvania, and
the same Constitution must also protect him ln
his property. State laws cannot destroy natural
rights, nor rob man of his constitutional pos
sessions. If Lemmons slfyes and Wheeler's
slaves were theirs. under the Constitution, IN Nr-
ginia and North Carolina, they were also theirs,
under the same Constitution, in New York and
Philadelphia. The suit Of Virginia rersus New
York, and the decision of Judge Kane, 60 unmis-
takably to show the duty Of the Federal Govern
ment if it permits slavery anywhere, to protect 1t
in all the States alike, in despite OF State legisa
tion. They go to snow, also, Enthusiastically, the
gross folly of "non.extension," and the wisdom Of
complete non-nteryenGon on the one hand, or total
! prohibition on the other.
1t is a rank falacy, IA fallacy, however, into
which many have fallen,) that the existence oi
slavery depends on State laws alone for which the
General Government is not responsible. 1t is false
because slavery does not exist by State laws, 5o'
there are no State iauS in tie Union establishing
slauery, as Shareholders themselves admit Slavery
exists in spite of State law and all law and is not
actually, and cannot possibly be, established by
law
State sovereignty has long enough been made a
bugbear to fr,ghten the people, and swindle then
out-oG their rights. A State is II sovereign for th'
purpose of government, and not for the purpose 0
piracy. robbery and murder. The Constitution de
clares that no State shall be 50 absolute in soy
ereignty as to deprive "auy person OF liberty O.
property without due process Of law" and tha
'he habeas corpus act shall not be suspended.
Limit State sovereignty where the Constitution