Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-03-31

iue his'orlc lact Is, my dear SIR, that the master
had claimed and exercised just that right; and IL
| do not misunderstand your Providence speech,
you propose he shall still exercise that right, 'if he
can" The Virginian may pursue his stray man
as the Pennsylvania may his stray horse. The
latter may coolly catch and bride his a%nimal-the
former may catch and manacle his slave. Horse
and man have a right to escape or resist if they
can, but no one has a right to secrete or defend
either the quadruped or the human chattel. The
result would be, that if the slave we're seized in an
anti-slavery neighborhood, he would receive SYM
pathy and aid despite the Constitution, and make
good his escape. If in a pro-slavery community,
the master would most likely succeed, and bear
back his victim to chains.
Thus, my dear sir, have | endeavored to be spe.
cifc, according to your request, in regard to time,
place, and language. / regret to say that, in my
opinion, your language justifes the charge. I am
aware that you have repeatedly affirmed the SUI
premacy of che higher law-that you have denoun-
ced slaveholding and slave-catching, and slave
holders and slave.catchers, with burn ing indigna-
ton. lam aware that you have done it in the very
documents from which l have quoted these pro-
slavery declarations. / m aware that you have
done it there clearly, strongly Enthusiastically. But
these pro-slavery declarations are also clear, strong
and unmistakable. And the burden of the entire
article you criticise, was the exposure of this very
inconsistency. An inconsistency. rs l think, most
fatal to that anti-slavery success, which you and I
both desire. Against this charge ofinconsistency
you make no defence nor am I able to sec that
such a defence is possible for one whose moral
feelings are anti-slavery, and who yields allegiance
to a Constitution acknowledgedly pro.slavery. 1
grant you have done the best you could, and all
you could, under the circumstances; but that does
not destroy the influence of your fatal concessions
to slavery.
In reference to my remark that you decline in
reference with the interstate slave trade, you
say, "This remark implies that Congress has power
to prevent persons from going by land from Vir-
ginia to South Carolina"
No. 1t implies that, very inconsistency with
your other positions against the slave trade, you
consent to be a party to a Constitution which per-
mits this traffic. and recognizes these traffckers in
human souls and sinews--these more than pirates,
according to your "moral feelings" as co-equal par
Elephants in your National Government,-and as a
necessary condition of this cooperation, govern
mental silence and non-interference is pledged and
enforced. This interstate traffic is at least so far
constitutional, that it is tolerated without rebuke
by the Constitution land those who practice it are
admitted to the highest posts of honor and profit
in the nation, instead of swinging at the yard-arm
as pirates, as you say they deserve to do.
l wish it distinctly understood, that my objec-
ton to the position which you and other, occupy
is, that you have formed a union with slave traders,
and that, by the terms of that union, you are COM
PEELED to say, a, you said to Mr.. Letcher, $50 far
as the transportation of slaves from one State to
another, internally. is concerned, / hare nothing to
do" You purchase union with pirate, by thus
publicly p~ledging yourself to have nothing to do
with their piracy.
You think l may as we'll find fault with you for
non-interference with the trade in Circassian girls,
or the traffic by New Zealanders, in their peculiar
institution.
Not so. Whenever you, my dear sir, for the
sake of political union with Turkish slave mer-
chants and New Zealand cannibals, shall voluntar-
lily take a solemn oath which binds you not to in.
%terfere with their piracy and murder, and when
you shall welcome those Turkish pirates and New
1 Zealand murderers, as your co-equal legis
g lators, in the union thus formed-then will the
cases be parallel. Till then your illustration fails
e of any force.
! Certainly | did not suppose that the crime Of
dealing in slaves was enhanced by being committed
$ on land, but l thought you grossly inconsistent in
hanging one trader at the yard-arm, and welcoming
l another as an honorable member of Government
e | thought, and still think, that gross wrong was
0 done to your moral sentiments" when you con.
: scented to hold them thus in subsection in your leg.
l~islative capacity.
e am obliged to you, my dear sir, for specifically
stating the subject of your grievance against myself
f and other editors. Certainly. for one, l have
never Intentionally done you injustice, though it
may be that | have not at all times seemed to re,
cognize, with sufficient distinctness. the distinction
between you, as a legislator under the National
t Constitution, and your moral feelings as a man,
Perhaps the preceding remarks may help you to
+ perceive the true ground Of our objection to your
d course. | do indeed recognize a heaven-wide diff
ference between the moral feelings" of every true
n and good man, and our CONSTITUTIONS obligations
to the fugitive slave. And, as l have ALREADY
SAID, my main charge is, that you hold those "mor
!, al feelings" in subsection, that you may discharge
your legislative duties under the Constitution. In
o SO far as this is true, you do give sanction to slavery
& to its existence in the States-to the interstate
slave trade-and to the rendition of fugitive slave'
;. and in so far as you do this, you are unfaithfu
r to liberty, and responsible for the continuance Of
those wrongs. Can the slave accept your plea o
II justification, that you have no constitutional
: power-when by your oath of Office you have vol
UNFAIRLY limited your power? You have laid dowI
e your power to secrete the slave, and then, whel
pressed by his pursuer on ground you have relin
} pushed for the chase, you tell him you cannot sc
d crete him-you will coolly tic your hands will
" the Constitution and the law of '93, and then CON
placently tell the endangered or seized victim,
y can neither defend nor rescue you. l ask again
Can the slave receive such a plea? and do we
with whom you feel agrieved, do either you or hr
injustice by refusing to admit it2
a You say that my representation that you ar
a Willing to restore the law of '93 is erroneous. Cel