Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-04-21
.ANTI'SLAVERY BUGLE.

Hon. J. X. Gddings, in his letter to the Buglc
says, that "the Constitution nowhere admits that it
Us possible for to be made property. Now, if
this be true it certainly is difficult to find reason to
charge the Constitution of being pros'arery or to
show how or wherein it could be made more anti.
slarery Yet, little farther on, he disclaims all
power for Congress over slarery in tie States, any
more than over cannibalism in New Zealand, or
Circassian slavery in Turkey. If the Constitution
nowhere admits it possible for man TO be made
the property of another; no more certainly, can
be said of its omission to sanction assassination,
canibalism, or Crcassion Slavery in the States
Yet it would seem if Congress have control
over SlaUery in tie States for the same reason it
would appear that Congress can have" no CONTROL
over Canibalism or CarcaSSian iStare'y if enacted
in the States for the reason that choose to kill
and eat each other after the manner of the New
Zealanders, independent of the ldw of the land
If this be really the kind of Constitution that has
been in vogue since 1889, it is somewhat wonder
full that there is so little Slavery in the Country
If this he the ineficacy,-the limitation OF the pro
visions of the Constitution it is certainly some.
what wonderful, that SO few henious erimes have
claimed custody under, or Independent of its ample
provisions
If this he the puerile character of the constitu
ton, the people of "'79' must have labored under
great hallucnation of mind, when they adopted ii
"to secure domestic tranquility establish justice
prouide for the general defence and insure the
blessings of lbertyW
Again, for dare not dwell Mr.. G. says "Com
merce in the language Of the Constitution can on
Ia be carried on in the property which is held bJ
all advocates of freedom to be DISTINCT and entire
" seperate from PERSONS" Add to this the above
viz-'that the Constitution no where admits thai
il is possible for man to be property" and where II
the name of patriotism, common sense, truth, phi
lanthropy or vcracity-where are the assumed con
stitutional guarantees to be found? Where the
authority for making 'propeyty" merchandise
"comme,ve," of one-serenh of the 'perSons" of tht
nation, when the ''possiJdty' Of such grant il
denied in the supreme law of the land. | repeat
if these admissions be granted land who will den.
their truth,) can slavery claim any more sanction
or support from the Constitution than can cannibal
ism or piracy? The obviousness of this PROPOSE
ton appears from the fact, that in the above Ian
guage no one has ever "cldimed II poS$tGte' to mn
in the Constitution sanction for cannibailSm o
piracy!
Commerce is defined by Noah Webster to be ga
interchange of property Of any kind between nation
or individuals, either by barter, or by purchase o
sale: traffic; trade; to buy or SELL" Now in hor
esty candidly are not the 100000 slaves (peI
sons) held in every sense of the term, as property
in every sense of the term, rs commcrc9,-ba1
tered and l,aned hired and sold, used and dispose
of as property? Certainly And this without
shadow Of grant, or 'possJaHy' Of one in tn
Constitution.
What is the difference between the decision
Lord Mansfield in England, in June, 22d, l772, i
the Somerset case and that of Hon. j. II. Gidding
March Goth, 1855? Mansfield says: Il caau
san the cause set forth IN this return Is d'iowed {
dpproced Of By the Fundamental ldc Of THIS Nm!
dom, and therefore tie man must be discharge
The claas Of Sdre,y cannot be supported on mature
1qiaciples." Mr.. Giddngs says: "CommeTce,
the Language Of the Consultation q tthis country, ca
only be carried on in property" rhich he holds 10
entirely separate from persons. "Ihe Constitute
ochere admits that is possible for man to be nd
property"
The above decision of Mansfield gave the dea
blow to slavery in England, under English LAY
without the least modification or repeal. upt
this decision, history relates, that "orders we
Immediately sent to Lord North, then Minister
State, to abolish both the slave trade and SLAYER
of the human species in ALLTHE BRIrIsn PRoyINcr
AS UTTERLY IRREcoNCILABLE WITH THE PRINcIPL
OF THE BRIrIsH CONSTITUTION, AND TIE EsTABLIsHI
RELIGIoN OF THE LAND. - Clalkson'S History, pa
Al.
Farther will leave each one to make his ov
contrast Decisions of the Supreme Court may
cited, equally fatal to the legalization of slave
,L;s oouptry ;f ropordad was MonSfal1
one of which is that 'the intention Of legal
strument of law must be taken from its words
Quotation by Spooner, page | Is. Auotheris 'wh
rights are infringed, when fundamental principl
are departed from &C., the intention must be {
pressed with irresistible clearncss to induce
court of justice to suppose a design to effect su
object" either of which, when applied to the Il
gudgs of the Constitution, would abolish slavery
For 10 one dare claim that the Woodworking
she Constitution would sanction slavery for III
Friend Marius, if any will point out an
ferential error in the above very brief sketch
will be under obligations to them and if any c
can show why, with the views above quoted, {
very cannot be Immediately abolished, under
Constitution, many who hold the anti-slavery ch
acter of the Constitution will take it as gr
favor JNO. ID. COPELAND
Columbiana, April s, 1855.
A "souru SIDE" VIEW OF THE New PARTY
Those who are the head and front of the Abolit
party who have come into notice and gained ne
rety by their agitation and fanaticism, are the IN
determined and relentless foes of the Amer
movement. If there was any Abolitionism in
principles of the American party, would this 81
of affairs exist? Everybody who has any pret
sion to candcr or fairness must that it wo
not Thn whole Addition hnsf hnnlnl hv SnMf