Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-03-31
Ibe Anti GlaDerp Buelr.
LETTER FROM JOSHUA R. eIDDINGs.

~ tHV h'BU " N"F'aN"s i"'e W. cJ nv VA
Giddings) rcpudiated the higher law md put
the pro-slavery portions Of the Constitution in its
place" Will you lc more specific and say uhen
and plere aud in ,chat language, | rcpudiated
tho higher law % Or put portions of tho pro.
slavery Constitution in its place? You cay, Mr..
Giddiugs is careful again to disclaim all purpose
to prevent this pirate traffic in Christian mer
and women, provided these christiauizcd chattel.
are taken to market by land and not ty sea-
This remark implies that Congress possesses Con.
stitutional power to prevent persons from going W
land from Virginia to South Carolina or Georgia
You and l hold slaves to be persons. The Consii
tuition declares them persons iu every instance in
which it refers to them aud | should be under
great obligations to any man that would point
me to the power which Congress possesses to pro-
hibit persons going from one State to another by
land. By doing that you would confer n great
benefit on the country as it would enable Congress
to prevent slaves ftom being taken from one State
TO another.
Commerce. in the language Of the Constitution
can only be carried en- in property, which is hold
by all advocates of freedom to be distinct and on
tirely separate from persons. The Constitution
nowhere admits that it is possible for man to be
made property. Mr.. Madison said 10 the conyen.
ton IN coHld be ,rrong to admit IN The Consttu-
ton t}at man can be he@ us property" The States
mag in their individual capacity declare men, OF
angels, or Deity to be property. For | understand
nan to be constituted Of mind, intellect, spirit
soul and the body is the mere tenement, the resi-
dcnce in which Tie man dwells for a time only
Now 20 speak of Il commerce in spirits whether
mortals or angels would to me be just as al
surd MS It would 10 speak of a commerce in Ina
Deity in whose likeness man was created. Yot
appear to think the Constitution has authorized
Commerce, to be carried on in slaves, by lane
where you say. IF these slave mongers drive
their manlclod Cofles with all their accustomed
brutality over land from Norfolk TO Savannah OIL
Charleston it is the prosecution of n Constitutional
Commerce with which Mr.. Giddings will not med
de"
You may as we'll say that l would not mcddlo
with the trade in Circassian slaves, carried on with
Turkey. Congress has the same power to prohibit
Circassinu girls from travelling or being taken to
Constantinople, MS it has to prohibit slaves being
taken from Norfolk to Charleston. Or you may as
well say that / would not NEEDLE with the sale and
purchase Of men and women 10y New Zelanders,
for their peculiar institution" as to say / would
not NEEDLE with this traffic. You could only
have understood me as speaking upon the subject
# Legislation and not as expressing my own moral
feelings when l uttered tho words quoted. My
moral entiments were expressed when | said
"the pirate who hangs at the yard arm ON the
coast of Africa is less guilty than the man who
deals in slaves in this city" You could not have
supposed me to believe that the crime of dealing
in slaves was either enhanced or diminished y,
being committed on land. You must therefor
of necessity suppose me to hold that Congress bm
not the Constitutional authority to prohibit til
transit of slaves from one State to another.
have now reached a point on which ! have lon
felt that you and other Editors have done injus
tee to members OF Congress. I do not impute t
you or others intentional injustice. Will
speaking or acting on the subject of Legislation
we speak and act under the the limits, snd restriC
tions ef the Constitution. Were we to attemr
legislation beyond its boundaries such legislatio
would no, only be void but would render Congress
contemplate. No one, for instance pretends thu
Congress possesses the power to abolish SLAYER
in Cuba. Yet you and other Editors assail us f
admitting that we have no power over Slavery
the States, or over the internal slave trade betweC
tho States. Neither you nor any ether man will a
tempt to point out any more authority in the Co
~stitution for Congress TO legislate for the abol
ton OF Slavery in the States or the internal sla'
trade between them. Yet while, you and thin
all intelligent men admit that Congress has no sue
power, l have long seen myself and others assai
ed for admitting this obvious truth, and sayin
that we 30 not intend to usurr power, even
abolish Slavery, where we have not constitutions
authority 30 do so, and while we thus express OF
views of the constitutional limitations of power, W
are held up to the public as expressing our "mo
al feelings that we are willing Slarery shall G
ist iarthe States. repeat, you may as we'll chare
mo with willingness that the New Zelanders sha
kill and eat each other because ! do not urge CO
gressional legislation to prohibit Canibalism
those islands, as to charge me with willingne
not to NEEDLE with the slave dealer who driy
his cofle Of Christian humanity from RichmoI
to Charleston. When you represent me MS sa
ing that ''tce pN restore the Jugitire lao Of g
YOU do not fairly represent what l said. Indeed
did not use the language imputed to me. | W
speaking not my own opinions nor my own view
1 was utterinS the present popular sentiment
the north, when | said ''Ms farthest extent 10 phi
zee piU go piH be 10 restore tie iauo Of '93." Eve
reader who will glance ut the remarks as report
will see that | regarded the law of 1913, as pt
feetly useless. Obsolete and VOID. Thrt whom | 81
to southern men, IF you can catch your slav
when they get into our northern States do it,"
spoke the language of challenge, of DEFIANCE. :
me it appears impossible that any other cOnstru
ton could nationally be placed upon my langua
set speaking Of me you say, "he consented TO
aside his manhood, his moral principles. his s.
respect, to say. IF you can catch your slav
when they get into our northern States do IT,"
would not be sensitive under criticism blu
appeal to your readers whether in the remarks
made I justly incurred The imputations of HI
log in any degree laid aside my "manhOod'
my "selfrespeet" or my 'moral principles"
Again when ! told the fugitive to defend h