Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-10-13
TO S E BARKER.


TO JOSEPH BARKER.
1 trust it will not be deemed obtrusive, i'll make
some remarks on your letter in No. 8 of the Bugle.
l feel the less dolicacy In making the effort to OBJ
tain your ear, from the fact that / have never been
q member of, an organized association, and hence
| think a disinterested locker on, seeing something
to approve in every party, with that which did not
call forth my appreciation. You say that S. s.
Foster announced that he would prove the politi-
cal abolitionists were the greatest obstacles to the
anti. slavery cause, and that on this point alone
you Joined issue with him." 'l
1t is not for me to say what may have been the
misunderstanding between you, or who was the
cause of those misunderstanding; but if Foster
understands the word prove to mean q FINAL, settled.
fixed, condition unassailable, / thirk he might
have selected a more appropriate word; for lot it
be borne in mind by Foster, Barker and all other
speakers and writer's that to get opinions, beliefs
and theories in a position so impregnable, is no
easy task; perhaps some would say it is ~impossi-
BILE. H
Some readers of the Bugle may not have been
at the discussion in the Town Hall and be DESTROYS
to know how S. S. Foster undertook to make out
his case.
In the first place he named what he understood
to 5e the platform Of the Republican party
Namely, the repeal of the fugitive act; the restora-
ton of the Missouri Compromise, the abolition Of
slavery wherever Congress has jurisdiction, the
suppression Of the inter trade and slavery extern
sion prohibited. There may have beecn other sim
liar items not reco!lected.
The audience acquiesced.
These are Fosters facts in relation to the posi-
ton of the party. Then followed an a~sssrtions
that if the party should be successful in achieving
all this, it would not necessarily diminish tho
number of slaves by q unit. No. ono dissented
for they could easily perceive that before enact
ments could be in force to prevent it, Shareholders
would remove their chattlee cut o. the jurisdiction
of the national legislature.
lie then argued (of course no future event can
be proven that having gained the victory. and ac-
complished their object, they would quiet down
and feel as if there was nothing more to do. lie
spoke of tie agitation so general in tho north,
caused by encroachments on northern political
rights, and assuming that these cncroachmonts
were a prominent cause of the agitation; he argued
on admitted principles of logic, that with the cause
the effect would cease. M
These l suppose are some of the assertions"
you attribute to S. s. Foster, and what did you do
but make opposite assertions, prefxed by several
probabilities" | think a careful reading of your
letter, which | suppose was written in haste will
satisfy you that Foster has no great pre-emincnee
as a confident assertor. s
Do you question that with the cessation Of a
cause the effect ceases? What are probabilities
against universal experience? Your opponent
said, and even predicted. that other and more po-
tent causes might arise and q Succession of these
terminate slavery; but | understood him to hold
the opinion that the present, had not completed
its preparatory work. s.V
You say a good deal in opposition to Fosters
wholesale" method of reform. Some Of your
facts ! know are true, and | am not justified in de-
nying any of them, your differences may be legisi-
mate in particular cases, though they may not do
so well for generalization; but / will not dwell ON
this as you seem to be pretty wholesale yourself
In your letter before me, you say, II am an utter
uncompromising advocate of the immediate, the
, entire and tho eternal sbolition Of slavery, in every
, nation on earth" and rnat too without regard to
consequences" 1t is not even a question Of time
q with you. l see nothing partial or "superfciar'
in Immediate and entire" .
q But the matter at issue between you l think is
this; can an evil which is an element in any organ
q ization be most readily removed by stacking il
from within, or without the organization 7
Not being familiar with the worlds history. I
can refer to but few authenticated cases. Did
Jesus Christ war as a Jew or as q comeouter with
IT the dignitaries of the Jewish church ? Did Luther
& fight the Catholic church with its weapons or his
own2 Did the barons at Runnymede extort the
3 Magma charta under constitutional provisions p
Had the co,onists of this country d guarantee in
British law for p~roclaiming to the world their de-
E termination to be a separate peoplei When have
n successful radical Reformers awaited themselves Of
@ the nstrurnentalities of their opposersf
On the principle that liquids cannot rise higher
h than their source, if moral science is paramount,
g to political science, can a moral evil be corrected
by political meansf &
You seem to say let us obtain what we can now.
and anon we will ask for more. Why not sue for
e the whole demands Why moi demand The entire
, claim, and that on the ground Of rightg
Republicans (some of them only) say that vhsu
the general government washes its hands af ala.
very they will attack it in the States. raths,
e think that is the view you hold out; whether Won
do or not some do. There is something plausible
in such antlc'pations, but it has proved ~fallacious
!, in this country on this same question Of slavery,
The liberty loving portion Of those who signed "a.
a Declaration of Independence, doubtless believed
that document to be the death warrant Of ths
ocious insntution, which would die a natural
9 death almost without a struggle, almost befor.
they had the blood stains removed from their
swords. Were il not for some conflicting itsms IL
the body OF the constitution, We should conciuds
from the preamble, that the trainers o. that instru
meEi loeksd fasvSJe tos speedy le.uira,iop q,