Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-11-14

cd that the Constitution is pro-slavery Even the
sermon on the Mount has been so construed how
then shall he say, this ground, that the Consti
uton is pro.s slavery, and the New Testament not
Mr.. Bureigh gave us some striking Illustrations
oe the incompatiLility of liberty and Slavery but
these, of course did not affect the permanancy or
value of the constitution, as liberty alone is in it
and no slavery. And the same is true of the
ion the terms of which arc written in the Con-
stution. True, slavery exists at the South, but is
it necessary to destroy the union on this account?
Oil and water will not coalesce but if you had
them both together in q valuable vessel, you
would pour of the oil and fill up the vessel with
pure water you would not destroy the vessel.
Fill up the union, then, with freedom and drive
slavery out it is too valuable to be lost.
Mr.. Burlegh says, if man, wanting an instru-
ment to chop trees with, goes to his anvil to make
it, he will make an axe, and not q scythe. But,
| answer, if o man goes to work chopping trees
with scythe that fact doesn't make it an axe,
whatever he may assert, or whoever may have
made it, and We should not join him in declaring
it to be what it is not Again, the men who
adopted the constitution were not the men who
administered it,even at the first. 1t was made by
,
had charge ofits administration and theirs was
NAL. administration. l claim, then that the Con-
stituton and union for they are one, are in favor
Of freedom, with no alloy, or mixture, of slavery
about them.
Again look at this question in is practicable
anti slavery bearings know it is common to de-
clare that the destruction of the union would be
the destruction of Slavery. do not believe it,
There are at the south six millions Of freeman,
and only three and half millions of slaves
believe the whites of the south with thoiI inell
gence, and arms, could continue to hold these ig
norant and defenceless slaves in bondage. Look
at Brazil, where slavery reigns supreme. Look at
the West Indies, where the slaves were five to
every freeman, yet slavery existed there and might
have done so for ages. know southern Statesmen
have sometimes declared that the South. unad
ed, could not hold her slaves: but we don't regard
them good authority in other matters and
should not believe them here. 1t is true the north
loves to uphold slavery and is guilty with the
south it is also true that slavery could live if
the union were abolished tomorrow and regard
this dissolution movement selfish in its charac-
ter-a plan to throw off responsibility most
disastrous in its efforts upon the antislavery
ment.
! Again would like to have somebody tell us
how the union is to be dissolved. Each can draw
a circle round himself and refuse to take part in
the Government but none the less will the Govern
ment and union exist and go long as one twenti-
eth Of the people choose to elect officers and carry
on the Government, it stands secure.
c. C. BuRLEIGH, replied to Mr. Pryne. He had
! Ioe ,,to sc
al question in his remarks to which Mr.. Pryne
had alluded. True he used one illustration which
bad bearing on the question, but had used it
for another purpose, merely to show that the union
as it is and has been in its practical workings, is
pro, slavery. and in this be understood Mr.. Pryne
to agree with him. The actual. exis ting union.
is the relation existing between the North and
South at this time, whereby the North aids the
South in holding slaves. Our friend agrees that
the government has always been pro-slavery.-
Now the riddle is here,-that the relation should
be entirely favorable to freedom and yet the action
always, even from the very first, proslavery. Ii
the union is the Constitution, and the Constitution
is Antslavory, how is it tha. in spite of its anti
hour of its formation been made practically pro-
! IeluNeTy. uHl luls too, dt uIot very pcOplt
who formed it..
Our friend sup2oses it is conceded that, literal
ly construed, the Constitution is anti-sa very. 1t
is not conceded. l say. that by plain COM
mon sense reading Cf the Constitution, is it anti
slavery. You cannot take dictionary, construe
the language according to its plain meaning, and
make it anti slavery document, to your soul
from perditOn.
Mr.. Pryne claims that the universal declaration
and practice of the whole nation no proves
the Constitution pro-slavery, than the common doc
trno of the land that the New Testament sanction.
slavery, proves the Sermon on the Mount, and thu
other teachings of Christ and the Apostles, to b'
, pro-slavery. But let him remember that il is no
Jesus and Paul who declare their teachings to be il
favor of slavery, but other men. If Jesus and tn,
Apostles h ad declared their doctrines to be in fa
vor of slavery, and had gone on all theil
, lives in the practice of slaveholdng, then
D the cases would be parallel but we bring
q you the practice and declarations of the men
who made the constitution while you bring
us the declarations of those who DID NOT
preach the Sermon on the M1unt.or utter the o.hei
teachings of the New Testament.
The simile of the axe and scythe. to which Mr.
Pryne objects, is exactly in point. Here is a ma
I ton which has made, as he says, an atslasery col
stitution. What is this constitution tits wha
the people have made. Now the nation from tn
beginning has used ii as pro slavery instrument
This was the thing they wanted. Is not the infer
ence unavoidable, that they made what they wanted
Our friend says it is not necessary to destroy
a vessel that is good by which he means the Union
| merely because the contents are mixed or impure
l remember when was boy and used to assis
5 in cider making. We sometimes had old barrel
that had become so musty as to be worthless, an
the best we could do with them was to break ther
| to pieces and use them for kipdling wood. So
the Union. There is no purity in it to render
worthy of preservation.
t Our doctrine is mo union with Shareholders