Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-04-04
From the Cleveland Leader.
TRUTH Or HIsTOhY INDICATED.
LETTER FROM MIR. GlDDINGS TO JUDGI
TANEY.


NUMBER TWO.
STA After describing very correctly, as | think
the persons who were citizens of the States under
the Constitution, you evidently felt the necessity
of excluding free persons of the African race
Unless you could do that bred Scott must he free,
But you cite no decision Of either Colonial or
State courts no Colonial or State laws; no histo.
riau, OF writer, nor saying of statesman or die
IN or jurist Yet you assume that another class
of persons who had been imported as African
Slaves, or their defendants. were not recognized
or intended to be included in that memorable in
stu unent-the Declaration of Independence"
AT this point you err. You assume that the
doctrines Of the declaration applied to rome but
citizens. or free men. While the signers intended
TO assert principles broad as creation. leaving their
application to every nation, government and pe0-
pie. They did not attempt to emancioato slaves
Of the different colonies but they laid down prin-
eiples on which Uur federal government was bas-
ed, and on watch il was believed the 5 atos would
sheyeaftcr act. But to exclude the free blacks
from the rights OF citizenship you ndroitly con
meet them with slaves, and assert thu, then were
not included in those self evident truths, which 50
clearly embraced the entire human race.
Your mere assump tinn proves nothing. 1t add
ed nothing to your argument you therefore felt
the necessity Of supporting it in some way, yet
you could not do it Ivy the sayings of those who
framed the declaration, nor by history, nor by stat
ute laws nor b tho decisions Of courts ;you there
fore had recour Sc to another, declaring that "his.
tory shows they have for more than q century been
regarded as beings Of an inferior order and unfit
associates for the white race, either socially or
politically, and had no rights tc6ich The whiie men
iere bound TO respect; and the black man might be
reduced to slavery, bought and sold and treated rs
an ordinary article Of merchandise" This opin.
ion (you say) was fixed and universal with the
white race. Fortunately for our country. history
shows each of these assertions entirely erroneous,
and that the converse is true.
Tl,.ol z. -. Fa. I,4.s. ~ r. ...ss
Of African blood were ever regarded ms citizens Of
the Colonies and Of the States until long after the
declaration of Independence was announced ard
4 assert that since the downfall of the Roman En-
pire, no civilized or semicivilized people have re-
garded slaves, whether Africans, Europeans, nr
Americans, rs having no rights or subject to be
treated us ordinary articles of merchandise, except
some of onr Slave States.
Far back in the history of our race. amid the
moral darkness which surrounded the govern
ments of Greece and Sparta, the doctrine which
you assert was discarded. No stakeholder Of
those governments protested to hold the life of
his slave at his own disposal. They regarded the
slave as a man, conquered, enslaved, degraded,
but nevertheless a man, entitled to the existence
which God and nature had bestowed upon him.
Ia Rome 1t WAS otherwise. There the master
held the power of life and death over his slave,
and actually treated him az an ordinary article
of merchandise" But the first dawning rays OF
Christianity ~dispelled this heaihenish. this bar
barous practice. The law was repealed in the
second century Of the Christian era, and no SINH
iar law has existed in any civilized or Nah Ome-
dan country since that period.
The followers Of Mahomet held it their duty to
convert men to their religion by the sword. They
conquered and enslaved mankind, blacks and
whites, for the avowed purpose of converting them;
but, by the Mahomedan law, no master denied the
right of his slave to the life which God had he
slowed upon him nor was the slave among Ma.
homedans treated as an ordinary article of mer-
chandise," Tine slave ut all times had the right to
embrace the Mahomedan religion, and when he
did 50, the law made him free. The female slave
vino bore children to her master, was not only free
herself. but held her child who was alsu free
The ~barbarity which YOU say was universal at the
time our declaration Of Independence was putfurth
was unknown among Mahomedans nor did they
make any distinction between blacks and whites.
With them it was purely a question Of religion.
and not of complexion. Yet as early rs 1870, our
British ancestors formed a holy alliance with
France to liberate those christians who were held
as slaves by the Turks and wars were waged and
battles fought, and blood was shed to establish the
right Of those christians to liberty as well as well
as to life.
You, Sir, are a Catholic, and must be aware
that history informs as that "BartAolmeo de Las
Cassas," a Romish priest, first publicly 'advo lated
the importation of African heathens tV this cnnti-
aent to be held as slaves and his reasons were
that it would afford them an opportunity of he
coming CONFERRED 10 the CHRISTIAN religion. Inns
was the only argument at that time it is the oaly
argumen now advanced in justification Of Airi
can Slavery. 1t has for two centuries been re-
peated from southern and from northern pul pits,
and reiterated by statesmen in our legislative
halls. Som as the Africans aljured heatheniSm
and protested christianity, they were received in
to the Catholic Church, regarded as good and wnr.
thy members, entitled to baptism, tho sacra-
ment Of the LOrt's Supper, marriage, extreme
JUNCTION, and christian burial aud this opinion
"has been fixed and universal with the civilized
portion Of the white race"
In each of the Colonies, in each of the States,
by every denomination of christians, has the Arr
cin cen regarded as a man tending to the same
immortality with the whites. He has wa rshiped
tho same Gld, trusted in the same salvation -
They have become members of the same churches,
and to this day they are regarded as entitled To
all the religious rights which white members en-
JOY.
But you assert "they were regarded as nm infe.
rior order of beings" / answer that this Inferior
ty or s"le, ioyIfy was never made n question. nor
was it in any way material, except as all laws are
supposed to he made more particularly for protec
ting the weak and friendless than for the power.
full and influential your assertion if true; would give
them stronger claims to legal protection than they
would possess if acknowledged to be e lual or su
periOr to the white sace.
You assert that they were regarded as unfit as
sociates for the white race, either socially ur po-
hticaily." l have previously shown them entitled
70, AMI in the actual enjoyment Of equal politica
association with the white race. until long after
the declaration of Independence was announced:
and it is equally notorious that the two races ind
associated until their blood had become mingled in
every conceivable degree. Complexion constituted
ao qualification to citizenship, nor did il subject
the individual to slavery: White men and white
women were held in bondage, while black men
and black women were free. Free blacks now
buy and sell enslaved whites, ana hold them in
seryilude. Mr.. Jefferson assures us tina; 'the best
blood of Virginia fo,ced in Tie reins ofher SHARES"
and his own descendants, though white as you or
Law vas the same then as now. The child of a
slave mother, though white, was q slave, while the
child of a free mother, though black. was never
thsless free. l cite these facts to show you err
When you say the blacks we're regarded as unfit
associates for the white race.
But when you assert 'the black man had no