Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-04-04

Cnanulse,
The right to enslave the heathens Of Africa was
never generally acquiesced in by the descendants
Of the Pilgrims. 1t is true that New England
furnished individuals who engaged in the pira;ical
business of importing slaves; but when the first
Afican slaves were brought to Massachusetts,
they were ordered by the colonial legislature to be
sent back to Africa Mt the public expense. The
conscience of the people revolted Mt the idea Of
holding men in bondage. But the question was
confined to the right OF liberty, no man then doubt.
ing the right Of the slave TO enjoy life.
As early as 1927 Mr.. Clarksnn informs us that
the Quakers OF England declared the right of the
Africans, though h%eathens, to remain upon .heir
native soil, and enjoy their liberty as well
rs their lives. Some twenty years after the com.
me ncement Of this agitation. they cndeavored
judiciallv to test the right of a master over his
slave, where both were beyond the jurisdiction Of
the law declaring him a slave. The court, how
ever, ovaded the question, giving the slave his
freedom on other grounds. In 1851 the Quhkers
If England became so conscious that the heathens
of Africa had not only the right to life but to lit.
erty, that they as n people emancipated their
slaves, and in this they were sustained by many
in New England. Thus for more than a century
the black man has been regarded by that denonii-
nat on of christians, as holding the same rights to
life, liberty and happiness which the white raS
possess. In 1856 the philanthropists of England
made another attempt to test the legal right OF n
master to hold his slave on the soil Of that king
dom; but again the court eyaded the question, Civ
ing the slave his freedom on other grounds. The
master however challenged Granville Sharp to
mortal combat for thus asserting the natural rights
of his fellow man.
IT, 1903 the Quakers published their testimony
against the Slave trade, for the sole and only reas.
un that the Africans and their descendants had
rights, and that every human being was morally
6OGnd II respect their rights. | refer to the life of
g ranville Sharp, to Clarks0n's History of the
Slave Trade. and to every historian who has treat
ed Of this subject, Gs my authority for these asscr'
tons.
In 1863 Granville Sharpe and others brought up
the celebrated case of Summerset in order to test
the right of a master over his slave in England.
At that time the aristocracy clearly saw the great
principle which lay at the basis OF these claims to
liberty, and they opposed every movement III that
direction. The King would not listen to the re-
mon strances against the slave trade: and Parlia-
ment acted in concert with the King and his min
listers.
Lord NJ ,nsfelj sympathised with the aristocra-
cy. and postponed the decision in Summerset's
case for more than two years. endeavoring to per.
Suade the parties to compromise the matter and
avoid n final adiudication: Sharpe remained firm,
and his Lurdship, in June l712. made that glori-
Gus decision which will perpetuate his fame N
coming ages. In delivering his opinion he re
marked, The state Of Slavery is of such a nature
that it is incapable of being introduced on any
reasons moral or political, but only by poSitice (dr:
Ii Is so OQlOlS that nJtn1nS can Je SuHtftu 10 sop
port it but positive law" and he gave the slave
his liberty. The same doctrine was recognized
and confirmed 10y the Court of Sessions in Scotland
in the case of Joseph knights, n negro slave, VS..
John Weddehrum," Goth Hnwles State Trials
England and Scotland belonged to the civilized
pOrtion of the white race;' their courts held that
Africans imported as slaves had rights which
iohite men toere bound to respect" Mark the fact
that their decisions were made some years previ-
Gus t, the Declaration of Independence. They
were Incorporated into the history of those times,
and were generally known and understood BY the
American people.
The friends of freedom in America did not re.
main inactive while their co-labnrers in England
were thus ~vigilant. The doctrines which induced
the Quakers of England to emaucipate their bond.
men who had long toiled in chains upon various
plantations in the British West Indies, applied
with equal force to all Americans, TO all slaves,
70 all men, to all compilations and to all races.
In l761 James Otis, in his famous argument be-
fore the superior court Of Massachusetts. boldly,
el0quently and ably enunciated the doctrine of pop
ular rights, which had even then long been agita'
ted in England. In l765 he published lis defence
of the rights Of the Colonies. which forshadowed
the doctrines announced in the declaration of In.
dependence. In the same year the society called
The Sons Of Liborty"was formed. Their object APP
pears TO have been the PRONUNCIATION of fundamen-
tai truths which constituted the basis of popular
rights. This association soon extended over New
England, New York, New jersey and Pennsylvania:
and no critical student of the history of these in
t~eresting times can be ignorant, that these "Sons
of Liberty" ten years subsequently, guided the
manner and pointed out the time OF bringing for.
ward the declaration of Independence.
The contest between the mother government and
tie colonies became better defined, and the prin.
ciples on which it was based were Better under.
stood. The King dared not deny the doctrine of
human rights, as advocated in England and in the
colonies. Neither he nor any minister of his dared
assert that "the black man Ind no right aohich uhite
men Were bound to respect" Had he asserted sucl
doctrine the scnffold would have been his tate, as
il had been the fate of Charles l., who would him
self have been shocked Mt the avowal of such doc
trines. The policy of George III, was that Of n
mastery inactivity" He permitted the Slave
trade to continue, and eudeavored to maintain the
then existing order of things,
In January, INA, Alexander Hamilton first dis.
tinguisbed himself as an advocate of liberty. lie
wrote a vindication of popular rights: 1t was
published in pamphlet form and widely circulated
throughout the northern States. In that essay he
declared 1.-THE only distinction between Freedom
and Slavery consists in this: In the former state
n man is governed by the laws to which he HAS
giceh his constant either in person or by his repre-
sentative; In the iader lie is gorerned By another.
In one case his life and property are his own in
the other, they depend on the uW Of a mastcr."-
Again he remarks, men have one commonorigi-
HIithty Participate N one cOWmOnn . re,ano conse-
qrently HAVE ONE COMMON RIGHT. ana then he adds.
No reason can be assigned why one man should
exercise any power or pre-eminence over his
fellow creatures more than another. unless they
hare voluntarily vested him uiM a." From these
fundamental truths he proceeds to show that the
British government had no right to tax the people
of the Colonies unless hy their own consent.
Every reader clearly saw the principles laid.
down. lie commenced precisely where the s;gners
of the Declaration of Independence commenced
with the rights of all men. and then carried out
the doctrine and applied it to the colonies. The
Intellectual power evinced by Hamilton, and his
devotion to these doctrines of the universal brother
hood IF the human race. induced Washington 10
elect him as a member Of his military family du-
ring the revolution, and subsequently to constitute
him first Secretary of the Treasury under the
present Constitution.
The maintenance of these doctrines became gen
eral during the year IVA. IL is a historical tacr
that in the colonies now constituting the Slave