Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-02-28

sous; yet, that il was 'mednf' to be Used TO catch
slaves with, after all a reply might have been
deemed unnecessary for this pattern of defence
is thread-bear and has every appearance of being
worn out with the people already.
Why my Dear Sir, if you make the discovery
to tho people at large, thas, "person" means slave
that every person owing scroice," or from whom
labor lis due" lie a slave 'in plain English ~
Why, you will alarm all Englishmen at least ()
from our land for slavery in this country shall
no longer he confined to African blood. Why Sir,
even the great Republican party, will kick against
your view of the Constitution, with all their known
allegiance to its pro.slavery character, and the
Union. But after oil, | like your new view of the
case for it goes far to show that the sam blind
ness, evil consequences, and %dilemmas, will result,
from the tendency Of those unfair, and forced ar
guments that are produced to sustain slavery, as
are the legitimate fruits Of the workings of slavery
itself. But error is never SO easily detected, as
when it becomes impudont. And this, as well as
other parts of your disquisition, in my opinion,
partakcs too much Of, 'if you won't believe you
must swallow" But to the Constitutions argu.
ment in favor Of freedom.
First then, Sir, please observe, that with us all,
and in all popular usnge, MS well as in al our die.
tionaries, persons is an innocent common word,
used indefinitely to refer to all free human beings.
And Service" or "labor," was inserted in the
Constitution in the place of "servitude" because
the latter was thought to imply the condition of a
slave and the people were not willing, then, to
allow anything in the document that related to
slavery at oil, but rs it in every part clearly
shn~, Il ,uan lo:..l - l.. r. II - II
blessings Of freedom to that age and their poster
ity. For it must DO admitted-1st that it makes
in no place, any mention, and does not speak of
either master or slave, End 1t no where speaks
of n possibility of q ''cluim" Of q master upon n
slave, ecer, in this country, for service or labor
as "due" from the ono to the other. The words
Service or labor" do not so much as hint at the
idea Of slavery and in order to "owe" one must
be free. 1t would be useless to say any more here
unless it be 20 add that q slave is incapable of
owing because he himself is q chattel. Our clause,
in question, ~contemplates the lawfulness of hold.
ing persons to service or labor but it should not
be inferred from this, that every act, that would
hold persons in slavery is Constitutional 1t does
not follow even, that every act that would hold
persons to Service or labor" is Constitutional.
The simple fact of a statute purporting to hold
persons to Service or labor" i; Of itself, no evil
dence of that statute being Constitutional This
fact must be ascertained by an examination into ::
LIST, What kind of service is required and End,
What are the conditions upon which it is required.
Any service or labor" inconsistent with the
duties required at the hands of all citizens, is of
course not sanctioned by this or any other clause
of the Constitution. Neither of course could we
expect in this or any other clause, to find any
requirement of "service or labor" inconsistent
with any rights which are secured 20 the people
by the Constitution. Slave laws, then can OBJ.
viously be held to be sanctioned by your clause of
the Consultation. only BY gratuitously assuming
lst, That ths Canssisus;on .sishsr essEsrs any
rights. nor imposes any duties upon the people Of
the United States, Inconsistent with their being
made slaves; and 2ndiy. That it sanctions the
general principle, and that it is consistent with it,
to hold, persons to service or labor" Tin Slavery,
without contract, without compensation and with
out crime. If this were so. it would be wonderful
that We have SO few slaves in the country and
you would be victorious. On the other hand, if
it be otherwise it is equally wonderful that we
have any at all. For mark, the document affords
no ground for making a colored man a slave and
the white man not. 1t affords no ground for
making him in any way differen. tom ourselves.
1t don't mention his name. () 1t affords us all,
without reference to color-if / can at all under
stand its plain Engtish"-protection, to life,
liberty, and the pursuit Of happiness"
Again, and we will leave The case. The Consti.
tuition in Art. l, Sec. 2, in fixing the basis of rep.
resentatiun plainly denies those described in Art.
1 being slaves, if it be necessary to make our point
more conclusive. For it declares that "those
bound to service for a number of years shall be in
cluded in the number of free persons" Now
until it is shown that there is a difference between
being bound" to service and being held" to SER
vice we shall claim them in each case free. The
addition in the one case, of the words "for q term
Of years." does not alter the case. for it does not
anywhere appear, that in Art. 4, those described
were to lie held beyond a fixed term. And in the
absence OF evidence according to we'll known rules
it cannot be granted.
If the Constitution had "n plain English"
authorized slavery, according to we'll known
rules, its other provisions would have DESTROYED
this authority. Even if it were by all abolition
lists, held to be, and if it were pro slavery we
plainly couldn't consistently vote or hold Office
under it; but We need not in consequence, loose
our political influence for if We can't act under it.
tits our duty and privilege to do so over it, En-
actments against justice are void. lido hope you
may De led to to see that independent of the inno-
cence of the language. this article can't bs made
to mean slavery unless by reversing the legal
principle that the greater includes the less ana
holding that the less includes the greater-that
the innocent includes the criminal that a vindi-
cation of the right includes a sanction Of what is
wrong. If an eminent Thcologian was right in
saying that men are justified lin lying to sape
souls" it may not be improbable that abolitionists
would be. if it were necessary. in putting an inno-
cent meaning upon language to sare slares. But
the difficulty appears greater when we attempt to
clear abolitiopists of sin. when thew attach an Inn.