Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-03-28

1865, South Carolina received Royal Charters sim
liar to those Of Connecticut and Rhode Island.
The latter one contained a very noteworthy add
tion, rs follows:
And so as said ordinances do not extend to the
binding, changing, OF taking away of the right or
interest OF any person or persons in their freehold,
goods and chattels whatsoever" Up. 35.)
To modern ears this might sound like q negative
on colonial statutes taking away the right OF hold
ing slave property. And this would seem to argue
q strong colonial tendency in that direction re-
quiring the interdict. But as slaves appear not
TO have been introduced into South Carolina until
1911, ak years after the date Of this Charter, the
special application of this clause to slave property
would seem inadmissible. In the absence OF
Slavery, tho pro vision would seem rather a pro-
hibition of its introduction, which is a binding"
and taking away the rights" of persons.
Be this as il may, the Charter was relinquishod
in 1929, and South Carolina became a royal pro-
vince. wholly subject to British law, under a regal
government, leaving no room to doubt that the de-
cision Of Lord Mansfield, in the Court of Kings
Bench, in the case of James Somerset, in l772,
declared Slavery illegal in that colony.
"No man shall be a %iuryman under so acres
freehold."-lA.D d. 1869, ?, ST.. Nothing said
abou' race or color.
mo man shall be permitted to be a freeman Of
Carolina, or to have any estate or habltatIOn IN It,
that doth not acknowledge n God, and that God is
publicly and solemnly to lie worshipped."-lp
So Nothing said about race or color!
mo person above IL years Of age shall have
any benefit or protection of law, or hold any place
of honor or profit, who is not a member Of some
church or profession, having bis name recorded IN
some one, and but one, religious record Mt once
-i2. Ga. Nothing said of race or color
Will Judge fancy please TO inform us, in his
next extra.judicial opinion, whether the descend
ants of these wicked non-professors of religion in
South Carolina aIe"citizens OF the United States, ~
or may sue in the Federal Court?
"All inhabitants and freemen of Carolina above
II years old" TO serve as soldiers. Nothing said
of race or color,
Magma Charta is inserted as a part of the "Con
etitutioual law" and also the Habeas Corpus act
of 81 Oh. H., May, 1879. Of course, there could
be no constitutional Slavery, or degradation on
account OF color.
A Constitution Of South Carolina was formed
March 26, ZIG, containing no distinctions on ac-
count of color, aud no restriction Of condition OF
the right of suffrage. In Qualifications of State
Electors" | find no distinction Of color.
But there appears a Constitution Of 177S, in
which it is said, "the qualifications of electors
shall be that every free WHITE man." DC.
Here, for the first time, 50 far as l have dis
covered, the sovereign" nation of South Caroline
has pretended to make any distinction as to th'
color of her votors. She started the race OF ''sov
ereignty," in l776, in company with Georgia
North Carolina, Maryland, Massachusetts, an,
the other States. Not even little Delaware, a
that period, seems to have had any constitution o
statute against 'colored" voting. whatever tn
practice" might have been South Carolina, alon
in her glory, was the first to apostatize from he
profession. Two years after the Declaration o
Independence and her own corresponding Stat
Constitution, she struggled in the word white"
Nino years after, and just as the Federal COnven
ton was assembling, Delaware, WithOut constitu
tional authority, enacts a similar statute. This i
all that remains for Judge Taney's sweeping dec
larations to stand upon. The fair presumption is
that the citizens of the other States, with few anC
rare exceptions, in voting to adopt the Fedora
Constitution, had no knowledge or suspicion o
the fact that Delaware and South Carolina had ex
cluded crlored voters.
/ close by demanding whether the exclusion o
odored voters by South Carolina ini l778, and b.
Delaware in 1877, with no apparent constitutions
authority, DISTINGUISHES all the present free peopl
of color in the United States, precludes them fror
bringing suits in the Federal Courts, repeats tn
Ordinance of 1887, debars Congress from exclud
ing Slavery from the new Territories, forbids tn
liberation of slaves taken by their masters into
Free State, and thus opens all the Free States t.
the admission of slaves? l might add the kindred
demand. whether the affirmation Of all this, b,
Judge fancy. is not preparing the way for a decis
ion of the Federal Courts, denying the ~constitu
tionality of the Acts of Congress fOrbidding tn
African Slave Trade? And of the right OF tn
States to exclude imported slaves?
If consequences like these are to flow from tn
tolerance of Slavery and caste in the United Statei
is it not time for "white"citizens to study the cor
nection between the liberties Of coloTed people an
the liberties of 'chite people?
Rooms of tie american Abolition Society,
No, As Bsekman-st, N. Y. March l6, 81.