Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1858-12-18
SALEM CoLUMBANA COUNTY, OHIO SATURDAY,


the term, is not confined, as we take it he will
himself admit, to robbery at sea- Sea robbers.
who land to rob and plumber the inhabitants Of
the coast as the old buccaneers used TO do, al
so guilty of piracy. Many man, in spite Of the
protection which, in colonial times the Carolni
an authorities used to extend to such adventurers,
was hanged in those times for piracy on the proof
Of just such acts. The famous Captain Kidd, we
take to have been pirate of precisely that sort.
So also, that famous pirate Blackboard" a sort
Of rival of the Bluebeard Of the story books who
lurked on the coast of the Carolinas, was counte-
nanced by colonial Secretaries and even 5y Gov
ernors and legislators, as the Echo pirates now
are, and was finally taken by two ships fitted out
in the Chesapeake by Gov. Spotswood of Virginia,
carried to that Colony and tried and hanged
there In fact, it is little curious to remark that
the very provision in the Federal Constitution
giving to the Federal Government Jurisdiction
over piracy, and power also to define it, was Dor,
rowed, like many other provisions of that in
strumeut, from act of Parliament, by which
the mother country assumed Jurisdiction which
the Colonies seemed but too little inclined TO exer
else for themselves therein defining piracy lin
way which did not exactly suit all the Colonies),
and establishing special Admiralty Courts for the
trial of offenders. But if it be piracy for ships to
steal goods on tho coast of Africa what obstacle
is there to make it piracy to steal men the same
coast, or to become the receivers of them from
those who have stolen them 1t used to be a com
mon practice among pirates-kept up by tho Bar,
barry cruisers to a recent period Ito seize upon
men, whether taken at sea or snatched up from
] a., L. Ia11 IL r. -.
equally piracy 10 seize upon men and hold them
TO-, sale #.... .at r.t..r
But the South Carolina jurist is not content with
merely appealing to tho nature Of things. Follow
ing the example set by the Supreme Court of the
nited States in its Interpretation of the bearings
of the Federal Constitution upon Slavery, he must
needs appeal to alleged historical fncts--in doing
which, he betrays the same deporable ignorance
of American history with the greater part of our
American orators and statesmen, including the
Supreme Court ITSELF With q nonchalance, q to,
tai ignorance of facts and law, or disregard of
them, which Chief Justice Taney himself might
envy, our South Carolina jurist informs us in his
speech, "that when the Constitution of these States
was adopted" d"-moaning thereby the Federal Con-
sttution"the slave'trade was as legitimate as the
trduo III WuOl, IN CoHee, OF IN t0DhccO III was q
legitimate and innocent trade, recognized as such
at that time, by all men, Such is the unblush
ing, dare say the ignorant, and, $50 far asigno,
rance excuses Senator, tho innocent assertion of
this South Carolina legislator who, perhaps in.
deed, could scarley be expected to know more Of
the. history and law of bis country than the Chief
Justice of the United States. The real facts are
these By the terms Of the american Assoca.
tion,' entered into by the twelve Colonies repre-
sente1 in the first Continental Congress, and to
which Georgia soon after assened, with which As,
ISOLATION the Revolution commenced, the slave,
trade was specially denounced not only as impo-
litc, but as immoral and wicked, and the colonies
specially pledged themselves to each other to an
entire abstinence from it, and from any trade with
those concerned in it-a pledge from which no col
ony was ever released, though the Carolinas and
Georgia disgraced themselves by tempory viola
ons of it, and which remains in full force to the
present day. In fullfllment of this pledge, the
Colonies, soon afterward independent States pro-
ceded to enact laws making the slave,tr illegal
and criminal Delaware did go by her Constitu
ton Maryland and Virginia by special laws--an
example initiated by all the States north of the Po
tomac. Even South Carolina herself, at the mo-
ment the Federal Constitution was adopted, had IN
act, afterwnrd repealed, prohibiting the im2orta>
lion of slaves. Prior to tho organization of the
Federal Government the State of Rhode Island
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Pennsylvania had
also passed acts forbddng their citizens to engage
in the slave-trade, for the supply of any country
whatever and, doubtless, this example would have
been generally initiated had not the Federal Con.
I-.. r. i ~
this subject, which it did not hesitate speedily to
exercise. So much for law and history as expound-
ed in the South Carolina Senate .-.