Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-03-19
Anti 9laperp Bnglc.
SALEM, ONO, MARCH 10, 1869.
PRINCIPLE AND PoLICY--THE DIFFER
ENCE.

are as fixed as the North Star, and the moral mag
netism which pervadcs their actions always points
so the great certer OF attraction. The basis of the
latter is continually shiiting-every change oil cir
cumstances calls for a change Of policy, and 'ha'
which yesterday was regarded as a great evil, be
comes today the highest g~oOd-that, which was
then deprecated, is now enthusiastically odVocat'
ed.
The genuine anti slavery movement stands up
on principle. 1t condemns slave holding as a sin
in itself-as q violation of the rights of man. 1t
asks not whether the crime be committed South or
North of a certain line, in a State or in II Territo'
nv, by the sanction of law or contrary to it, it
declares it to be a sin. and afirms that no man and
no party has a right to endorse, justify, or palli'
ae il. No one who occupies this moral stand
point can have any difficulty III forming a correct
judgment OF any action claiming to be anti slavery
for he knows that all such action should be in ac'
oordance with principle, and never in violation OF
it. although mistaken policy may loudly demand
IL. With the members Of a political party which
claims to have, or which really may have, an
snti.slavery tendency, the case is widely differ.
emit, and this, because the starting point is diff
ferent.
Take, for illustration, the Republican party,
whose creed may be thus stated slavery is an
evil, a political evil. We will tolerate it in the
States, but not in the Territories-we will support
it where it is, but fight against its extension,
Hence, the party, refusing to take principle for its
guide, must be governed solely 10y policy, which
may not only assume a new and different form Of
action with every change of circumstances, but
every member of the party may entertain different
- = IL. 81 80. popo 10 G,1.a IN cha N 4.
panization. SO whatever diversity of opinion
or diversity of action there may be among its
members they have no right to try those opinions
or actions by principle, but must refer them to
policy for adj Indication and we are unable to
perceive what right they have to condemn each
other for such differences.
Among the Republicans who voted for the ad'
mission of Oregon with her pro'slavery Constitu-
ton, was Mr.. Thayer of Massachusetts. Neither
hs vote, nor the speech il which he defended his
intended vote appears to be satisfactory to his con-
stituents, if the Worcester Spy, which processes to
sneak for them, be authority. Mr.. Thayer is a
cool, calculating politician, and acts with the
Republican party, we infer, not on the ground of
priuciole, but because the policy of that party
appears to him preferable. He was the main
BDrlnL oil the hduets ch INV mOso"obV, nc nc
Il, now the life of the free labor associations which
ore sending Yankee settlers into Virginia, with
the belief that their mode of agriculture will be
more profitable, and therefore more polite than
the slave labor which, has 80 long cursed its soil.
Mr.. Thayer did not in the Kansas, nor does he in
the Virpipian movement desire ally sickly philan'
.,bronv auy mawkish sentimentality upon the slave
nv questionable wantsthat every argument by which
his emipra,ion schemes are sustained 10 have in
than the clear, unmistak able ring Of the dollar,
and nothing else. We therefore need not expect
TO find in his speeches il Congress or elsewhere,
that protested devotion to principle, which is ms
familiar to some politicians OF his party. as is
,tbeir continual violation of it. Mr.. Thayer is a
,politician, advocates what is polite, and votes for
what ia polite, and in this, he is a much better
representative of the Republican party, than those
who think they have cause to condemn him for so
,doinp, The SPY, however, is of q different opln-
ion, and says:
In the whole Of Mr.. Thayer's arguments, we
have failed to find one frank and manly allusion
To that feature of the Constitution, against which
Mr.. Seward, though voting for tho bisl, 'enter'
ed his decided protest" and which MIR. Wilson,
though declining to vote, denounced as uncon'
stitutional inhumnn, and unchristian,' Tor which
"he could not vote without giving MS own PERSON
al sanction to it,"
II seems as if the constitution was designedly
framed to secure the formal endorsement OF Con
press 10 fortify the extra judicial decision Of the
Supreme Court, which declares, in effect, that
negroes have no rights that white men are bound
to respect. That pcrnicicns principle was, in
farms. embodied in the Constitution, apparently
with the hope that Republicans enough could be
aecured. on account Of their negligence or their
Indifference, to ensure its passage. To those
who objected to this principle. Mr.. Thayer only
replies, that they are "quibbllng about things
which are comparatively unessentIal, and do not
concern us or our duties here" This is n strong
statement, but it is not good logic. 1t will not
satisfy the seventy. five hundred good and true
Republicans. who gave him their votes last Fall,
with the explicit confidence that their principles
should receive no detriment at his hands.
Now what has Mr.. Thayer, and the few Re
publicans who voted with him, done to merit such
condemnation Briefly stated, it is this: They
voted to admit Oregon with a Constitution which
excludes the negro from a residence in the State,
and from appearing as a party in its courts. This
was Enthusiastically q violation of aDti.slavery prin-
ciple, but it certainly was not contrary to the gen.
eral view of policy held by the Republican party,
and was in perfect harmony with its past and
present misunderstanding it, it is true, a trile
further than ordinarily. The Spy, however, thinks
his vote indicated a want of fidelity to Republican
principles. The part of Mi. Thayer's speech
which we presume would be considered the most
Objectionable is thus given -
Another objection is urged against the clause
in the constitution Of Oregon which excludes ne.
groes and m~ulattoes from that territory and, in
addition, provides that they shall not bring any suit
therein. 1t is said thas this is in eontravention of
the Constitution of the United States. What if it
isf have not sworn that the people of Oregon
shall obey the Constitution Of the United States.
do nOt admit that this is in contravention of the
Constitution of the United States. I do not now
discuss that point. But even if it were, | have
sworn myself to support the Consultation OF the
United States, and not that anybody else shall DO
20.
\ But, sir, this provision is no more hostile to the
United States Constitution than are the laws Of