Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-08-04

teri 40 not ST eak to his dscredit; like these
homely-louking men, and you see have reason
for it perhaps, (Renewed merriment.) But, Mr..
Chairman, in tracing the course of Mr. Lincoln
for the last ten years. fail TO find anything in the
record worthy of the high testimony borne in his
favor here to-day. On the contrary, comparing
him with Senator Douglas, fail to sec any essen.
tial difference between the two And this l am
sure OF, that last year, when l was in Ohio, and
the election Of State officers was pending, Mr.
Dcnnison, She present Governor of that State, was
in the ield as a candidate, and Mr.. Lincoln, in
behalf of his friend, delivered several speeches in
the State, into which, suppose, he put the doc
trines and sentiments by which he is willing to be
Judged to-day. Now you, in voting for Abraham
Lincoln hope to vote for anti'slavery. You have
been assured here today, that you would be vo-
ting for anti-slavery ulimaely.i if not Immediately
in voting for him. l stand here to-day to give ii
as my deliberate opinion that in voting for Abra
ham Lincoln, you effectually vote for slavery
as you would in voting Cor Stephen A. Douglass
and the reason | say SO is because l have here the
record Of Mr. Lincoln himself upon all these sub
jects and if there be really any difference between
him and Stephen A. Douglas his effort last year
in Ohio, and his effort the presen! year. so far as
have seen, seem to be to make It as apparent as
possible that there is no essential difference be-
tween him and the Democratic candidate.
\ Now, Mr.. Chairman, on the first day of Febru-
airy last Senator Seward of New York, made q
speech in the Senate of the United States, which,
after careful comparison of its various features
and sentiments with Daniel Webster's bid for the
Presidency, ten years BEFORE on the 7th Of March,
| must say, think it suffers in the comparison;
and should like to see the Republican to-day
who would stand up in the city Of Washington,
and make one utterance that Daniel Webster made
in that speech. Mr.. SewGrd'a grand object and
aim seemed to me, on the first of February, utterly
to deny the doctrine Of an 'irrepressible conflict
between the North and the South lie even went
so Far as to dscaim the word slavery'-as eau
tious as the Constitution ITSELF and surely that is
a height of caution that has never before beer
euis. kiralled-revor, certainly exceeded. Ire
member that, good many years ago, Abbot! Law
renco wrote some letters for tho Richmond Wing
in which he referred to slavery as the unonlight
ened labor Of the South A few years after
wards, the Methodist Conference bad ocoa sion to
deal with one of its Bishops on the same subject
OF slavery, and they spoke of slavery an 1mped.
iment Mr.. Seward refined on these two words
he called slavery capital FL thought it the
most capital joke Of the season and undertook to
show that there was conflict, prcssible or ire
pressible, between the North and the South. Now,
then, it seems to me that when he was dropped,
and Mr.. Lincoln substituted, there should have
been sCme reason for it. l know of but one; and
that was, that Mr.. Lincoln was the more available
man of the two, and for the reason that his ante,
cedents were less Objectionable to the South than
the snteccdsnts of William IL. Seward. Well,
then, what are exactly, the positions of Abraham
Lincoln l suppose this is good authority. 1t is
a campaign document, and published Cor general
circulation. On the very question of the abolition
Of slavery and the slave trade in the District of
Columbia, Mr.. Llncoln is made to define bis posi-
tun. II it be true that Ir. Lincoln is ~ favor of
the abolition Of slavey in the District of Columbia
and Of tho slave trado there. he is very unfortu-
nate in this later manifesto of his opinions for,
ten years after the Introduction Of that bill, we
lind him declaring in so many words,-'In rela-
ton to the abolition Of slavery in the District of
| Columbia have my mind made up. | should
be exceedingly glad to slavery abolished there
l believe that Congress possesses constitutional
power to do IT, Well, then, if Congress possesses
the constitutional power, why hesitate2 On what
account does he defer it For some reason surely.
Yet as a member of Congress, should not, with
ny present views, be in favor CT ehdearoring to
abolish it,, land endeavoring' is talicised) unless
it should be upon these conditions: first, that the
abolition should be gradual second, that it should
be on a vote of a maj ority of the qualified voters
of the District; third that compensation should be
made to the unwilling voters 1t has remained
for the Republican party, | think, to furnish the
first instance of submitting to thieves and rogues
what kind oflegislation they preferred. l never
heard of Democrat going tha: far. 1 think il
has remained for the candidate of the Republican
party to iutroduce that new anomaly in our nation
al Jurisprudence.
Now l ask this audience, ask my friend Mr.
Wilson, is that to be set up in his behalf ?-is that
the best defence you can make of him P-because
il it is, you had better leave il to brother Meen
and the like of him. Those were the conditions
under which hc was willing to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia.
Then, again. in regard to the other intorrogato-
ry, lin reference to the question of the abolition
of the slave Trade between the different States J
l can liulJ uuoNoiI HaNo NV BiNOu huJ piSOso
in regard to it. 1t is a subject to which / have
not given that mature consideration that would
make me feel authorized to state position SO as
to hold myself bound to it, l wonder if be has
ever thought about the commerce in other articlesl
Here is the question of the slave trade between
the States an abomination, suppose, without a
parallel anywhere under heaven, and yet we are
told by this candidate of the Republican party,
that he has not given tho subject that consdera-
ton which enables him to give an opinion by
v hich no would be willing to be bound In 9th
er words, that question has never been prominent
ly before me. to induce me to investigate whether
we really have the constitutional powes to do it,