Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1861-03-14

In late number Of the Herald my at
tention was called to communication from
our old friend Rev. A. Brunson Of Pra ie
du Chen, iii which the writer proposes a
magnificent scheme to free The country from
the agitation Of the Slavery question, now
enerossing so much time and attention by
/ both ecclesiastics and politicians. The wri-
ter's proposition in brief seems to be some
thing like this, viz :--"Let the Federal
Government appropriate annually a sufi-
cent sum to purchase all the slaves in a
given time, for given sum, and then colo
nize them in country by themselves"
This take to be the authors view Of
The matter, according to my recollection
the Herald containing the communication
having been mislaid. BY the way, is it
not rather remarkable coincident chat one
writer in the FITNESS should propose to
colonize Shareholders and another in the
Herald, about the same time should pro-
pose to colonize the sldVes. Both schemes,
therefore, may be duly considered, and
compared.
To the scheme Of friend Brunson, it
seems to me there are formidable, if not
insuperable objections, and with your per-
mission | will proceed 10 state a few Of
them. The scheme which he advocates is
not original, or at least not new; for we
have seen it in his possession many years
ago; and have heard him advance and adj
yocate it cat sundry times, and in divers
manners But to the scheme itself:
The first objection we bring, Is the fact
that it is impracticabIe. The protested
owners will not sell their slaves: and
where is the authority to compel them to
do so? They tell US not only Tat they
cannot live without the benefit Of slave Ia
Dor; but graYely inform the world that
S,qge5y is the only basis of free, demo
cratic government. Nay, more than this,
it is now claimed for the institution that
it is Divine; and God requires them to
hold on to their human chattels. Why
then talk about buying the foundation OF
Republication, and their God-given right
to make merchaudize Of men, women and
chiidIeng To US It appears e be sheer
folly. again. To my mind there cp-
pears to be something inconsistent IN the
very idea of making men fee, and COM
pellinq them to locate, lad remain in the
bounds Of any certain country. Can any
man be said to be really free unless he be
permitted to pursue happiness wherever he
| may Judge that he can be most successful
1t seems to my mind that the general gov
ernneat must hold them in bondage still
for 5fthey be made free they are free indeed.
Let my friend duly weigh and consider this
objection.
Another serious objection to bis specula-
ton will be found to exist when we come
to decide in reference to those slaves which
are Of mixed blood. Did it ever occur to
the writer that in all the laws regulating
the peculiar institution, not one word is
said respecting colorg The code simply
declaring "the child shall follow the condi-
tim Of the mother forever" That's ~.
! believe lie has never seen much Of slavery
and for bis information, | can assure him
/ have seen slaves, who so far as any one
could Judge, had as much European 1lood
in their veins as either A. Brunson or the
present writer. And yet it is grayely talk
ed about sending them to heir native
home. Where is the native home Of such
Take for instance, a slave one half African
and the other half European blood, and
where will you colonize him if he is to be
sent to his native homa9 | suppose we
should be compelled to do as Solomon pro
posed to do with the living child-take I.
sword and divide him into equal parts, and
send one half to Africa and the other to
Europe. But no-stop that would not do
70, in that case we should send some Afr
can blood to Europe, and some European
blood to Africa, / suppose the only posi-
Die way would be to subject him to cheml-
cal analysis, and then he would net be
worth sending anywhere. Sir; | take i
that the country where man Is born is
his native land; and if that is not Lis ma
tive land and home, why, then he has none
That's so.
One other objection, and we shall nave
done for the present. There isa principle
of ethics involved in this question. which
all would do we'll to consider: We enter
our solemn protest against buying stolen
property. American slavery commenced
| in theft and robbery, and it is perpetuated
on no better foundation than felony. Ey-
cry STAKEHOLDER is therefore s'thief and 9
robber;;n and for one am not willing to
be taxed one farthing to help pay for sto-
len property. Let that thief be dealt with
as we deal with other thieves. The word
Of God says emphaScaly "tbdt thicf shall
| de- And if this statute were enforced
| not a single man-tlnef by which | mean q
STAKEHOLDER, would escape capital punish
ment. The purchase would be the ac-
acknowledgement Of the right Of property O
man in man. This | never calculate tc
concsde-neyer, no never. Such concep-
ton wuld be fatal to the whole theory o
human liberty. There are other objections
to this vast scheme Of beneyolence, and j
/ the venerable author succeeds in removing
tLose we have stated, perhaps We may
/ point out some more.
JoHS Il. WILLIAMS.
/ Hazel Green. Feb. 20, 1851.