Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1861-02-16

N O N B 4 R o.

For the Bugls.
N B 8.
Mr.. JONES When a religious journal discusses
political questions, ii should pay a due regard to
vsracity, as if the questions were theological. And
here let me say that the cutlery against c%lergyme2
taking part in politics, or preaching politics in
stead Of religion" is an erroneous view Of an i'm
portant public duty. The morality or religion
that does not require and enjoin as strict probity
and fidelity in politics, as in the common affairs OF
life, is a sham and a cheat.
The Review is unfortunate, if no. ~culpatlc, in
ito statement Of facts. 1t asserts first, these
States are pledged to a perpetual Union" mark
ing the words perpetual Union" as o quotation
Second, it asks How can any Southern State
Justify a disruption of the Union which was de-
clared to be perpetual" Third, it asserts the
contracting parties stipulated that the Union shall
be perpetual;' the last word marked as a quota
ton. Now hero are no less than three assertions
as to one fact, and yet each, and every one OF
them is absolutely false. l challenge the Editor,
or any one else, to produce the proof.
In its second argument against the right Of
secession" based upon this falsely assumed pre-
mise, the Review proceeds deliberately TO draw its
conclusions, namely. that "a perpetual Union is
one that cannot be dissolved except on tho consent
of all the parties to that union. \ n = \ Ill
seems almost too plain for argument, that il the
several States, or the people thereof in their SOW
ereign capacity, have pledged themselves 10 n per-
petual Uuion, and ratified their ~plighted faith by
an oath, no one State can secede without mourning
tho two-fold criminality of breach Of faith, and
violation Of on OATH" Now these conclusions
seem to DE very logicll, but as soon as we discov-
err the fact, that they are based on false premises,
they fall to the ground. To provo a negative is
. always q difficult task, and here ] can only show
tn the perpetual Union" ofa,hese States was
. under the Articles of Confederation, and that not
wishstauding that Union was, in tho preamble and
body Of the Articles Of Confederation, declared
: to be perpetual" IL lasted almost nine years.
! when il was dissolved by eleven of the original
thirteen States actually seeding from North Car
' DINA and Rhode Island, and forming under the
q Federal Constitution "a more PEnFEc1 UNION"
i but no. a perpetual" Union.
Tbs Review is not alone in classifying facts. Mr..
Z Seward in his late speech says Experience in
; war and in peace, from l776 until 1887 only con-
WINGED them THE Statesl of the necessity Of con-
verting that loose Confederncy into q more perfect
d and perpetual Union" This is a shameful per-
version of facts, for tho States dismembered a
D "PERPETUAL UNION" and formed "a more Perfect
" Union" In this speech Mr.. Seward divides SOW
~ereignty between ''the States and the Federal Coz
ernment," aud that the 'aVegiance" Of the same
9 pee pie is due ito the Union" and "to the Slate"
Admirable logic this for a statesman, who says,
70 John Brown roas justly hung" Without granting
q modicum Of Sovereignty and allegiance" to
Virginia, Mr.. Seward found be could not justify
the hanging Of John Brown for treason.
On the question Of allegiance, the Review i:
almost as clear-headed as Mr.. Seward. Speaking
of those, who cannot eonscientiously submit TO the
u Constitution, the review says, they are bound &c
allow it unrestricted operation or to renounce al
, allegiance to it," Here allegiance is claimed at
due to the Constitution. The Review continues
le "But the question now before Us is, whether the
= personal liberty laws. free Southern men from
e, their allegiance to the country" Here Country
is substituted for the Constitution as entitled tC
at allegiance. Again, asks the Review: Suppose
IL State should prohibit the restoration of q fugitive
ID slavo, would that exhonorate any slaveboldiul
81 State from it's allegiance to the Union :" Her,
ID the Review claims for a third party, the Union
the allegiance of a sovereign State, for it has ad
IL mltted the sovereignty OIL the cluteSi IN TWO ulneI
is ent places, without once claiming q divided SOY
er e~reignty" between the States and any other par
ID ~. How then it could fall into the error of claim
log that allegiance was due to the Constitution
the Country and the Union, is inexplicable.
be- On the question of allegiance, Mr.. Seward an
III the Editor of the Review part company, and l an
forced to admit that the theologian is, if any odds
is the better statesman.
ID On this vital question Of allegiance, let me her
%, remark that wberesoever it may be due it is, fror
rs the very necessity of the case, one and indivisibl'
Webster defines allegiance" to be "the duty OF
of subject to his prince, government, or State"
Judge Blackstone, it is true, maintains tn
~ European doctrine that q British subject, cannc
x ex~ patriato himself and pu. of his allegiance b
lie swearing to another. The judge says: Indeed tn
or natural born subject Of our prince to whom b
les owes allegiance, may be e~ntangled by subjectin
himself to another; but it is his own act tha
ty brings him into these straits OF owing service t
nd two masters" y y y
lily "When l say that an alien is one who is born GU
be of the kings dOmiuiOns. or allegiance, this ais
we must be understood with some restrictions. Th
a common law, indeed, stood absolutely SO, with
he very few exceptions; so that q particular act {
parliament became necessary after the restorI
he lion, for tao naturalization Of children Of b
no MajeSty's English subjects born in foreign couI
be- tries during the late troubles. And this mari
Of The law proceeded upon q general principle tn,