Year: 1859

compels him to steal. The pirate upon


the sea. as he plumbers the doomed ship,


may, with impunity, take the life of all
its inmates, for the circumstances of his
case require the application of the max
i'm /" Dead men tell no tales" Mr..
HEDGES tells us that a sane man is re-
sponsible for the result of his own acts,
and would add, probably. that the thief
and the pirate have formed those circum-
stances and must abide their conse-
quences; they have no right to resort to
such means for safety. In the name Of
just heaven, has not the STAKEHOLDER
formed the circumstances under which
he is placed, and should he not be held
responsible for their direst consequences?
No, say his apologists, he found the in
stitution ready made to his hands, there
fore, if there is blame anywhere, it at
taches to his ancestors, and not to him
he is not responsible.


Supposing, as Mr.. Hedges does, man
builds fire in powder magazine, to
cook his dinner /; afterward he abandons
the project, but leaves the fire burning );
his son comes in, sees the danger, but
recklessly adds fuel to the fire, and is
blown to fragments in the explosion of the
magazine. Who is responsible, the faith
er or the son ? Surely every one will
say that the son, by accepting and con-
tinuing the work Of his father, made it
his own. The founders of slavery kin
died a fire in fearful magazine of hu
man energies; their descendants see that


fire gradually but surely approaching the
explosive elements, and they know that
if they feed the fire, sooner or later those
elements will explode. With malignant
fury they turn to the North and demand
aid. Northern Democrats rush to the
rescue, and with wetted blankets stand
between them and danger, and as rec
ompense for their fidelity are allowed to
pick the bones that fall from their mas
ter's table. Trembling and quaking they
gaze first upon the approaching fire. and
then at the slumbering terrors Of the
magazine, but dare not quit their posts
lest they lose their miserable pittance of
official favor. But We digress.


Again, suppose one Of our neighbors
should steal horse from another neigh
Dor, and we know of the theft, have we
no moral obligation resting upon us in
such case Assurediy We have. Some
might say, our first duty would be to go
to the offender and try to persuade him
to return the horse to the owner. If he
will not listen to our persuasions, then
we should go to the owner and tell him,
that he may recover his own; but we
have no right to enter our neighbours
field to seize and return the horse.


The stakeholder has stolen the slave );
stolen his freedom shut him up in his
enclosure, and compelled him to labor
for his profit. He has been reasoned
with he has been approached in every
possible form to induce him to relinquish
his ill-got power, and restore the slave to
freedom and himself-but in vain. We
do not claim the right to enter the mas
ter's domain, and by force compel him
to free his slaves, but we do claim the
right to go to him, who alone is the
proper owner of the slave, (viz: the
slave himself and tell him of the theft
that has been practiced upon him /; teach
him the rights Of which he has been de-
prived, and aid him by all peaceable
means to regain his freedom, even tho
by so doing We may break the provisions
of the " Fugitive Slave Law" Suppose,
now, that we own field in company
with that thieying neighbor. and he.
having stolen the horse, attempts to Sc
cure him in our joint enclosure, are we
not justi6ed-nay. are We not morally
bound to resist, to actual force, if neces-
sary, the iniquitous attempt The white
man found this western world free as the
air of heaven. Over a certain portion
he spread, by local enactment (for it can
exist by no other), the cursed bane Of
Slavery over certain other portion he
perpetuated the reign of Freedom. Still
another portion is owned by the States
in common. On this portion Slavery
can have do foothold, for as man is by
nature free. he cannot be enslaved. ex-
cept by forcible enactment. and this
cannot have taken place in the territories


unless the Constitution is such an enact


ment. If the Constitution is such an


enactment then is Slavery national, and


not local institution, and every free


constitution Of State is in violation OF


the Constitution of the United States,
4 O. \