Newspaper Page Text
"NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS."
IMIII.V ItOUIXSOiV, rublUhlng Agent.
91 Alt I US It. ItOIIINSON, Editor.
SALEM, COLUMBIANA CO., OHIO, APRIL 2, 1853.
WHOLE NO 392.
VOL. 8---N0. 28.
THE ANTI-SI. A VEKV IIUCiEE,
Published etrkt Saturday, at Sai.fm, O.
Tsbms. $1,80 per annum :f paklin advance.
' $1,7 per annum if paid within the first ix
months of tlio subscriber's year.
$1,00 per annum, if payment bo delayed be
jrond iix montht.
ryWa occasionally aend numbers to thoso
who are not subscribers, but who are believed
to bo interested in Iho dissemination nf anti
slavery truth, with tho hopo that they will
eithor subscribe themselves, or uso their iiillu
nca to extend its circulation among their
tV Communications Intended for insertion,
to be addressed to Maiiics H. H mso, K litor.
AU others to Emily KniuNsoM.Piiblinhing Ag't.
J. UUDSOX, l'UINTEK.
For the Anti-Slavery Bugle.
HOPEDALE, O., Feb. 28, '53.
Robixson, llrspectcd Sir: Joseph
Barker's note to yon, Feb. 5th, is now before
ma, in wliicli lie says: " I have libt jet seen
the Bugle, containing Mr. Hartell's propo
sitions." He does not any, lie has not seen
my letter to him, Jim. 18, hut, that liu tins
been informed of the questions proposed liy
myself fur discussion. The questions nre
II that is important in my letter to liiin.
Why did ho not address me, ns I did him?
I)iil he intend to put n stop to a direct cor
respondence ? 1 preferred the press, as the
medium of communication between us. I
knew Mr. linker's address, and he obtained
mine, liefore we took the parting hand at
My proposition for discussion willi Mr.
Marker on tlio Bible question, grew out of n
challenge uttered by himself, before the
Bible Convention of Inst Nov., and a pers
onal interview at your house end in your
presence. From tlieso eimiiiiRtancrs n re
port went tihrond, that Mr. Barker had res
pectfully invited mo to a discussion, and
that I hnd declined. This, I could not deny.
Having acquired a little celebrity as a di's
putmit, my decline has been prejudicial,
creating a suspicion that these were doubta
iu my own hrenM, with re lemur n, In a ta.-
tkuial defence of the cluims of tho Bible.
This suspicion was soon confirmed by an
article in the " Plum Deulcr," by one who
ays he wua in the convention ns spectator
nrl reporter: speaking of ma he suys " be
offured no argument which led me to think,
that he believed the Bible, n work of divine
inspiration." These thing were not done
in corner, and my negotiation with Mr.
Barker, should therefore be conducted thru'
the medium of the public press.
' 1 will now come to Mr. Bin ker's objections
to tho proposed isue, and 1st, The questions
(the first of which ho will not debute,) were
lecitiiuale deductions from the seven reso
l..i;nnu ro...l ln-rhrn nml accepted hy thu
iuiiwii.) " -- .
Convention, hut not debated. These reso.
lutious were iu tho order of cl'nnux : the
Inst two being the concentration of the pre
ceding ones. They declare, that man has
i i- 1:1. ...! ;. .ulmr tlml
an iiitumuie ruie oi on-, "
unerring rule consists. I will here insert
6th. Resolved, That man Ims an infalli
ble rule of life, on the knowledge of which,
depend the progress, perfection and happi
ness of his nature, iu ull states of his exist
7th. Resolved, That the rule is found,
not in the Bible, the Koran, the Shustics,
nor in any supposed arbitrary revelation, but
is eugraven on the nature of each human
being, by the hand of his Creator.
' Where then will mnn find an infallible
rule of life ? Not in the Bible, &c,
engraven on the nature of each human
being, by the band of his creator."
Mr. Barker hos here given us, an une
quivocal confession of ids fuilh, or what
was liro mmi ago ; he has s'tated uflii ma
lively where mini's infallible rule is,
jiegtitivcly, where it is not. But what is
iresent position ; let us see. Anti-Slavery
Bugle, Feb. 11) : " As to Mr. Uai izull's prop
ositions, 1 do not believe that God has
every man with the requisite mental
capacity, to acquire from any source, n
knowledge of his relations, duties
destiny i I question whether ho I'"" u
nu iniiu. It will certainly
Eternity, to gain H perfect knowledge of
our relations 6.; 1 cannot tUeioforu
the affirmative of that proposition."
is progressive, indeed U is. In Nov. 1852,
man had an infallible rule of life,
is, a rule incapable of mistake, ami this
received from the bund of his Creator,
" on the 5th Feb., 1853, lie says i "1 do
bolievt that God has endowed every or
' inon, with the requisite mental capacity
acquire from any source, a perfect
edge of bis relutions, duty and destiny,"
. think it will require " Eternity, &c."
. Bir, man's relations and duties in
are not tho subjects of discussion.
then ? Why this ? Mr. Barker said in
vention, that man hsd an infallible rule
without the Bible ; and to this, he challenged
investigation; can any thing be a rule of
life, that does not reveal to man his relations,
duties and destiny ? Relations must he un
derstood, before duty can be defined, and
their destiny, whether present or future, or
both, to give value to relation, and inspire
with motive, to the discharge of duty.
Surely there can bo no misunderstanding in
regard to a rule of life.
Mr. Baiker will however, take the affirm
ative of the following proposition l "That
mnnkiud lire nble to obtain the knowledge
needful to their improvement and welfare,
without supernatural revelation or infullible
toneheis." This is n very different thing
from an infallible mlo of life. How glo
riously indefinite. " Knowledge needful."
This much might ho affirmed of a horse.
But Mr. Barker's proposition contains an
aflirmutivo and n negative. I' list, " I but
mankind are able to obtain tho knowledge
needful to. their improvement and welfare."
Second, "Without supernatural revelation
or infallible teachers." Ho will then take
the affirmative of a negative; Mr. Barker
being a logician, I can hut regard bis prop
osition, as an artful piece of management,
to get up a fn I no issue, and further, a refusal
on his part, to defend in orderly discussion,
tho dnclriue contained in those offensive
resolutions, of which he will not deny the
paternity, for he was first in committee, first
iu report, nod first iu defence.
lie has then iu seven resolves, and in his
other publications, preferred many and
grievous charges ngniust that Book, which
has been for ages mid yet is, revered by
millions of thu belter portion of mankind.
These accusations ho ought to prove, for he
certainly does know, that the more mighty
the calumny, the dearer should be the proof of
it, mid then ns the Apostle of rationalism,
be should show to us, superstitious devotees
of that Book, (whose origin Is wrapt iu dark
ness which curries on its very luce, the
luniks of hiimiiu imperfection and error
whose authority is not decisive as to the
truth or falsehood of any principle, or tho
goodness or badness of any practice, and
that the belief thut the Bible is a perfect
rule of luitli and practice, is not only alto
gethcr erroneous, but exceedingly uiisehiev.
ous,) thut we huvu a more sure woul cf
prophecy, to which we shall do well to lake
Mr. Barker cuniiol get up a talse issue
with us, neither can he bide himself from
the public gaze, in responsibilities he has
incurred, in offering himself us ft worthy
guide, to the ignorant ami erring of his race,
til vilW of the whole premises, I musi
again urge upon his consideration, the prop
osilious submitted iu my former letter.
Fi.st, "That the Creator has endowed mun
with tlio requisite mental capacity to acquire
from the devclopements of nature, a perfect
knowledge of his relations, duties and ilea
tinv. You affirm, I deny." Or if he prefer
this, given over his own signature, (as we
might say,) "That mini bus an mtalliliie ruie
of life, engraven on the nature ot cacn nil
man being, by tho hand of bis Creator, on
the knowledge of which, depend the prog
.-... perfection mid happiness of his nature
in every state of his existence." Second,
'That the Jewish and Christian Scriptures
contain o series of communications, super
niiturully reveuled and miraculously attested
from the hitter, man muy acquire a per
feet rule of life. I uttirm, you deny."
So matters present themselves to my mind
. . . i i i .t.A
nt present: but if 1 Have not unueisiumi
. . . . .
original resolutions, I usK to oo correcieu,
for I do not ask Mr. Barker, to defend any
docniue he has not avowed. If his mind
bus changed with reference to the infallible
source of knowledge, since the convention,
we only usk him to use his influence in
blotting from the public records, those reso
If Mr. Barker can show good reuson why
bo should not ho required to defend either
of the propositions contained in Ibis article,
i of w hich is couched in the precise
thu Ijtii snd 7lh resnlu-
tions, we shall then proceed to discuss
affirmative, tho negative of which he
Debute to ho held ' mo llomt "
Western Reserve, and to commence the 25ih
of Muy next. Winer ir"""""
settled by mutual agreement. Hoping
hear from Mr. Barker soon,
for the Truth's sake,
Tub Public Debt of tho United States,
January 1st, 1853, amounted to $05,131,
h Bank of East Ttttoesso has failsd.
of Hon. Horace Mann to Wendell Phillips
WEST NEWTON, March 14 1853.
Wm. L. Garrison, F.so,. :
Dear Sin, Having iust arrived home
from Washington, 1 avail myself of the ear
liest moment of leisure to reply to certain
further injurious strictures of Mr. Wehdf-li.
Phillips, mode in an attempted defence ot
his previous injurious strictures upon me.
. ' . . . . i. ...... ...nt.
liefore noticing nir. runups, una,,
he permitted to say ono word (aside, as the
Uu. ui-i..lna Imvn ill to tlm I.clitor r1 rtluy I
ask him if it is quite fnir to become so far a
party to the controversy as to sharpen Mr.
rhillipa's weapons, or ami weigm i
blows, and then, in an editorial, assumo the
character of judire, and pronounce Ins ac
quittal ? The holding of llm clonics mr
threw who stoned Stephen, cent Snul some
panes of remorse ; but 1 thiuK twinges
would have been much sharper, hnd ho af
terwards turned judge, and decided tlmt tlio
stoning hnd done tho martyr no ' injustice.
Mr. Phillips, in Ins reply, seis lonn n ..
of tho passage in my speech to wnien ns
professes to have referred ; and thus, 6; his
own showing, demonstrates how wronglully
ie misquoted me. Jly putting m " ' i"
the record, he now Bianos seu-i-winn..;.. 1
because, if there ho any ono right among
disputants more clear than any other, it is
the right of every man to have his meaning
determined hy his own language, ami noi y
that which an assailant may put in bis mouth.
It is thn common device ol prevaricators,
when falsiiy is proved upon them, to reply,
Well, if it was not that, it was as unw
that.' I presume Mr. Phillips knows tnoi
men have been convicted ol perjury under
the self-snmo plea in justification lie now sets
up. Indefinite and irremediable wrong can
not he prevented hut by holding every party in
a controversy to exact and honest quotations.
All fair disputants willingly conform to tins
rule. No good motive can never prompt a
man to depart from it. Mr. Phillips, now,
not onlv acknowledges, but proves that his
applicant quotation was not a quotation ; and
he goes further, and conn-uses mat lie saw
the nrnofs. It is true.ho denies observing the
quotation marks.' But if he intended that tho
luniruaee should not en to tho public as mine
would he not have observed them ? Besides,
he introduces the subject ss follows ; ' Mr.
Mann said,' and then adds, 1 in one of his
sneechns.' Then his rohnke of surreptitious
sentiment, his singling out the hinge-word of
the sentence us inine.nuil exclaiming, 'VY hat
a "But'! from the lips, too, of a champion
of the hieher law !' ay, freni the Lien !
what nertinene.v or remvanry in all tins, it
he did not mean to have tho public believe
that hit words were my words ?
But further, I maintain that there is a
wholo diamiter of difference between the
meaning of my language, and that of his
substitute for it. Mv remarks iu tho pursage,
even now most -unfairly quoted, wero ad
dressed wholly to Southern men to a South
ern audience, forewarning them what, up
on their own principles, they must expect
should they dissolve Ilia I'mon. mr. I nil-
lips represents me as speaking to the North,
rather than to the hmith, (tweauso wncn
nothing appears to the contrary, s man is
supposed to bespeaking to the people among
wniiiil lie lives), aim as suyms u my n-nuw
citizens, at home, that I, and 1 stnte his
monstrous inference in his own Inncuace,
that ' would return fugitive, slaves, mhi7 Me
Sut'.i men stimritled. An admonition to the
South, thai after they shall have dissolved llm
Union, they cannot, on any principle of in
ternational law, reclaim fugitive slaves, Sir,
Phillips tortures into a declaration hy me, to
the .Xhrth, that 1 stand rendy and willing lo
return Ingitives unfit such dissolution shall
And further, Mr. rlullips quoted mo most
unfairly now. tin has earhled the para
graph from which his pretended proof is
drawn. He has dropped three passages from
it, which show demonstratively, thnt I was
not selling forth what would do now, hut
what they must look for Wisii. If Mr. Phillips
will quote the paraeraphs correctly, every
body will see this. If ho does not quote It
everybody will know tint reason whv.
But let mo add, that this question about
identity or contrariety of meamnir never
ouebt to hnve arisen. Among fair disputants,
such a question never can arise. Honest
quotations will always preclude it. I there
fore return to my original position, t., that
1 had n right to he fairly quoted, and lie, by
imputing InneiiHCO to me which I never
used, did, notwithstanding his two-fold de
nial, do me 'injustice,' in the first instace
and now, by omitting, in his reply, such por
tions of thn real paragraph as would falsify
his inference, he has repeated the injustice.
On the second point, Mr. Philips rhsrgeil
ma with avniilincr nnv renlv to a pertinent
question; with seeing a logical 'dilemma,'
and 'avoiding it bv silence' ; with keeping
hack what I ' should have plainly said, sud
with reouestiiiff ' not lo he Interrupted ' I and
he interlarded thn whole with imputations
I of ' non-commitaism,' want of 'frankness,'
'unworthy trick.' ie. 4V.
I answered hy showing that I did
'avoid reply,' hut made ono ; thnt I saw
dilemma, and so did not 'avoid it by silence
that 1 kept back nothing that I 'should havs
plainly said,' but said it wilh all my strength
and from a full heart t and that I did not sr
nnt In h iiiteri iiiitnd ' hut ail omitted, with
out nhiertinn. tn ho interrupted threw several
times; and only when the whole point
interruption hnd been stated did I express
Imna not In he'fnrtlier' interrnnted. Whflt I
under justifiable oualificalions, he charted
iinnn nif Mluudutnlv and without aiialincl
tion. I n all this, the wnotn suusiancn
Mr. Phillii's reply is, that if he is not
then he 'does not undemtand language.'
common with what every reader must
I accept the alternative. If all those asser
tions were not pure invention, then Mr.
'does not understand language.'
ThA nml nnint in iaaua betseon US
Phillips In iiicorssotly '. I "id
nrrf paragraph is slso a tissue of misrepre
sentations.' What I said of the 'paragrapK
he restricts to one sentence in it, which he
then attempts to defend.
In my reply, I said, ' I know of uo Free
Soiler who has not the strongest desire to
arrest the wrongs nf slnvery by all the legit
imate means within his power; or who "con
sents to let slavery remain where it is" in
any other senso than as he consents to the
subjugation ol Hungary, or the usurpation of
Mima napoleon hecauso ho can t help it.
I never intimated anv thinir to tho contrary
of this; am), let -me ask. docs not Mr. Phil
lips " consent" in the same way P '
To illinium thin, that is. to nrora that I
have no 'desiro to arrest, at all, tho wrongs
of slavery,' and thnt I do 'consent volunta
rily to le slavery remain where it is,' Mr.
Phillips makes five quotations from my
INow, I aver that each one or thoso five
quotations is cited for an unfair purpoee,
which uufuir purpose an obvious distinction
Like other l'reo Sorters, I hold that Con
gress, or tho general government, has no
power, under Ihe Constitution, to abolish
slavery within the Status; while, st tho same
time, as a citizen of tho United States, and
as a man, my whole heart wrestles and sgon-
izes ' to arreM tho wrongs of slavery.'
Now, nil the uassnces which Mr. phillips
has cited under this head were spoken iu
my capacity ns a Consrcssional legislator, or
witii reference to legislation hy Congress.
In that cnpncity, I have disclaimed legul or
forcible interference, just as other Free Soil
cru have done, jimt as Mr. Giddings has
lone (cores ol tunes. Uut no where have I
disclaimed or renounced moral interference.
On tho contrary, my published volumo
abounds with passages which tr moral in
terference, willi the most massive and keen
edged weapons I wss able to forge, not
terrible, 1 well know, like those wiulded by
othnra, and yet, may 1 hopetnot discreditable
to inc. I speak within bounds when I say,that
there uro fifty pasHgesill my peeche, car
rying out the doctrine ot moral interference,
embodying it, executing it, li;r every passage
cf Itgal disclaimer. As Mr. Phillips says ho
fins been obliged to molt again over my vol
ume,' he must have teen thoro passages. In
one of the opening piirsursplis of this very
reply, ho proiesscs to ' sppreeialo' tho good
words I have spoken for tho anti-slavery
come.' ami adds, ' my blood has thrilled too
often beneath his glowing eloquence, his
startling denunciations, and those pictures
of slavery wnien inriii onc.s boui.- iciuu
discards nil this clasaof passages with which
li, y public writings are filled, and forgets his
own concessions, m order to tnsren upon
me the imputation of moral indilT-rentism,
snd even 4 consent' in regard to tho existence
of slavery. Against hundreds of instances
of earnest moral dissent stiu protestation, ne
cites less than half a dozen esses of involun
tary snd extorted legal 'consent,' sud thun,
vti violation of every ruloof logic, of justice,
and of fuirncss, forces thn conclusion, that
I, in common with other rrce Soilers, ' have
no concern for slavery in the States.' Matk
these word. everyone an outrage: have
NO conges' 'for or on account ol slavery'
' in Ihe Slates.'
In the suesch of Feb. 15, 1850,' says Mr.
Phillips, ' Sir. Msnn ts eo far from denying
my statement' that ho seems never to havo
heard of any body who did wish to agitato
fiir the abolition of slavery in the States.
fliis is anite probable,' iVq. Yet in one of
the introductory paragraphs of that speech,
...l.'..!. I.u Inn i.iKf IrmUiwl over .1)8111 m.
curs the following: 'and if an unspeakable
ahhoraucu of this institution, and Ihe belief
that it is the second greatest enormity which
tho oppressor iu bis power ever commuted
against the oppressed in his weakness,' ' I
say if this ahhorauce of slavery, and this be
lief in its criminality, entitle a mnn to ho
denominated an Aboliliohisft, then 1 rejoice
in mv iinoiiestionnble riehttu the name.' If
any sano iihiii will take the trouble to road
thn first twenty paces of that speeech alone,
1 deiy him to withhold his condemnation
from Mr. Phillips for intimating that I 'seem
m,vfr lo have heard of any body who did
wieh to agitate for the abolition of slavery
in the Stntea': or that I ' have no concern
fur sluvery in the States.'
R..;.taa hitfnrn Mi" Phillips could come
any such inference, evt-n by tho forcing and
ravishment of my languaga of which ho has
been guilty, ho bad to disenrd the the very
of my statement. My language was'
that we would ' srrest tho wrongs of slavery
buall the legitimate means ififim our wiser;
.t-.i i. ,..!! knows thnt we hold legislation
by congress to abolish slavery in tho States
not to bo ' legimnto means.' I suppose
Phillies holds this doctrine himself. II
then I have Ihe sumo right to assert lhat
cares nothing for slavery, or hssuo concern
n.r it. The Quotations hero made from
;,. ii..;. nmiin and obvious sense, aim
applicable to the subject matter pi baud,
were all true, tint merit is a wnw m ,..,
nothing can be moro false. Mr. Phillips
cites them iu tho Intior sense.
at, Pi.iitma dwells st lencth on my
ihrnwins- a cloud about'
"' . : - ...i .1.. .,v.
n,u ftniiiiiinii. alp. ill reaarit iu i,m vmi.
..IK,.- ,vl,;,.h Free Soilers take. In my
mer reply, I passed this matter by lightly,
... .ht I had no difficulty about It,
,i,. rrinsiiiution 'rciinired us to
nothing in violation of the Higher Law
God' He now returns to the topic, rate-
ehisfs me in a series of formal questions,
demands, ex cathedra, 'definite and explicit
. ....i ,c I rii.hilv understand
Bfwwrin , pun, i.
drift of his argument, his aim is to prove
Free Boilers who tako the oath of office,
d.i.... in.... Runnier. Chase. Giddines,
a,- .niliv of nerinrv.
.' i- e j a itkmw
N ow so lar iro... ... .
cloud' about my opinion, . its . w. ,
did not ' '"" ; -V":,""
disc bses 1 pri 1 try the 0 To relieve
fern hi. diw MS Vm
era' consciences, hoping that he will then
improve thn time by attending to his own.
Air. riiillips appears not to he aware of a
moat plain and palpabla legal distinction, and
one without which our courts could not get
along for a day. He talk as though our nnt'ns
were grit ouths, and not spcrid! ones ; as
though they were onths to etorm rrrV the of
ficial duties which the Constitution provides
for. instead of tho pvrtirular dutii s of the
office we fill. 1 ss a mrmher nf le .'oii.k rf
Hepresentatives, not as n tiniu d States .Mar
shall, or foul Fugitive Slave Inw Commis
sioner. When Free Soilers are found take
iiif an onth which shall oblige them to re
turn fugitive slaves, then let them bo blasted
with the swiftest lightning.
But, to help out this strango concrii, Mr.
Phillips degrades our oaths to heaven into
mere promises to men, by decaritig tn.it tney
aro binding in thnt 'sense in whiih the no
tion understands them.' Now I bad suppos
ed that, ss an oath makes God a party t the
transaction, it is binilins in that set.se in
which He knows tho pr.rty tonk it. Whsu I
ask what is mv dmv under mv o.-.tli. 1 look
lo tho record in heaven; Mr. Phillips rcf'rs
mo to the votes et the laet election. My
doctrine is, that my guides to duty are my
conscience and my Maker; Mr. Phillips'
doctrine is, that I am hound by the Supreme
Court and tho jHipulsr will; or the will ot
'the whole nation,' as he elsewhere expresses
it. According to him, the Pi trident nf the
United Slates and the Judges of Iho Courts
tako oaths to mtei iirtt the C nnslitiitimi ac
cording to the opinion of the nation, ' tho
whole nation ;' and so, of course, ihey must
ascertain, at their peril, what that opinion is
And if General Jackson is elected President,
and thn opinion of tho wha'e nation' rhiuges;
or if Texas is annexed, and that opinion
changes again, then iho oath changes,
fofiVt quolies, as Iho lawyers ssy. lie nh-o
declares, in substance, ilvit all the great and
good men, who, fir the last sixty-lour years,
have taken thft onCi, ith views, in many re
Fpccts, or t'u rmi rrrnrrl, difii-reiit from those
of the 'nation and tin1 Mupreinn Couit,' were
morally perjured, lie tirtna"y ti lls us thnt
when that Chrhfiin philanthropist, Mr. (tur
rit Smith, shall take his Coi'gri-ssiotial sent
and onth, next IVcemlwi, he will commit
perjury, and thst Mr. (inldiuir his dono so
lor twenty yaars! Ho rh us that the onth
is binding neenrding sj Mho nation and the
Supreme Court construe it;' but ho does not
tell us what is to ho done when the 1 tuition'
is on one side of a question, snd thu 'Su
preme Court' on the other; and ho discards
tho well known legal principle, that even llic
opinions of tho Supreme Court aro not the
law, but only ttidence of fftc tn.
Than all ibid, wis there over a lower spec
linen of ' Lower L'lwf And tltis, loo, not
merely ' from the lips of a vhimpinn of the
Higher Law,' hut from one so puro and im
maculate in his own eyes, that, in his speech,
he spurned mo us on unworthy 'champion'
of that law.
But see what arrant notiwnso this is. even
on tho 'lower law' supposition that an oath
is a promise to men, rather ihnn a vow beluro
God ! ' Has Mr. M inn any djnlit,' exclaims
Mr. Phillips, ' in wh.it sense tho unii'iii under
stands his oath?1 Not thn slightest, Mr.
Phillips! Howell Cobb and Linn IViyd un
derstood perfectly well in wlnl st;iie I would
take the onth, when tuoy called mi lo me
Speaker's desk aud administered it; sud all
the 'nation and the Supreme t'ouit,' w,o
cared to know, knew as well ns t!iy did. At
any rate, it wi tad my limit if they did not
know; I hsd lol.l thorn oltcu cuougu.
Hut if it be true, according to the com-
inon-nluce maxim, cited by Mr. Phillips, that
a 'promise in buiiline in that senso iu which
the promisor knows, tlie promt e iimicrsiatnis
it ; it is just as tni( whatever words may no
used, that a pioiiii ) ia no fuiiluir binding
than as thn prumUivi knows iho ptomisur
Besides, ns a member of Congress, I do
not swear lo suimnrt tlio t onstitntion iu any
such sense ss tui bids my doing all I can in
alter it. In that qjjice, I have hotter menus of
dianeim? il. But. bl rrfxisins o'Tiee, or rriu-
mil- lo rote, as .Mr. runups wouni nave mu m,
1 reserve no remedy but violence and revolu
Tho above four points includo all that lie
Iniiffcd to our discussion. Here, thrrcloio
I ouolit i i Imvo been allow cd to close. But
Mr. Phil ips, hss sono out ot liu way, am
gathered up numerous foreign topics, and
foisted them into tho controversy. Ho has
not only collected topics which had no conterms
nection with his aggressive speech, nor with
my strictly defensive reply, but has copiously
interspersen u.e u im nn ...... .
ine and personal orlen.-o. And these nrclo
vniit topics am mmo numerous than those
originnally In iSscnsbton between us. 1 ahull
so, briefly reply
he I j, Mr. Phillips goes hack many years in
n,y ),.;., t bcciiko mo id 'want ot (tankness
mo, ...timr but ' half truth,' whilo I practise,
as , eeilo.fnt ot real tarts: nun tuen uu
pprcarfs this chamo over my conduct nm
character up io tntj pit-sent huh-.
pttion, having no connection with our
present points of diftoreiico, inked up fioin
lack the past nt a do.en yearn, obliges mo io awn
the plain truth.
c .. , ... a
v., , w iflil ine lil.muitux mm v.n
for- rB1. ..diicaiiounl Ontario iso was ronlidud
my hd8; when I was encountering Ihe
he- 0I10.i,i,n and the hostilities of selfishness
do : . iw,.rJ.nd form, and Ihe hardly less for
of m;dhlu tmrfta of complacency ; when the
t,0 ,llt.,,t and manual labor ol three or four
me M daily thrown upon nm, Mr. Phillips
,,, ,, Htenlthily behind me, and struck ins
tho .;,!. i.irl blow. Two tears aifo, ho ut-
. i w i.i. '-- - - . . , ..,,,. i
mat Wren , m,ntcd me most piiipumo
rw,)otiiiB nie, alienating hienda, and dittu-
Hole I .;,. ill. will towards ma through a widu cir-
Ll. Since that time, he has revisud the same
anv I uiifriiibtt for ro-uublicslion, without supprcs-
-4 " Hifi '.ion. lu the criminal courts,
.,". , thev ..teak of third'
him .fourth comers.' To ine, Mr. Phillip, is
Boil-' lest o ' 1Mb comer.' Yet, in no instance
ever belbre nrraigh him before the bar of
the public. Ho bns grown bold in propor
lion to Ins impunity. When he now assails
me, and, to present injustice, revives that of
n dozen years ago, am I bound any longer to
maintain silence t
'J. Mr. Phillips asserts that when I first
entered Congress, I was doubtless 'elected
by the votes of the nnti sluvery party, aud
yet, mat i wouni give them no public re
cognition.' The facts ore precisely the fs-
verse. I lie ami slavery party, at that election,
nominated and suppnited their own vntidi
date ogninst me, a most worthy gentleman,
who received the votes of his purl). A few
of their votes may have been given tome; but
my majority must have been five tunes, prohit
bly tun times more tlmn any scntterinir votes
of theirs wiih which I was honored. Can Mr.
Phillips never bo right?
At the next election I had eleven thousand
out of the thirteen thousand votes cast ; and
though I did thun receive the votes of the
Free Soil party, for which I have always,
on ell proper occasions, expressed my recog
uiiion and gratitude, yet it never was sup
posed, even if thn votes of that party had
been thrown against me, that they would havs
conceited my great majority. i
!). For Mr. Phillips' insinuation olmut my
leaving the Whig party and joining the Free
Soil party, on account of oflice, I feel IkhiihI
to express myself in tho Mronge st terms of
rebuke and condemnation that self-respect
will allow. All the circumstances nnd inci
dents of thnt period deny nnd repel the im
putation. r!,t (Hr as I know, it is a siijrgesiion
never made even hy tho most hostile of ihe
v loss themselves. Ilo repents il from thn
I) ing tonguu of Rumor alone. J'.vcn if true,
it is wholly ulieii from our piesenl discussion.
For what puriiusc, llicn, but a malign one, is
it introduced here ?
Is it not n curious fact in psychology, thai
a nun w ho has thus assailed mr, nnd impu
ted to me the must odious sentiments, not in
my language but ill his own; who accuses
me of many nets unbecoming u gentleman ;
of reasoning unworthy nf ,i logician ; who
charges nie with dodging dilemmas I should
havo met, rnd slinking into silence when I
should hnve spoken; of being iiiil-tilhful to
the caue of Anti ?Slavery, when, in ono af
the most perilous cases that ever occurred,
I mean tho Prnj ton mid Snyres case, I
volunteered in behalf of that cause, mid day
afcr d.-ij stoo l up before men who camo to
intimidate mo with pistols and bntvie knives
iu their pockets, ami who would gladly havs
taken piy lite, while this champion of ih
ciusu remniiied mining the wagnnH in the
rear, I sny, is il lint a curious tact in psy
chology, ilinl such a man should sny that hs
cannot 'iK'snend' to ciiticiss mo? J agnm
that he cstuiol 'thsrind ;' nnd even if he could.
would nol Innl me in that direction.
4. I h ill notice hot one topi,: more. In
one of my letters, Mr. Phillips quotes this
irom my le'tni- nti lr. Welisler,! that his
iiiitry and reproachful language releases m
um nil liiitlier nlihi:i!ioii to treat him wun
peiMimd repaid,' and sas ho rnnnot ' osseul
to such n e.inoii.' tit has n much inoro fhiv-
Irnus and geiuli ruaiily rule. Ho is 'hound
as n gentleman to treat every man with cour-
esy, no matter how crossly any otis mas
fail iu com tey to hi.n.' Is it possible tba
any ono can ho misled hy such confusion of
eaa! lit would make out a contradiction
hrtweeti his 'canon' ami mine, claiming in
finite, snpunoriiy, always claiming super-
lority : inr himscit. I mi any tiling bo clear
er limn thnt our 'personal rrgnr.f for another
tepends on our t siiinalo ol his qualities, and
therefore must, perforce, bn given or with
held according to our opinion nf those qual
ities? II. it a mnn is hound hy the laws of
rnurtesv, fir Ins o.tii iie : and, therefore,
w hile I intend to treat Mr. Phillips cuurle-
oiiflv, on my mrn ticcounf, I rirncstly hops
lor Mich a change In Ins conduct and rpuil,
that I can nNo treat him, hui unltcr, wilh 'per
I regret to have liecu o'lliged to say so
much iu reii roiico In ii r.evelant and foreign
usiileis, which ought never to have beeu
brought into this discussion. If it is to b
continued, I deuntnd thnt Mr. Phillips shall
state his poiuta fully, aud iu my language,
when 1 am to be held ri-sponnibln for them ;
and thnt they shall be fairly argued without
tho introduction ot extraneous inntlc r, or im
putation ol bnd motive. engago to avoid
ail personal rcliuenco lo him, oxcopl as now.
in uml soll tkli nce.
WEST NEWTON, March 14 1853. HORACE MANN.
From the Ky. News.
Honest Views of a Slaveholder.
Wo enalnvo the blurlc man because wsj
can. i lio lug listi ent up t;m little ones be
cnusi) they can. Wo terrify by our wealth
mid iiiffuu.ice u large portion ol the American
pt'.nplu hecauso nc can. Our numbers nra
very small rnmpnred with the white nnd black
people of America, yet cur privilege forea
ihnm to feor, obey mid respect us: and as
long aa we tart do this to our benefit, il is right
wo should. As long as old Kuglnnd could
force Ihe American Colonics lo pay oppres
five taxes and ungodly tithes, it was right
she should : and when she could no longer
t'rnuize over this country then the patriots
gained the praise which was so long due la
their sullliing, America gamed the respect
of her oppressor, and likewise the surround
ing Nations, Then America had a right tn
ho tree and not till then. When the Brilianl
wroie in the tCuglisli Bible, "The heurt of
the King is in tho hand of the Lord, and ha
tuiuoth it withsoever he will," thai declara
tion was respected until God willed Ihe pec
plo of Amei ic to reject it aud rule them
selves. Then America bad a right lo ivl
and not before.
As long as the white people in alava Slats
are willing lo pay us tor alaves hung for
inuraer, cue, as uiey now nave io do, n m
right they should ; aud aa long aa the fret
states are willing to pay us a million of dol
lars annually to make up our deficiency In
the pout oflice department (for the slave statM
have aa Illiterate people, cannot read wuefci