OCR Text |
Show 96 LIBERTY AND SLAVERY. steal a man," we reply, is one thing; and, by the authority of the law of the land, to require him to do certain labor, is, one would think, quite another. The fit·st may be as high a crime as any known to our laws; the last is recognised by our laws themselves. Is it not wonderful that Dr. Channing could not see so plain a distinction, so broad and so glaring a difference? The father of his country held slaves; he did not commit tlw crime of man-stealing. The sixth argument of Dr. Channing, "against the right of property in man," is "drawn from a very obvious principle of moral- science. It is a plain truth, universally received, that every right supposes or involves a corresponding obligation. If, then, a man has a right to another's person or powers, the latter is under obligation to give himself up as a chattel to the former." Most assuredly, if one man has a right to the service or obedience of another, then that other is under obligation to render that service or obedience to him. But is such an obligation absurd? Is it inconsistent with the inherent, the inalienable, the universal rights of man that the "servant should obey his master?" If so, then we fear the 11khts of man were far better understood by Dr. Channing than by the AHOUMENTS OF ABOLITIONISTS. 97 Creator of the world and the Author of revelation. Such are the seven arguments adduced by Dr. Channing to show that no man can rightfully hold property in his fellow-man. But before we quit this branch of the subject, we shall advert to a passage in the address of the Ron. Charles Sumner, before the people of New York, at the Metropolitan Theatre, May 9, 1855. "I desire to present this at·gumcnt," says he, "on grounds above all controversy, impeachment, or suspicion, even fi·om slave-masters themselves. Not on triumphant story, not even on indisputable facts, do I now accuse slavery, but on its character, as revealed in its own simple definition of itself. Out of its own mouth do I condemn it." Well, and why does he condemn it? Because, "by the law of slavery, man, created in tho image of God, is divested of ltis ltuman character and declared to be a mere chattel. That the statement may not seem to be put forward without precise authority, I quote the law of two different slave States." That is the accusation. It is to be proved by the law of slm·ery itself. It is to be . proved beyond "all controversy," by an appeal to "indisputable facts." 0 Now lot us hav~ tho facts: here they |