OCR Text |
Show 02 LIBERTY AND S LAVERY. exist? The master certainly has a right to the labor of his apprentice for a specified period of time, though he has no right to his soul even for a moment. The father, too, has a right to the personal service and obedience of his child until he reach the age of twenty-one; but no one ever supposed that he owned the soul of his child, or might sell it, if he pleased, to another. Though he may not sell the soul of his child, it is universally admitted that he may, for good and sufficient reasons, transfer his right to the labor and obedience of his child. Why, then, should it be thought impossible that such a right to service may exist for life? If it may c>.'ist for one period, why not for a longer, ancl even for life? If the good of both parties and the good of the wh~c community require such a relation and such a right to e"'ist, why should it be deemed so unjust, so iniquitous, so monstrous? This whole controversy turns, we repeat, not upon any consideration of abstract rights, but solely upon the highest good of allupon the highest good of the slave as well as upon that of the community. "It is plain," says Dr. Channing, in his first argument, "that if any one man may be held as property, then any other man may be so held." ARGUMENTS OF ABOJ,ITIONISTS. 93 This sophism has been already sufficiently refuted. It proceeds on the supposition that if one man, however incapable of self-government, · may be placed under the control of another, then all men may be placed under the control of others! It proceeds on the idea that all men should be placed in precisely the same condition, subjected to precisely the same authority, and required to pclform precisely the same kind of labor. In one word, it sees no diflhence and makes no distinction between a Negro aud a Newton. But as an overstrained and false idcr~ of equality lies at the foundation of this argtlment, so it will pass under review again, when we come to consider the great demonstration which the abolitionist is accustomed to deduce from the axiom that "all men are created equal." • The third argument of Dr. Channing is, like the first, "founded on the essential equality of men." lienee, like the first, it may be post-poned until we come to sidcr the true mean- ' ing and the real pol" significancy of the natural equality of all We shall barely remark, in passing, that two arguments cannot be made out of one by merely changing the mode of expression. The second argument of the author is as fol |