OCR Text |
Show 94 J.. IDF.RTY AND SLAVJ<~RY. lows : "A man cannot be seized and held as property, because he has rights .... A being having rights cannot justly be made property, for this claim over !tim virtually annuls all l!is rights." This argument, it is obvious, is based on the arbitrary idea which the author has been pleased to attach to the term property. If it proves any thing, it would prove that a horse could not be held as property, for a horse certainly has rights. But, as we have seen, a limited property, or a right to the labor of a man, does not deny or annul all his rights, nor necessarily any one of them. This argument needs no further refutation. For we acknowledge that the slave has rights; and the limited or qualified property which the master claims in him, extending merely to his personal human labor and his lawful obedience, touches not one of these rights. The fourth argument of Dr. Channing is iden-tical with the secon "That a human being," ~ays he, "cannot b ly held as property, is apparent from the v natu1·e of prope~·ty. Pro-perty is an exclusive right. It shuts out all claim but that of the possessor. What one man owns cannot lleloag to another." The only diftcrcncc between the two arguments is AUOUMENTS OF ADOLITIONISTS, 95 this: in one the "nature of property" is sa1d "to annul all rights;" and in the other it is said "to exclude all lights!" Both are based on the same idea of property, and both arrive at th~ same conclusion, with only a very slight difter. ence in the mode of expression ! And both are equally unsound. True; "whal one man owns cannot belong to another." Bul may not one man have a right to the labor oi another, as a father to the labor of his son, or a master to the labor of his npprentice; nnd yet that other a 1ight to food and raiment, as well as to pthcr things? May not one man have a right to the service of another, without annulling or excluding all the rights of that other? This argument proceeds, it is evident, on the false supposition that if any being be held ns property, then he has no rights : a supposition which, if true, would exclude and annul the right of property in every living creature. Dr. Channing's fifth argument is deduced from "the universal indignation excited toward a man who makes another his slave." "Our laws," says he, "know no higher crime than that of reducing a man to sl~y. To steal or to buy an A11-ican on his own shores is piracy." "To |