| OCR Text |
Show 98 LIBERTY AND SLAVERY. are. "The Jaw of another,polished slave State," says Mr. Sumner, "gives this definition: 'Slaves shall he delivered, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in Jaw to be chattels personal, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assignees, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.'" Now, mark; the learned Senator undertook to prove, beyond all doubt and controversy, that slavery d-ivest• the Blave of his human clwractcr, and declares him to be a mere chattel. But he merely proves that it declares him to be a "chattel peTsonal." lie merely proves that the law of a Southern State regards the slave, not as real estate or landed property, but as a "chattel personal." Does this divest him of his human character? does this make him a mere chattel? May the slave, in consequence of such law, be treated as a brute or a tree? May he be cut in pieces or worked to death at the will and pleasure of the master? We think that a learned Senator, especially when he undertakes to demonstrate, should distinguish between declaring a man to be "a chattel per&onal," and a mere chattel. No one doubts that a man is a thing; but is he therefore a me~·e tl1ing, or nothing more than A RO r )f ESTS OF A HOLITION ISTS. 99 a thing? In like manner, no one doubts that a man is an animal; does it follow, therefore, that he is a mere aninaal, or nothing but an auinaal? It is clear, that to declare a man may be held as a "chattel personal," is a very different tbing from declaring that he is a mere chattel. So much for his honor's "precise authority." In what part of the law, then, is th" slave "divested of his human character?" In no part whatever. If it had declared him to be a mere thing, or a mere chattel, or a rnere animal, it would have denied his human character, we admit; but tbe law in question has. done no such thing. Nor is any such declaration contained in the other law quoted by the learnecl Senator from the code of Louisiana. It is merely by the interpolation of this little word mere, that the Senator of Massachusetts has made the law of South Carolina divest an immortal being of bis "human character." He is welcome to all the applause which this may have gained for him iu the "Metropolitan Theatre." The learned Senator adduces another authority. "A careful writer," says he, "Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as pbi- |
