Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-09-06
Extracts from an article on Slarery in the Apr'
number of the Biblical Repertory conquered
By an association Of Gentlemen IN Pru1cs'
ton, ~ j.
(CoNCLCDED.l

Another very common and plausible ar
cument on this ubjecl is, that man can
not be made Il matter of property. He
cannot be degraded into brute or chattc
without the grossest violation of duty and
proDertv and but as slavery confers this
RIGHT oiproperty in human beings it must,
from its very nature, be 4 crime. We ac-
knowledge the correctness of the principle
on which this argument is founded, but deny
that it is applicable to the case IN hand.
We admit that it is no: only an enor-
mirv, but an impossbility that man should
be made thing as distinguished from a ra-
rionalan moral being. It is not within
the compass OF human law TO alter the
nature of Gods creatures. A man must be
reear. ded and treated as 4 rational being
even in the greatest depreciation. That
he is. in some countries and some mstltu-
tons. deprived of many Of the rights and
nriyecues of such being does not alter
his nature. He must be viewed as man
under the most attrocious system Of slavery
that ever existed. Men do not arraIgn
and try on evidence, and punish on con-
viction either things or brutes. let
slaves are under regular system of laws
which, however unjust they may be, re-
coenisc their character as accountable be.
ings. When it is inferred from the fact
that the slave is called the property Of his
master, that he is thereby degraded from
his rank as human being, the argument
rests on the vagueness Of the term property.
Property is the right Of possession and use,
and must of necessity vary according to
the nature of the objects TO which it at
taches. A man has property in his wife,
in his children, in his domestic animals, Ill
his fields and in his forests. That is, he
has the right to the possession and use OF
these several objects according to their Ma.
ture. He has no more right to use brute
rs q loo of wood, in virtue of the right Of
propertv, than he has to use man as a
bruie. There are general principles ofrcc-
titude obligatory Oh all men, which require
them TO treat all the creatures Of God &C.
cording to the nature which he has given
them. The man who should burn his
horse because he was his property, would
find no justification in that plea either be-
fore God or man. When therefore it is
said that one man is the property of an
other, it can only mean that the one has
RIGHT to use the other as a man, but not as
a brute or as 4 thing. He has no right to
treat him as he may lawfully treat his OK.
or q tree. He can convert his person to no
use to which human being may not, by
laws of God and nature, be properly applied.
When this idea Of property comes to
be analyzed, lis found to be nothing more
than claim of service either for life or for
a term of years. This claim is transfera-
bic. and is of the nature of property, and is
consequently liable for the owner, and sub
iect to his disposal by will or otherwise. 1t
IS probable that the slave is called the pro-
nerty of his master in the statute books, for
the same reason that children arc called
the servants Of their parents, or that wives
are said to be the same person with their
husbands and to have no separate eXls-
tence of their own. These are mere tech.
ricalties designed to facilitate certain legal
processes. Calling child a servant does
not alter his relation to his father; and a
wife is still woman though the courts may
rnle her out of existence. In like manner
where the law declares, that t slave shall
be deemed and adjudged to be chattle
personal in the hands Of his master, 1t does
not alter his nature, nor does 1t confer on
the master any right to use him in a man.
ner inconsistent with that nature. AS
there are moral principles which direct how
brutes are to be used by those to whom
they belong, so there are fixed principles
which determine how man may ne used.
These legal enactments, therefore, are not
intended to legislate away the nature Of the
slave as human being; they serve to IA
cilitate the transfer Of the masters claim Of
service. and to render that claim the more
reud;lv liable for his debts. The transfer
of authority and claim of service from one
master to another, is, in principle, analogous
to transfer of subjects from one sovereign
to another. This is a matter of frequent
occurrence. By the treaty of Vienna, for
example, large part ofthe inhabitants of
central Europe changed masters. Nearly
half of Saxony was transferred TO Prussia;
Belgium was annexed to Holland: In
lie manner Louisiana was transferred
Com France to the United States. lnnone
nf these cases were the people consulted.
Va, in all claim of service more or less
avtended was made over from one power
90 ano,her. There was change of mas.