The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-07-27

< and the slave only is called to suffer. He is ro
f. bed of himself His right to his person, h
l. mind, his will, is abrogated; and he is struc
t. down from the glorious heights of manhood to
is place amongst chattels and merchandise.
s proof of this, quote from the southern laws til;
e Slaves shall be deemed sold, taken, reputed an
Vt adudged in law to be chattelS personal, in til
S hands of their owners and posses:ors, and thci
= executors, administrators and assignces, TO all IN
l. tents, constructions anil purposes whatsoever
}, Truly, if men were ever fragrant and unmeasura
: bic robbers, and that too, by their own showing
= as lawyers say, then are southern Shareholder
= such robbers.
Y Need | say more, to make it plain, that thu
t STAKEHOLDER is, in truth, and in fact, a robber?
] meet man, and he robs me of my money. Thu
t next man | meet robs me of myself The las
robber is the slaveholdcr,- surely the robber,
which he perpetraes, is as much more hcinouE
than that which suffered in the first instance a,
immortal, God-like man, is Of more value than the
glittering dust.
The pamphlet before me takes the position
that A portion and obviously a considerable por-
ton too, Of the products of plantation, does be-
long to It's owner and manager, and when appro-
prated to his use, is not to be regarded as the
fruits Of robbery, or oppression, Or injustice.
This position, which is taken to show that slave
holders may be honest and suitable contributors
to the Lords treasury, is utterly untenable.-The
whole Of the products the slave titled plantation,
and the plantation itself, with exceptions, belong
to the slave. The wealth of the South, q except,
of course, that which is gotten by the honest toll
of the Quaker, and some ohers) is the fruit of the
coerced and unrcquited labor of the slave, and
hence does it of right belong to him; and not the
southern freeman who disdains labor earns moth
ino and IT.
mgs of others. Suppose that from the first peop-
ling of the state of Vermont the dark-haired per-
sons in it had refused to labor and had compelled
the light-haired persons in it to earn the subsst-
ence of both and suppose further, that the for
mer had lived uxuriously, and that the latter had
been confined to coarse, scant, and cheap provis-
ION Tor their primary wants--Whose, in this case,
upon principles of honest and equitable dealing,
would be the wealth, the fields and houses of that
state The question is too plain to admit of a
doubtful answer. And yet he, who believes that
the negrois man, and entitled to the rights of
a man, can as readily answer the question
to whom the wealth of the South belongs
as he can the other question. Revolutionary
and startling as is the doctrine, that the wealth Oft
the South does, in general, belong to the present
generation of her slaves, it is nevertheless true
What of that wealth they have not earned is
righteously theirs in virtue of their being the de-
scendants and heirs of the laboring race Of the
South.
Think you, my dear sir, that they, of whose
sacrifice God expressed his adherence, because of
their robberies, were as enormous robbers as
southern shareholders are? There is not man
in New England who believes it. How then can
your Board be wholly obedient to the Lord, whilst
it not only refuses to express its adherence of the
gifts which shareholders make to his tseasury, but
actually courts and welcomes these gifts?
My answer to the question: whether your Board
should send collecting agents to the South, may
De anticipated from what have already said. If
your Board were to deal fairly with them, slave
holders would not give to its treasury: and a.
gain, they have nothing to give to it, Justice
precedes generosity, and their first duty is to rem
Ter justice 70 their plundered slaves.
The pamphlet you sent me says, zone import
ant question to be settled on this subject u.s. hoac
much Of sin must be involved in the acquisition of
/ mans property before we shall be bound to re-
ect 2" But if am right in my general propo-
sition, that God requires his treasury to be kept
open then this IS not question to be settled 1t
has been shown that he has more excellent way
% shut out improper gifts from his treasury, than
% depend on the fallible discrimination of its
keepers. | admit that there may be cases in
WHICH tulo dlSCIlllHdtlOH lllSul Dc properly eA-
ercised and have in the first part of this letter
supposed case-the case of the hef-in which
t would be right to close the Treasury of the
lord The question may here be put to me:
But if the STAKEHOLDER be as clearly robber as
you say he is, why should not the Lords treasury
,e closed against the gifts of the South as well as
against the gift of the thief in the case supposed?"
answer, because, in the first place, the people of
he South are not all shareholders and because. in
he second place, some of the gifts of the slave |
holder may, by possibility, consist of property i
honestly acquired. For instance, a STAKEHOLDER r
nay labor a day for his neighbor and the wages t
lie received might be as honestly acquired money v
Is ever passed into any mans pocket Now, v
whilst maintain that even those wages-he on @
y shillings, which he ever honestly obtained- c
hould be paid to his wronged slaves | am, new h
rtheless not prepared to say, that they should be
elected, if he should offer them to the Lords Il
reasury. Were we, however, to admit that the G
laveholders gifts should be rejected (and would h
lot be positive that they should not beg it does not
ollow that the obligation to employ the scripture r
method to which have referred, Of keeping i'm O
proper gifts out of the Lords treasury, is at all l.
diminished. AS ! have already suggested, the n
of this method would probably super Y
d. al 8 Al