The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-04-13
JAMES MOTT.
Profound Distinction.

Profound Distinction.
We opine that the shareholders will deem them
selves greatly indebted to the author Of the follow
ing elaborate description to prove that savehodIng
is different from stealing The writer has not
made himself as well known as he ought TO the
reading world, bat now occupies, temporarily, but
with rare merit, the Editorial chair of the Penn
sylvania Freeman, during the temporary respite
from labor of J. G. Whittier. The knowledge
which friend E. has of legal and political SCI
ence and his singular accuracy OF discrimination,
and cearness and correctness OF language, render
it his imperative duty to employ his pen freely in
the elucidation of the various delicate and funda-
mental principles which the Anti-Savery Reform
is bringing forward for final settlement
Is sLAvEHoLDING STEALING?
1t is said that some individuals, opposed to
slaveholding have declared it to be stealing, and
that some of our southern brethren have complain
ed of this, as an act of in Justice We, therefore,
propose briefly TO examine the accuracy of thus
denominatng the offence Stealing is the taking
of the goods of another in a secret furtive man
ner. There is nothing of this manner in slave
holding, for it goes openly about its work, Here
then is one misunderstanding is the taking from
an individual portion of the surplus fruits of his
past industry, leaving him free to enjoy the re-
mainder, as well as his future earnings but
savehodng is the violent seizure of the whole
surplus earnings Of an individual, during the
whole term of his natural life. Here is second
difference. The thief does not prevent his VIC
tim from being clothed and fed, for he takes only
what he has remaining, after providing for his dali
ly wants but saveholdng arrests the requisite
portion and quality Of food before it reaches the
mouth of the laborer and prevents comfortable
clothing from covering bis hack This is third
misunderstanding does not inaict injury on
the person; butslaveholding covers it with stripes
and wounds This is a fourth dfference.-Steal-
ing does not deprive its victim of the enjoyment of
personal liberty and recreation, according to his
fancy but slaveholding chains him down to
particular spot, according to the will of another,
and forbdS his innocent amusements, except at
the pleasure of another. This is a fifth differ
ence.-Stealing does not separate the husband
from the wife, the mother from the child but sa-
very sewers these relations, never to meet again up
on the earth. Here is sixth diference.-Steal-
ing does not deprive its victim of redress for
wrongs, through fair trial in court of Justice );
but slaveholding takes from him this privilege it
forbids the reception of testimony from the only
witnesses to outrages against him. Here is
seventh difference Stealing does not war against
the restoration of the goods, upon the repentance
of the thief but saveholdng combines its forces,
and prevents by legal enactments the repentan
stakeholder from restoring liberty to his captive
Here is an eighth difference. Stealing shuns the
gaze of the injured party and confesses its own
comparative unworthiness but slaveholding go-
ries in its shame and taunts its oppressed with airs
of superior excellence and virtue. Here is ninth
misunderstanding does not prevent its victim
from mental improvement and recreation but
slaveholding seals against him the book Of lnowl-
edge, and vengeance upon all who would open it
before his eyes. Here is tenth difference
Stealing does not deprive its victim of the consoa-
tions of religion, under his affection but slave
holding forbds their enjoyment, otherwise than
through the hearing of the gospel of justice and
mercy expounded by those who are required so to
construe it as to justify the wrongs he suffers.
There are thus eleven marked differences be-
tween stealing and saveholdng number equal
to the ten commandments of Moses, with the ad
dton of the new commandment of Christ Have
not our southern brethren cause, therefore, TO COM
plain, that things so different should be confound-
ed together Who are our southern brethren
If we believe the scripture doctrine, that of one
blood the Creator hath made all nations of men to
dwell on the face of the earth, then we must ac-
knowledge, that both shareholders and slaves are
our southern brethren. This being done, it will
become evident, that at least some portion Of our
southern brethren have good grounds for charging
those with injustice towards them, who assert that
saveholdng and larceny are one and the same
thing.