The examiner. [volume] (Louisville, Ky.) 1847-1849, 1847-09-04

freedom, whenever my interest calls, and
find it in my power. If make any differ.
ence here, it must be owing to a vicious
education, the force of prejudice, or pride oil
heart. IL in principle friend to slavery, |
cannot feel myself obliged to pay the debt
due to my neighbor. lf can wrong him
OF all his possessions, and avoid the law, all
is WE'LL
The destruction Of chastity has natural
tendency to introduce number Of vices,
that are very pernioious to the interest Of a
commonwealth; and slavery much condu.
ces to destroy chastity, as it puts 80 great a
number Of females entirely in the power of
the other sex; against whom they dare not
complain, on peril Of the lash and many
of whom they dare not resist. This vice,
this bane Of society, has already become 50
common, that it is scarcely esteemed dis
grace, in the one sex, and that the one that
is general the most criminal. Let il become
as little disgraceful in the other, and there is
an end to domestic tranquility, an end 10
the public prosperity.
1t is necessary to our national prosperity,
that the estates Of the inhabitants Of the
country be greatly productive. But perhaps
no estates, possessed in any part Of the
world, are less productive than those which
consist in a number of slaves. In such es
tates there will be old and decriped men
and women, and little children all must
be maintained They labor only from ser
vile principles, and therefore not to equal
advantage with free men. They will labor
as little, they will take as little care, as they
possibly can. When their maintenance is
deducted from the fruit Of their labor, only
a small pittance remains for the owner
Hence many, who are proud Of their es-
tates, and envied for their wealth, are living
in poverty, and immersed in debt. Here
are large estates TO be taxed but small in
come to pay the taxes. This, while it
gives us weight in the scale Of the Union,
will make us groan under the burden Of
our own importance.
Put all the above considerations together,
and it evidently appears, that slavery is
neither consistent with Justice nor good poll
cy. These are considerations, one would
think, sufficient 10 silence every objection
but foresee, notwithstanding, tina, a num-
Der will be made. some Of which have
formidable appearance.
1t will be said, Negroes were made slaves
ny law, they were converted into property
by an act of the Legislature ana under the
sanction Of that law purchased them
they therefore became my property: have
legal claim to them. To repeal this law,
to annihilate slavery. would be violently to
destroy what | legally purchased with my
money, or inheriu from my father Ii would
be equally unjust with dispossessng me of
my horses, cattle or any other species Of
property. To dspossess me Of their off
spring would be injustice equal to disposses-
sing me Of the annual profits Of my estate
This is an important objection, and it calls
for a serious answer.
The matter seems TO stand thus many
years ago, men, being deprived Of their ma
mral right 10 freedom, and made slaves,
were by law converted to property. This
law, it is true, was wrong, it established ini-
putty; it was against the law of humanity,
common sense, reason, and conscience. Ii
was. however; a law; and under the sane
ton of il, a number Of men regardless of its
iniquity, purchased these slaves, and made
their fellow men their property.
The question is concerning the liberty Of
a man. The man himself claims it as his
own properly He pleads that it was origi-
nally his own, that he has never forfeited,
nor alienated it; and therefore by the COM
mon laws Of Justice and humanity, it is
still his own. The purchaser Of the slave
claims the same property. He pleads that
he pls hased i, under the sanction Of a
law, noted by the Legislature and there
fore it became his. Now the question is,
who has the best claim Did the property
in question belong TO the Legislature Was
it vested in them IL legislatures are pos
sessed Of such property as this, may another
never exist No individual Of their con.
stituents could claim it as his own inheren,
right; it was not in them collectively; and
therefore they could not convey it to theil
representatives Was it ever known that a
people chose representatives to create and
transfer this kind of property? The legis
latue were not, they could not be possessed
Of il; and therefore could not transfer to
another; they could not give what they
themselves had not. Now does this pro
perry belong to him, who received it from
Legislature that had it not to give, and b,
law they had no right to enact or to thu
original owner, who has never forfeited
nor alenated his right If a law shoult
pass for selling an innocent mans head
and should purchase it A; have |, in con
sequence Of this law and this purchase,
better claim to this mans head than he ha
HIMSELF