New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-07


for as many weeks as there are days in year
we could not exhaust our sense Of the utter and
indefensib'e wrong Of subjecting the destiny Of
four millions of human beings to the caprice of
less than two hundred thousand There is
therefore little temptation for US to abandon
this vast and important field of controversy for
the harrow limits q petty warfare on persons.
We pass over the lame apology Of The Stand
ard for the "aggressions'' Of the South-an
apology which consists of two inconsistent
pleas. viz: first, that the South has been guilty
of no aCgressions; and secondly, that it has been
provoked thereto by the lawless encroachments
of the North upoh its rights, Gust as the acut,
LAWYER defended his client on the distinct
grounds that be never stole the kettle, that the
kettle was broken when be got it, and that it
was whole when he returned il. } and come to
the real question in issue-the question Of
Slavery.
That we may not be accused Of misrepresent-
ing The Standards positions we copy the essen
tial part Gifts article into another column.
All the forms of Slavery which existed in
ancient times, says The Standard, were wrong,
because the races enslaved were the equals Of
the enslaving races; but our Slavery is not
wrong, only ga relation" in consequence OF the
inferiorty of the blacks. 1t is the simple fact
Of color then which constitutes the difference.
Were it mere physical inferiority in general
the argument would justify the subsection, not
only of all the Malay, the Mongol the Indian or
Australian races, but of larger part, including
the women and children, of the most advanced
races of Europe and America. 1t would confer
legal proprietorship over all the people of the
globe to the few Saxons, Cells and SclaVes who
eyince an unquestionable superiority to the
majority of their brethren. Nay, it would justify
that very ancient Slavery which The Standard
itself denouDces as an oppression, and thus
turn it's argument against itself
1t is the black color, we repeat, which con-
yerts Slavery from an oppression" "wroug,"
"deformity" into " the dignity of a relation"
and the "condition of natural and vigorous
"existence." But what degree of black, will
The Standard be pleased to inform US, is neces-
sary to work this tremendous moral change
DR.. Pickering of the United Exploring Expedi-
tion. in visiting all parts of the earth, says that
he found eleven distinct races Of men; but of
these if appears that only two, the Arabian (by
which he means the ndo-European) and the
Abyssinian, are Whitehall the rest shading down
from brown into blackish-browD, and black.
The Negroes and the Australians are for the
most part the blacklist of all, but the Ethiopian,
the Zelipgan, the NegrillO and the Papuan ap-
proach them closely, while these are again ap-
proximated by large numbers of the races tech
nicaily denominated white. Now where is the
precise line on which the "right" to enslave
attachesl If you say to the Negro race ex-
clusiyely, we ask why to the Negro, when the
Australian is as black as he-why to the Aus
tralian, when the Papuan is so like him--why to
the Papuan, when the Malay and the Hottentot
can only be distinguished from him by nice
scientific eyel
What is there in this color " black " which
turns wrong into right, more than in the color
" blackisn. brown" " light-brown,' or ." dark
"yellowl" What mysterious property resides
in that Pigment which justiies Slavery, when
fement only the thrtieth part of a shade lighter
us discover the ground of tho difference. The
nine black races seem to be races of men just
as the two white races do; and the amount of
color in their skins, or of crispiness in their
hair cannot change either Of them into things.
The distinction between a man and thing is
not a distinction of color, but a distinction of
pature, q kind. A man does not cease to be a
man because he is black, any more than sheep
ceases to be sheep because it is black, or
ebony wood because it is black.
Now the condition of Slavery in the Southern
States, no less than in ancient Egypt or Greece
and Rome, is not human relation, but an in
human or anti human nexus. 1t is not 'rela-
"tion" Of man to man as such in any sense, but
of man to a chattel. Every definition of the
subject on the statute-boOks of the South de-
scribes the Slave az a chattel. Read the
decisions of the Courts, especially those
of Ruffun and Sharkey and you will see
that the Slave is chattel. He is never con-
templated as a person. He has none of the
rights or characteristics Of person. His life
even is secured to him, not as person in him
self entitled to life, but as property of his mas
ter. He is simply and only thing to be used
as thing, and with no more intimate ties to hu-
manity than any other thing. When The Stand
ard therefore, talks Of Slavery as the Inaugural
tion of new form of social life, destined 'to
"gve the negro a sphere for the exercise of his
"hghest faculties, and to lend hand to help
shin to still more stately structures, moral ard
"political, than his unaided abilities would en-