The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-12-20

But the Statesman here shifts the issue from
the shareholders to the State in which the in
stitution prevails. We admit that the political
power of Virginia would be augmented by Civ
ing freedom to her slaves, but the political
power of the Shareholders would be diminished.
They would no longer cast the votes of three
fifths of the slaves with view to their own self
ish ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, and in order to forge new
letters for those slaves, and their millions of un
born offspring, but the slaves would themselves
step forward to vindicate their rights 81 to life
liberty, and happiness" We may further add,
that while it is the policy of the North to check
mate the power of slaveholding Virginia,
there would be no desire to counteract her in
huence if Slavery were abolished.
The argument of the Statesman is equally at
war with popular ideas in another important
particular. 1t assumes that negro slaves are
as good as white freemen. The editor thinks
it perfectly fair that Virginia should be repre-
sented in proportion to her negro property.
What will the Democracy of Ohio say to this
Do the educated freemen of that State place
themselves on par with the degraded slaves
of the South who are denied representation as
men, but are ranked as chattels personal? We
greatly mistake the spirit of the people of Ohio,
and of the entire North, if they fail to resent, as
an affront, this degrading comparison.
Slavery constitutes the most odious and hate
full privilege which ever existed in any country.
The nobility of England have no power over
their felow-subjects, except the hereditary right
of the Oldest son to a seat in the House of Lords,
and to be tried by that House, instead of a com
mon jury, for any crime. The House of Lords
has, for a century and half, been powerless,
without the consent of the Commons-they
cannot even hold on to ancient laws and insti-
buttons, when the people demand reform and,
in point of fact, the most powerful man in Eng
land is almost invariably Commoner, with no
privilege above those of the merchant and man.
ufacturer. The Premier is rarely Peer. Lord
John Russell and Lord Palmerston are not
Peers, but Commoners, triable by jury Of their
countrymen, and have no privilege. 1t is true
that in England representation is based on
property, and this circumstance makes all prop
erty holders, without regard to birth or occupa-
ton, privileged class. But the friends of
Freedom, the Republicans of England, have
for generations contended against this odious
distinction, and insisted upon extending the
franchise. In this country some of the slave
holding States have based representation on
property, while the free States, without excep-
ton, have utterly disregarded the circumstance
of wealth or poverty, and constituted MEN as
the legitimate subject of representation. The
Constitution of the United States is, with a sin
gle exception, founded upon the same policy.
That exception is the threefifths representation
of slave property. The principle is an odious
and invidious one and should not be extended
by the admission of new slave States into the
Union.
How insignificant are these privileges of Eng
lish mobiles, compared with those of American
shareholders! Every English peasant may ex-
tie, which the King dare not touch without per-
| mission The wealthiest noble would subject
himself to ignominious punishment, ifhe should
maltreat the meanest drudge, the humblest hod-
carrier or coal-heaver. How different the case
with our American Aristocracy, who buy and
| sell, whip and scourge, the people at pleasure,
| with the sanction and support of law, which it
| is treason to resist Yet the Ohio Statesman,
and the Washington Union deny that the slave.
holders are privileged class! o Democracy!
what crimes and falsehoods are perpetrated in
thy name