The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-03-24
Property in Man.
By WIN. E. CHARMING, D. D.

his property. Ihe very idea OF slave
is, that he belongs to another, that he is
bound to liveand labor for another, to be
another's instrument, and to make ahoth-
-er's will his habitual law, however adj
verse to his own. Another owns him,
and, of course, has right to his time
and strength. right to the fruits of his
labor, a right to task him without his
consent, and to determine the kind and
duration of his toll, a right to coufine
him to any bounds, a right to extort the
required work by stripes, right, IN a
word, to use him as tool, without con-
tract, against his will, and in denial OF
his right to dispose of himself, or to use
his power for hisown good. "a slave, y
says the Louisiana code, els in the power
of the masterto whom he belongs. The
master may sell him, dispose of his per-
son, his industry, his labor; lie can do
nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire
anything, but which must belong to his
master % Slaves shall be deemed, taken,
reputed. and adjudged," says the South
Carolina laws, '.to be chattels personal in
the hands of their masters, and posses
sions to all intents and purposes whatso-
ever, Such is slavery, claim to man
as property.
Now this claim of property in human
being is altogether false, groundless. Nc
such right OF man in man can exist. A
human being cannot be justly owned
To hold and treat him as property is tc
infiiet a great wrong, to incur the guilt O.
oppression.
This position there is a difficulty il
maintaining, on account of its exceeding
obviousness. 1t is too plain for proof
To defend it is like trying to confirm &
lself-evident truth. To find arguments i:
no. easy, because an argument is some
thing clearer than the proposition to bt
sustained. The man who, on hearing
the claim to property in man, does no
see and feel distinctly tha. it is a crue
usurpation, is hardly to be reached By
reasoning, for it is hard to find any plain
er principles than what he begins witt
denying. l viii endeavor, however, t.
illustrate the truth which | have stated.
/. 1t is plain, that, if one man ma,
be held as property, then every othe
man may be SO held. If there be moth
ing in human nature, In our common na
ture, which excludes and forbids tn,
conversion of him who possesses it int
an article of property; if the right of tn
free to liberty is founded, not on thei
essential attributes as rational and mora
beings, but on certain adventurous, acci
dental circumstances, into which the
have been thrown; then every human be
ing, by a change of circumstances, ma,
be justly held and treated by another a
property If one man may be rightfull
reduced to slavery, then there is not
human being on whom the same ehai
may not be imposed. Now let ever
reader ask himself this plain question
| Could l, can |, be rightfully seized, an
made an article of property; be made
passive instrument of another's will an
pleasure be subjected to another's ire
sponsible power; be subjected to stripe
at another's will; be denied the conrt
and use of my own limbs and facultie
for my own good? Does any man, 5
questioned, doubt, waEer, look about hir
for an answer? Is not the reply give
Immediately, intuitiyely, by his whole in
ward being2 Does not an uahesitatiag
unerring conviction spring up IN m
breast, that no other man can acquiE
such right in myself9 Do we not n
pei, indignantly and with horror, tn
thought Of being reduced to the eond
ton Of tools and chattels to "a fellow
creature? Is there any moral truth moi
deeply rooted in US, than that such deg
radiation would be an infinite wrong p
| And, if this impression be delusion, o
what single moral conviction cauwe rely
This deep assurance, that we cannt
rightfully be made another's property
does not rest on the hue of our skins, c
g the place of our birth. or our strength, 9
wealth. These things do not enter .ou
thoughts. The consciousness of inds
.structible rights Is a part of our NOR;
being. The consciousness of our hu
manity involves the persuasion, that "
cannot be owned as a tree or sbrube.-
As men, We cannot justly be made slave
Then no man can be rightfully enslsyes
In casting the yeke from ourselves as a
unspeakabie wrong, ne condemn ou
selves as wrong-dosrs and oppressos
laying it on any who share our natur'
{; L IS not necessary to inquire whether
man, By extreme guilt, may forfeit u
rights of his nature, and be justly pun
. ished with slavery. On this point erud
notions prevail. But the diseussio
would be foreign to the present subjec
| We are now not speaking of criminal
We speak of innocent men, who has
given rs no hold on theIa by guilt; an
, our own consciousness Is g proof th'