The Kansas herald of freedom., 1855-03-24

makes another his save. OHI tdWs hHoA
no higher crime than that of reducing a
man to slavery. To steal or to buy an
African on his own shores, is piracy
In this act the greatest wrong IS islnfiieted,
the most sacred right violated. But if a
human being cannot without infinite IN
justice be seized -as property, then ne
cannot without equal wrong be held and
used as such. The wrong in the first
seizure hes in the destination of a human
being tofuture bondage, to the criminal
useiof him as ehattel or brute. Can
that very use, which makes the original
seizure an enormous wrong. become grad
uaHy innocents If the slave receive in-
Jury without measure at the first nonient
| of the outrage, is he less injured by being
held fastthe second or the third Does
the duration of wrong, the increase OF II
by continuance, convert it into right? ii
is true, in many cases, thatlength of pos
session is considered as giving right,
where the goods were acquired by nn-
lawful means. But In these cases the
goods were such as might justly be ap-
| propriated to individual use. They
were intended by the Creator to be ewn-
ed. They fulfill their purpose by pass
| ing into the hands of an exclusive pos
sessor. 1t is essential to rightful prop
erty in thing, that the thing, from Its
nature. may be rightfully appropriated.
If it cannot originally be made ones own
without crime, it certainly cannot be
continued as such without guilt. Now
the ground, on which the seizure of the
African on his own shore IS condemn
ed, is, that he is a man, who has light
to be free.a Ought not, then, the same
condemnation to light onthe continuance
of his yoke Still more. Whence is
it, that length of possession is consider
ed by thelaws as eonferring right p
l answer, from the difficulty of deter
mining the original proprietor, and from
the apprehension of unsettling adj prop
erty by carrying back inquiry beyond a
certain time. Suppose, however, an ar
ticle of property to be of such nature
that it could bear the name of the true
original owner stamped on it in bright
and indelible characters. In this case,
the whole ground, ON which length OF
possession bars other claims, would fail.
The proprietor would not be concealed,
or rendered doubtful by the lapse of;time.
Would not he, who should receive such
an article from robber or q succession
of. robbers, be involved in their guilt ?
Now the true owner of human being
is made manifest to all. 1t is himself
No brand on the slave was ever SO con-
spicuous as the mark of property which
God has set on. him. God, in making
him rational and moral being, has pul
a glorious stamp on him, WHICH all tho
slave legislation and slare-markets o
worlds cannot efface. Hence, no right ac
crues to the master from the length of the
wrong which has been done to the slave
:. 6. Another argument against the righ
of property in man, may be drawn from
a very obvious principle of moral science
Itis plain truth, universally received
that every right supposes or involves |
corresponding obligation. If, then,
man has a right to another's person o
powers, the latter is under obligation t.
, give himself upas chattel to the for
mer. This is his duty. He is bound t
be slave; and bound not merely b,
the. Christian law, which enjoins submis
, sion to injury, not merely by prudentis
considerations, or by the claims of pub
, lie order and peace but bound beeaus
i another has a right of ownership, has
, moral claim to him, so that he would b
! guilty of dishonesty, robbery, in with
drawing himself from this others service
1t is his duty to work for his master
> though all compulsion we're withdrawn
and in deserting him he would comm
, the crime of taking away another man
, property, as truly as if he were to carr
, off his owners purse. Now do we nc
: instantly feel can we help feeling, tha
f this is false? Is the slave thus moral
r bound When the African was frs
. brought to these shores, would he har
; violated solemn obligation by slippin
his chain, and flying back to his uativ
home? Would he not have been boun
0 toseize the preciousopportunity ofescape
: Is the slave under moral obligation /
1 confne himself, his wife, and children,
: a spot where their. union in n1oneI
. may be forcibly dissolved? :? Ought h
e not, if he can. to place himself and bi
). family under the guardianship of equs
4 laws? Should we blame him for leayin
: his yoke? Do we not feel, that, in til
same condition, sense of duty woul
e quicken our flying steps? Where, thef
: is the obligation which would necessaril
be imposed, if the riglitexisted which th
$ master claims? The absence Of oblig:
: ton proves the want of the right. rs
o claim is gronndless.. Il is acruel wron:
e z. come now to what is to nv min
!? the great argument against seizing an
o using man as property. He cannot
: property in the sight of God and justicp
IS because he is a Rational, Moral, lnrme
: tai Being; because created In Gods ia
e age, and therefore in the highest sen:
: his child: because created to unfold Coz
s like faculties, and to govern himself by
n Divine Law written on his heart. and n
IS published in Gods Word. His who
u nature forbids that he should be seized
+ property. From his very nature it 70
d lows, that so to seize him is to offer an il
/ sult 10 his Maker, and to infiict aggr
e yaied social wrong. Inso every huH1a
d being God has bFeathed an imn,ort
: spirit. more precious than the whole on
= ward cFeatioa. No earthly or celessi
y language can. exaggerate the worth of
# human being. No matter how obseu
e his condition. Thought. Reason, Coz
I science, the capacity Of Virtue, the capa.
i ity of Christian Love, an immortal Best
i. M, an intimate moral connection NH
n God-here are attributes of cur comme
e humanity which reduce to insignificant
s AN outward distinctions, and make ever
# human being nnspeakably dear 10 b
s Maker. No matter how ignorant b
e may be. The capacity of Improyemel
d allies him TO the more instructed Of b
race, and places within his reach u