The Kansas herald of freedom., 1858-03-27
For tzs Herald Of Freedom.

4 unnan Liberty, Commercial Liberty and Tenn .
pefance.
OF the first it was long ago asserted to
be a seJ-esddeat proposition that all men
were created equal. This has now be-
come proBaenasie. It would seem that
when once great truth like this had
found expression, no person could be so
reckless of reputation as to deny SO self
evident truth. s@
Yet, strange to tell, IN three-fourths of
century after the doctrine of inalienable
rightsis asserted. the Chief Justice of the
United States is heard to say, thatinstead
of all men possessing equal and inalien-
able rights, certain men possess no rights
which other men are bound to respect
We should certainly have been placed
under great obligations to the Chief jus
tice had he have given us metaphysical
formula by which we could always have
determined, with unerring certainty,
whether it is ourselves or somebody else
who is at liberty to disrespect the rights
of any class of men. True he has said
it IS ourselves who enjoy this liberty to
disregard the rights of Others; but had he
said others enjoy this liberty, and it is our
duty 10 submit to the disregard of.all cur
rights, it would have been equally plain
How are we to settle this extremely deli
cate question? It is manifest that if we
s act upon this liberty which the Chief
Justice says We enjoy, and it is settled a
thousand times, it viii always be decided
in favor of the party who possess the
meanness Of spirit and the physical force
requisite for so base an act. The weaker
party always dissenting But this settle
ment of the question is like all settle
ments of the slavery question we have.
ever had in the country. Upon each
new settlement, fresh occasions for nego-
tiation have always followed. The Ad-
ministration of 0pieedes in stead of pro-
dncing quiet have always been followed
by the most violent retching. The last
compromise wrought the death of the
frsta all intermediate ones. That the
enemies of agitation should be the friends
Of system which legitimately produces
diseord seems strange; but no party or
class of men can be guilty of greater IN
consistency OF absllrdity than those who
deny the automatic truths asserted in the
equality and inalienable rights of all
men,
But since these self-eyident truths are
denied, viz: "that all men are created
equal" let us suppose that some men are
created with rights superior to other men;
and let US see what method there is of
ascertaining who possess these superior
and who theseinferior rights; if this can be
settled beyond doubt, and it is very clear
that no person should attempt the control
OF another unless it can be settled, it will
follow that those who exercise the right
OF control, are not justly ehargeable with
usufpation or tyranny; and consequently
the inferior class are under obligation to
submit to the control of the superior with
out murmur. First, did this inequality
OF rights exist from the beginning as man
came from the hand of his creator; or has
II arisen subsequent 10 mans creation?-
And, second. when this inequality has
arisen isit perpetual? or, in other words
IS this inequality transmissible? And
third, on what does this distinction o
nights rest for lis basis? Let us examine
the first of these propositions. viz: did
the inequality exist from the crea.
ton OF man? The Affirmative of thi,
Proposition can not even be conceived
unless it be conceived that God created
more than one man at the beginning-bui
of this there is not the slightest evidence
while, if We pay no attention to sacred
history. We are driven to the conclusion
That God did create one man, for without
this the earth could never have been peo
pied.
Second, has it arisen since the creation
e. Of man. II it has let Us suppose it begal
IN the family of Adam. for it Is as easy t
conceive of its origin here as elsewhere
Il It began in the family OF Adam
Adams own children were his slaves; ba
IL this be too absurd let US suppose i
began IN the second. or third, or any sub
sequent family, and we have the sam
salns, for the parents of the children wher
'le right of control began. or where j
Oeeame right for one class to enslay
saother, certainly possessed as good righ
exercise this control as any one else
pa. the idea of parent making Q slay,
u MS own offspring. IS every where re
sa'aed as unnatural and barbarous to tn
.sss degree. But if such 3 relation ma,
'auecsntty exist why not the parent exer
- ,,se seca control over his own child?-
"0a'a not the child if he must be aslavs
: quite as safe in the hands of his pc
.s''s, as IN the hands of strangers? ",
s'aid ourselves quite as soon risk goo,
p Fs<.-
1.ae' or mother to control Us as any on
ss. ana this we conceive to be ell th
s'snaie slavery that can ever arise, viz
- 'lsas Of control which the parent pos
s,ssss over The child. Third. on wha
Isa 80 aae distinction of rights rest for il
's'. We have not bean able to eoncsiv
20 We night began with the creation Q
.sa, .al', aof thai it has subsequently arisen
- aei'cs eoncinds that which has d
Natot1GEa hos NJ y