Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-03-30

negroes who had previously enjoyed the cleo
tive franchise, were excluded for the first
time from the ballot-box. But what does that
signifyY How many persons in Massachusetts,
vote? The whole number amounts to some
one hundred and forty or one hundred and
fifty thousand. out of population of some
thing less than million. So that among
the whole people, only one in five or six can
vote ana that one voter, by political ne
cessity, governs the other four or five. Lam
aware there has been some objection made to
tnat state OF affairs by an interesting portion
OF her population that her fair danghters-
and they are very fair and learned TO a de-
gree-have often petitioned the Legislature
and have held conventions without count. in
slstlng that things ought not so TO be that
the old-fashloned mode of petticoat-gOvern-
ment and curtain lectures are not exactly
suited TO the progress and refinement of mod
ern civilization that they desire a little more
Notwithstanding more effective than per-
suaslon-which, under the present state of
political privileges, they do not enjoy. But
at present, less than one fifth of the whole
population do the voting, exercise all the po-
litical power. For the purpose of this dis
cussion. it matters little who compose the
other four fifths. whether men, women, or
children criminal or the virtuOus black or
white freemen or slaves. They are not gov
ernors, they are the governed.
What else? We are told that our slaves
are not people, not population at all {; that
they are mere property. Why" they say
to US, 20 would you let our property vote-our
oxen, our horses. our mules Or to use an
illustration which | would not venture upon
in this presence, except that borrow it from
distinguished son of Massachusetts, after
wards a distinguished citizen of Pennsylva-
MIA, Benjamin Franklin" would you allow
our jackasses to vote!" meaning the four
footed ones, of course.
That brings us exactly to the point of prac-
teal difference upon this subject between the
people of the North and the people of the
South. The people of the South hold the
slave to be q person. Northern men say he is
merely property, a chattel, and nothing more
We were told the other day by the gentle
man from Ohio Mr.. BINGHAM1 that he could
not admit this guilty fantasy u think
that was his expression-of property in man.
No property in human beings! Do you state
that as proposition of law, or an asser-
ton of fact that can be maintained? What
is property? What do we mean by it ? Prop
erty, ProprTeas- is it
Mr.. BINGHAM The gentleman from TennCs-
see, | presume, refers to me- The gentleman
asks me whence get my authority for saying
as | did say on this floor that there could be
no property in man; and the pretense Of prop
y ii W
fantasy. | am surprised that the gentleman
should put that question. | tell the gentle
man. in the first place, that | feel perfectly
cOnfidsSt that the gentleman S own immortal
spirit bears witness, in spite of his logic 10
the contrary, to the truth Of the assertion
that there can be no property in man: that
his right to life and liberty is inherent and
imperisbable therefore, put the question TO
the gentleman, can he himself be Tghtfully
reduced to a chattel and sold as chattel!
Can his wife be rightfully reduced to a chat
tel and sold as a chattel? Can his child be
rightfully reduced to chattcl and sold as Il
chattel? Answer me that
Mr. MAYNARD 1t is that same immortal
principle alluded to by the gentlcman-the
unanswerahle logic of personal conviction
upon which was proceeding 10 predicate nv
argument. But before doing so, | submit to
his better Judgment that it is, to say the very
least of it, in questionable taste for member
standing here to put forth his particular Opin-
ions, then to throw them into the face of an
other, who, by position, if not otherwise, is
his peer as long as he stands upon this floor.
and cry answer me that" as if our opinions
and convictions were not entitled each to the
same respect. / assure the gentleman his
question is not difficult to answer. | am
happy to answer it.
| was proceeding to ask what property is
Why, sir, it is the peculiar right which one
man has in some person or thing, paramount
to, and to the exclusion of, anybody else.
That is the idea, if not the definition of prop
erty 1t is the right peculiar TO myself, eX-
elusive of all others, by which | hold my
farm; the right by which | hold my horse. IL
is the right by which hold the very clothing
/ wear as my protection. And. sir, ask the
gentleman from Ohio if he has not property
in his own wife! Has he not property in
his own child? has he not a property, as a
guardian, in his own ward? has he not as a
master, a property in his own apprentice,
which the law will protect, as well in his own
State as in every other State in the civilized
world! imagine he thinks ne has. Property
in slaves solecism! guilty fantasy! Prop
erty in man a principle which you appeal TO
my immortal spirit to contradict! Sir, have
stated that, after all, the great difference be-
tween the people of the North and the people
of the South was in the mode of looking
at the status of the negro, whether, in hir-
ing a slave, he is not to be regarded as a
person.
am aware that anything | might say upon
this point would probably be attributed To
the heat of argument, to the pressure of cir
cumstances, and to the force of this particular
occasion, if it did not expose me to insinua-
tons equally ungenerous and unfounded. |
hold i'll my hand a legal decision made not
long ago 10y one of the best of men, slave
holder though he be, man candid and con
scientious in his convictions, COOL calm, and
deliberative in his judgment-Nathan Green
made when he adorned the bench of the
Supreme Court of Tennessee, and announcing
the opinion of the entire court The question
presented to their consideration was this
exactly the one | am now considering:
whether slave be person, anC as such can
be legatec and take under will? Hear what
he says on the subject, announcing, SO far as
the highest legal authority of my own State
is concerned, the view that is entertained ON
this IDENTICAL question:
''But we are met with the objection that none but
free persons have right Ia sue, and that the persons
o color IN this stl slaves slave is not IN
the condition of horse OK. HIS liberty is
strained Is true and his controls hi,
and claims his services But he made after the I'M
age Of the Creator. He has mental capacities,
immortal principle in hIs nature that constitute him
equal to his owner but for the accidental position IN
which fortune has placed him. The owner has ne
quired conventional right 20 HIM, but the laws under
which ne Is held as a slave have not and cannot eX
many rights inherent In man. Thus, while, he Is
slave, he make contract for his freedom which
our laws recognize, and he can take bequest Of his
freedom, and by the same viii he can take personal
or real estate bird vs.. Ford, Hump, 81.
Sir, drop that portion of the argument.
Such, l have attempted to show, is the effect
of this provision in the Constitution of the
United States; that 10y reason of it, the people
of the free States have been enabled to en-
croach upon the southern or slaves States;
and that with the continual cry of slave
power" property representation" This ar
gument, predicated upon the - slave-power''
idea, was thrown in my teeth at the very out
seat of my remarks by the gentleman from
Ohio, Mr.. GIDDNGs,l as though it was wholly
unauswerable. And just in this connection.
sir, for may be permitted to refer TO a speech
which the venerable gentleman-venerable
from his age, mean-made on this subject a
few days ago. l commend il To his further
consideration; and | ask him to say whether
he would cody and deliberately-for know
he is subject to undue eNcitement-appruach-
ing, as he is, almost To the verge of the other