The weekly Mississippian., 1859-10-12

lists prove that the laws of slavery abridge the t
natural liberty Of the slave, they take nothing |
by their argument.
have now, think, satisfactorily answered S
your first question, but before leave it, per- l
nit me to add few words with regard to the
question of individual ownership or property.
You are aware that AboIitionists say that we
cannot have property in human beings, and
that, therefore, we cannot rightfully buy and
sell the souls of men. No idea can be more
unphilosophical What is property but
right, and what is right but the laws of God
Hence, we may have property in everything
to or in which we have a right, and we have
right to everything in respect to which God
has prescribed laws for us.
Property is, therefore, term in philosophy,
meaning right and has application to the OBJ
jects of property. Hence, there is very
wide distinction between property, and the OBJ !
ject of property.
A horse, for example, Is Eot property--he !,
is the object of it, and the property that a man
has in this object, is the right he has to him,
and this right is the laws prevailing between
the owner and other men IN respect to him.
Ny slave is not property-he is the object |
of it, and hence my property in my slave Is
my right to him, and my right to him is the
law, whether human or divine, which prevails |
between me and all other men in respect to
him. Hence, when | wish to exhibit my |
property in my horse or slave, l appeal first
to the human, and then to the divine, law
and show thereby my right or my individual
ownership or property.
If you will turn to the first volume Of
Blackstone's commentaries at page 138, you
will find that this able jurist calls property a.
right, and does what abolitionists habitually
fail to do, and that is, he discriminates be-
tween property and the objects of it.
'sThe third absolute right" says he, "inhe-
rent in every Englishman is that right of
property which consists in the free use, enjoy
ment and disposal of all his acquisitions with
out any control or diminution save only By
the laws of the land"
This exclusive ownership then is the right
called property, l. e, the right to the use and
endowment of the ojects Of that property
property, meaning not the objects of 1t, but
the right to those objects and the right to them,
| is the law whether human or divine Now II
laws, whether human or divine, prevail in re-
spect to any other thing than ones sell, be-
tween ones self and other persons, those
laws establish property. Hence man has
property in his wife and children, and that
property is the law whether human or divine,
which regulates between him and all other
persons in respect to his wife and children, es-
tablishing his rights
The law in respect to my slave, prevailing
between me and all other persons, constitutes
my prope, ty in him, just as the laws, both
human and divine, giving me the exclusive
use and enjoyment of the persons of my fam
lily, constitute my property in them.
Whether, therefore, have a property in
my slave or not depends on the existence OF
laws, human or divine, regulating between
me and other men in respect to my slave, and
these laws constitute my rights, and hence
act rightly to nmy slave when obey thest
5 laws, and so do all other men.
Whether have property in my wife ant
e children or not, depends, in like manner, OIL
the existence of laws, whether human or dl
vine. regulating between me and other persons
f in respect to my family, and these laws con
/ stitute my rights, and hence | act rightly tt
-, my wife and children, when / act in obedt
? encc to the laws that establish the social state
e Of marriage and persons who disturb this
5 relation act wrongly, or improperly lhes'
# laws oblige me to act III proper manner to my
O | wife and children, and these same laws, by ne
c cessary implication, prevails with respect tt
? all other persons, and say to them that they
Il must not iniuriously interfere with my right:
a and these rights | am to discharge.
Y Nv right is to keep myself wholly unto
her, and to hold possession of her and to treat
her kindly and atfectionately during temporal
!, life. This right is then the law binding me
but how can l discharge my right, or if you
please, my duty, (tor right and duty are reclp
rocal terms,) to my family, if other persons
y r are not rightfully bound to refrain from al
injurious interference with the progress OF my
> authority-with the sway and prevalence
my rights.
The laws Of slavery in like manner impose
y peculiar rights upon Shareholders. They are
t therefore morally bound to discharge thes'
i certain we'll defined duties or rights-tor IL
this connection the terms imply the samt
Il course of action-which Christ has plainly
U prescribed in the Scripture, and these law
y constitute the property, or the right IN respec
to slaves. Now how can shareholders contlnu
> to act properly to them if Abolitionsts injuri
{ ously interfere with the relation and stea
- them, and thus take them out of our eNclu
u s:ve use and possession, or debauch their NOR
ais beyond our remedy or control.
The arbiter of right between ne and Abo
10 Etion;sts in respect to the members of m
+ family, whether they be my wife and chll
- dren or my slaves and their children, is wi
is of God in respect to the state of marriage an
le the state of slavery, for this will or these law
4 constitute what is right in these two socn
states, and hence, as men now believe tn
Scriptures to be will of God in respect to thos
:, two social relations, we have both, to obey th
y rules it Observation-Disclosures in the
a. sphere of life and me in mine.
4 Bear in mind that it is right that conSt
lis tutes property, and then you will be enable
pt to perceive the force of the remark that pro
- erty is "a term in philosophy, meaning Il
e laws prevailing in the social relations of life.
Property comes from the word proper, al
III means what is proper between persons co
v tending or dsputng about the objects OF pro
in erty.
H. What is proper therefore, for Additions
bt or other persons to do in respect to my fan
ee, ly, white or black, is right-or is my righ'
Iot property to them or what is the same, the d
" ~ Aboltionists owe to me in regard to the
ci- or the duty owe to them Paley says We
ad truIv. that right and obligation are reclproi
OF terms and have the same standard whlch pr
ci- scribes the mutual rule of right, to which DO
led nlaintitf and defendant, SO to say, IN any ma
on ter of dispute, are morally obliged to subm
not and hence when this standard Of right polr
TX out to me my duty, it er N ternsfni, polr
he out the correatiye duty of all other persons
Use harmony with mme This prevents
Or thefs of property. For example, slave
ne stolen from a friend of mine while in Pit
- burg, Pa servant girl. The institution
slavery enjoined certain duties upon her oW
md er with respect to this member of his blO
nal family that entered into the essence Of
Use property he had in her, binding hum, and
en- necessary reciprocation, all others. he
| risrht sIlnarNi isinn nNer her m