Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-02-15
AD VALOREM TAXATION.
For the Standard.

MR. HOLDEN Il find in the Democratic Press of
January 2Sth, which was sent to me by some
known friend communication signed "Ant-Adva-
lorein which ought rot to be allowed to pass uii-
noticed While am not desirous Of interfering in
any controversy between AEti-Advaloren,"
and "A Native" or the Workngmen's AS
sociatlon," all of whom, l presume are able to
take care Of their interests, am unwilling, as a
STAKEHOLDER, that the positions taken by "Anti-Ad
valorcm' should go out as a correct expression of
the sentiments of the shareholders of the State.
While have reason to doubt his sincerity or
his devotion to the institutions of the South, he
must excuse me for saying that do not think his
views as embodied in his article are very well cal
culated to conciate harmony or strengthen the in
s!ituton OF slavery in North Carolina. In speaking
of the communications recently published by A
Native" he says "l infer he is one of those who
think by treating slaves as property they may be
brought within the ad ralorem principle. If So he
does not belong to my political school," Now, NJ Ed
tor, the Southern States have always contended
that slaves were property, and the abolitionsts of
the North have uniformly insisted that they were
not property, but persons and that We had no right
to hold them as property.
Let us examine this question and see what have
been the sentiments of mankind in reference to it.
Arc slaves property? If so, they be held as
property protected as property, bought, sold, and
given to our children as property without being
treated as property? "Anti-Advalorem" certainly
does not expect or desire that shareholders should
admit the truth of the abolition doctrine that slaves
are not property, but persons, in order to save a
few dollars in tax II so, think he has very much
mistaken the general sentiment Of the liberal and
intelligent Shareholders Of our State. Such an ad
mission would sap the very foundation of the inst
tution Slaves are property, and whatever is prop
erty should be treated as property in the political
economy of the State in which it exists. If slaves
are property but not to be treated property how
ask, can we hold property in slaves? "Anti-Ad-
valorem will please excuse me for honestly enter
tanning different opinion and for not belonging to
his "politca school," if these are his sentiments
notwithstanding he processes ito have learned the
primer of political science of old Nat Macon and
other fathers of Democracy"
We hold that slaves are property-we claim the
right to hold them as property-we demand the
protection of the law over them as property, and
we insist that they shall be treated property and
put upon an equality with all the other property in
the State and that no distinction shall be drawn be-
tween slave property, as property, and any other
species of property. Why do hold that slaves are
property, and should be treated as suchY Because
first, the Divine law treats slaves as property 1t
says, in speaking of masters and servants, if the
master smite his servant with a rod, land he con-
tinues a day or two he shall not be punished, for
he is his money" If my slave is my money, he is
my property; and If he is my property why should
not the legislature treat hlr: as property?
Secondly, hold that slaves are property and
should be treated as property, because the consti
tuition of the United States recognizes my right to
hold slaves as property, and to demand the protec-
ton of the government over them as property.
Thirdly, l hold that slaves are property and
should be treated property, because the Supreme
Court of the United States, in the case Of Dred
Scott us. Sanford, says: "And if the constitution
recognizes the right Of property of the master in a
slave, and makes no distinction between that. de-.
scription of property and other property owned by
citizen, no tribunal acting under the authority Of
the United States, whether it be legislative
tive or judicial has right to draw such distinc-
ton, to deny to it the benefit Of the provisions
and guarantees which have been provided for the
protection Of private property against the encroach
ments of the governlnent"s In the same case the
Court further declares that "thc right Of property
in slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
constitution The right to traffic in it like an
dinary article Of merchandise and property, was
guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in
every State that might desire 1t for twenty years
And the government in express terms is pledged to
protect It in all future time If the slave escapes from
his owner" This is done in phia wos,as-too plain