Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-02-11
For the Standard.
AID VALOREM TAXATION.

known friend communication signed " Anti-Adva-
lorem which ought rot to be allowed to pass I'M
noticed While am not DESTROYS Of interfering in
any controversy between Anti-Advaloreln,
and "A Native the "Workngmens As
sociatlon," all Of whom, l presume able to
take care Of their interests | am unwilling as a
Shareholder, that the positions taken by "AntAd-
valorem" should go out correct expression Of
the sentiments of the shareholders of the State
While have reason to doubt his sincerity
his devotion to the institutions of the South, he
must excuse me for saying that do not think his
views, embodied in his article, are very well cal
culaed to conciiiate harmony or strengthen the in
stitution of slavery in North Carolina In speaking
Of the communications recently published by A
Native" he says: O. infer he is one of those who
think by treating slaves as property they may be
brought within the al raiorem principle. If so, he
does not belong to my political school" Now Mr. Ed
itor, the Southern States have always cOntendcd
that slaves property, and the abo!itionists of
the North have uniformly insisted that they
not property but persons and that we had no right
to hold them as property.
Let examine this question and see what have
been the sentiments of mankind in reference to it.
Are slaves property? If SO, can they be held
property, protected property, bought, sold, and
given to our children property without being
treated as property? " Anti-Advalorem" certainly
docs not expect 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. If so think he has very much
mistaken the general sentiment Of the liberal and
intelligent shareholders of our State. Such an adj
mission would sap the very foundation Of the insti
tuition Slaves are property, and whatever is prop
erty should be treated as property in the political
economy OF the State IN which 1t exists. Ii slaves
property but not to be treated property how,
ask, can we hold property in slaves? "Anti-Ad-
valorem" will please excuse for honestly enter
tanning different opinion and for not belonging to
his political school" if these are his sentiments,
Notwithstanding he processes "to 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 property and
insist that they shall be treated as property, and
put upon equality with all the other property in
the State, and that distinction shall be drawn be-
tween slave property, property, and any other
species of property. Why do | hold that slaves
property and should be treated as such? Because,
first the Divine law treats slaves property. 1t
says i'll speaking Of masters and servants if the
master smlte his servant with rod, land he con-
tnues day or two he shall not be punished, y0r
| he is lis moacy." If my slave is my money, he is
! my property and II he Is my property why should
| not the legislature treat hlIE as property?
! Secondly | hold that slaves are property and
should be treated property, because the consti
tuition Of the United States recognizes my ri ht TO
hold slaves as property, and to demand the protec-
! Thirdly, | hold that slaves property and
should be treated property, because the Supreme
/ Court of the United States, in the of bred
! Scott rs Sanford says: And if the constitution
recognizes the right of property Of the master in
slave and makes no distinction between that de-
scription Of property and other property owned by
citizen tribunal acting under the authority of
the United States, whether it be legislative eXeCu-
tive judicial has right to draw such distinc-
ton, or to deny to it the benefit of the provisions
and guarantees which have been provided for the
protection of private property against the cncroach-
! ments of the government" In the same case the
Court further declares that "thc right of property
in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
constitution. The right to traffic in it, like
! binary article of merchandise and property,
guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in
every State that might desire 1t for twenty years
And the government i'll express terms is pledged to
protect it in all future time if the slave escapes from
his owner" This is done in plain words-too plain
! to be misunderstood. And no word can be found
in the constitution which gives Congress greater
power slave property, or which entities proper
! ty Of that kind to less protection thar property
| of any other description The only power confer
rcd is the power coupled with the duty of guarding
and protecting the owner in his rights.
! Fourthlv, | hold th-Carolina stakeholder,
that slaves property and ought to be treated as
property, because the constitutions legislation, and
I judicial decisions of the Southern States concur in
/
Filthy, hold that slaves property and should
be treated property because justice 10 the slave
/ holder requires that his slaves shall be recognized
and protected property; justice to the nonslave
holder demands that slaves shall be recognized and
taxed property to pay its fair and equitable pro
| portion of the expenses of the government which
! protects them: and sound policy ccnspires with
iusti .e to both the stakeholder and nOn-saveholder
in urging the recognition of the light of property
in slaves, and the treatment of slaves as property
! in supporting and administering the government.
! IT, then, slaves property: if they have been
! recognized and treated as property under the gov
crnmcnts of both God and man from the days Of
Abraham to the present hour and if by recognizing
and treating them as property, they have been
brought within the al CdLOrGm principle" in near
! " all the other slave States, Why in the name Of
! Justice and common sense, may not, by treating
! slaves as property, bring them within the at a.
/ loren principle" III NOrth-Carolina? "Anti-Adva-
lOrcm" says we cannot treat slaves property and
tax them according to value. Why? Because the
constitution has in express terms SAID they shall be
taxed by numbers according to age, from - to so
! and not according to value Now, will "Anti-Ad-
vaorem" inform the public what clause or section or
article of the Constitution of North-Carolina :" has
in express said they Slaves shall be taxed by
! numbers according to age from II to 80, and not
! according TO rGlue?" | have sought diligently,
but in vain for any such express terms " IN the
! amended constitution. "Anti-Advalorem will
please let me know exactly where to look for it in
his next communication, if he should conclude to
favor the public with another.
The 1st and I'd clauses Of section 3 of article 1 of
the amended constitution are in the following Ian
guage:
!. "Capitation tax shall be equal throughout
the State upon all individuals subject to the same.
,. All free males over the age Of twenty one years.
and under the age of fortyve years, and all slaves
over the age of twelve years and under the age of
fifty years shall he subject to capitaon tax and
other persons shall be subject to such tax provid
ed that nothing herein contained shall prevent ex-
emptions of taxable polls as heretofore prescribed
by law in cases of bodily infrmity."
Anti-Advalorem" certainly had no reference to