Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1860-10-24
SLAVES AS PROPERTY.

!
| be classed with that which is recognized as
| property by the laws of the Northern States
| or in other words, the Southern negro, who is
| represented as ssperson" in Congress, should
| be classed with the live stock of Northern
farm yard, in order to secure his admission
into territory-is SO fallacious that we are
surprised that even Southern men have the
effrontery to advance it. And yet it is the
foundation of the slave code idea, and is urg-
ed with pertinacity that seems like infatua-
tion. not only by Shareholders, but by men in
the North who call themselves "democrats''
and conservatives" There is not a day
passes that we do not find some demagogue
contending, with apparent earnestness, that
the owners of slaves should be placed, in this
respect, on an equal footing with the owners
of horses, oxen and sheep. AS this class of
individuals generally receive with great def
erence the opinions on the subject of slavery
advanced on the south side of Mason and
Dixson's line, we beg leave to direct their at
tention to the following extract from an arti-
Gle written by Virginia editor--a Mr.. PARK
ms, of Charlestown-who although he sup
ports Breckenridge, las some misgivings as to
the stability OF his platform. He proposes in
this article to abandon the slave code, and
compromise the vexed question by dividing
the national domain equally between the slave
and free States for future settlement and oc-
cupation. The portion of the article, howey-
er, which has attracted our attention is that
which draws the line of distinction between
the different species of property, and which,
in our opinion, refutes the position of the
slavery propagandists in the North and the
South on this subject:
tsThe Breckenridge party rests its claim up
on general principles of equality and the
Dred Scott decision. They say il is unequal
for the n orth to be allowed to carry and pro-
tect by the arm of the Federal Government,
if necessary, all their property in the Terrific
ries. and for the South to be refused like
privileges. This. as a naked proposition, is
certainly correct. But how Is it when you
come to look at the concomitants of each
species of property. Slaves are men. Men
affect the order of civilization. The North
has as much interest in the order of civiliza-
tion the South. An order of civilization
is as dear to people as property, and indeed,
materially affects its value. The rights of
an ssorder of civilization are as sacred and
as much for government to protect rights
of "property.'' The Sourhern order of civil
ization displaces the Northern as effectually
as Wilmot Proviso does the Southern.
The two owners cannot co-cXist upon the same
soil, any more than State can be at the same
time slave State and free State. Besides,
the legaization of slavery in Territory
makes it as fully and thoroughly slave Ter
ritory as if there were multitude of slaves
therein. 1t is this legal character of the Ter
ritories that is looked to and that all this con-
tention is about. The question is, shall the
legal status and character OF all the Terrific
ries be free or slave? The Lincoln men as
sert that they will pass the Willmot proviso,
and make them all legally tree; the Breckin-
ridge men, on the contrary, assert they will,
by the Dred Scot decision, make them all le-
gallv slave. This view of the demand of
Breckenridge looks as unjust and unequal
to the North as Lincoln's to the South. The
Dred Scott decision seems to be confined to
property, and takes no account of persons and
orders of cirilieation. A decision covering
the whole ground, it would seem, should APP
ply to all. Again, are there not principles
of common law which might modify this par
ticular decision7 Though, as general rule,
there is right to carry into any of the Terri
tories all sorts of property common to any of
the States, yet common law principles per-
tanning to nuisances and injurious species of
property might possibly apply. For iliustra-
tion. lead manufactures are property in the
States; might they therefore be carried into
any of the Territories and placed in any Of
the towns, and constitutional protection claim
ed and common law principles defed, just on
the ground that they were property, though
spreading poisonous fumes abroad? Perhaps,
if slaves require slavery, as is fact and sla-
very excludes the free order of civilization
which is Northern society-and thereby pre-
vents the North from their rlghtful and equal
participation in the Territories, some applica-
tion to it of those common-law principles
might be just"
Here follows the proposition to appropriate
equal portions of the public domain to free
dom and slavery.
---~~>~->--