The Oxford intelligencer. (Oxford, Miss.) 1860-18??, 1861-02-27

philosophers in moral ma1ims it has always been held
to be moral by the vast majority Of the race. No
age has been withoutit From the first dawn of au-
hentic history, until the present period it has come
down to US through ell the course of ages. We find
1t among nomadc tribes bsrbarian hordes and civil
lied States. Wherever communities have been or
ganzed and any rights Of propsrty have been reeog-
nized at all, there slavery is IT. therefore,
there be ANY property which be said to be found
ed in the common consen, OF the human race il is the
property in slaves II there be any property that
be called natural in The that it spontaneous
y springs up in the history Of the species il is the
property in slaves. If there be any property which
is founded in principles Of universal operation il is
the property in slayes. To say Of an institution,
whose history is thus the history of man, which has
always and everywhere existed that it is a local and
municipal relation is OF '' srsurdities the motliesi
the Rercst word tina, ever fooled the ear from out the
schoolnan's iargon." Naukind may have been
wrong-thst is not tire question Tie point is,
whether the la,s made slayery-whether il is the po-
lice regulation of limited localities or whether il is
property founded in natural causes, and causes of
universal opeAstion. We say nothing as to the moral
character of the, causes. We insist only upon the
fact that slavery is rooted in a common Law, wider
and more pervading than the common law of Eng
land-THE UNIVERSAL cCsToM oF MANKIND.
IT. therefore, slavery is not municipal but natural
if il is abolition which is municipal and local, then
upon the avowcd doctrines OF our opponents, two
things follow: lst That slavery goes of right, and
matter of course, into every territory from which
| ,ltt1a Al l,,,, al
Congress is competent forbid the Northern States
from impres ling their local peculiarly Of non-saye
holding upon the common soil Of the Onion. If the
Republican argument is sboi for anything il goes
the whole length OF excluding, forever any additional
non-sayeholing States fFoin the Union. What
would they have done, If the South had taken any
such extrasagant ground as thiSy What would they
have DONE if the South had taken advantage of
numerical majority, to egslate them and their insti
tutions forever out Of the territory! Would
they have submittedy Would they have kloriGed
the Union and yielded to the triumph of slavery
We know that they would not They would haye
scornod the crotchet about municipal anl local laws
which diyested them OF their dearest rights. Let
them give the measure TO Others which they ex-
pect from others. 1t Is noble maxim, commended
by high authority-do as you would be done by
The South has neither asked for, nor does She De.
sire, any exclusive benefits. All she demands H.
that as SOUTH slavehoiiing Size shall be put npou
the same footing with the NORTH non-slayehollmg
that the Government shall not undertake to say,
one kind of States is better than the other--that 1t
shall have no preference us to the character IN this
respect, of amy future States to be added to the
Union. Non-saveholdng may be superior to slave
holding hut it is not the place of the Government to
say 50 much less to assume tie right of Swing 50
upon principle which, properly applied, requires it
to say the very reverse.
There is another sense in Which municipal is op.
posed 10 international, and in tbs sense, slavery is
said to be municipal, because there is no Obligation
by the law of nations the lsrt Of the States in
which slavery is prohibited, to respect within the
the limits of their own Territory the lights Of the
foreign slavehoIler. This is the doctrine laid down
by Judge Story No nation is bound to aeco.d to a
stranger right of property which it refuses to is
own subjects. We can not therefore, demand from
the Governments Of France, or England, any other
foreign power, whose policy and interests are opposed
to siavery, the restoration Of our hlgitiyes from
bondage. We are willing to concede, for the sake Of
argument that the principle in question il an admit
ted principle of international law, though We are
quite persuaded that it is contrary the whole
rent of Continental authority and is intensely Eng
lish. We doubt whether, even in England il can be
traced beyond the famous decision of Lord Mansfield
in the ease of Somerset But let Us admit the prin-
ciplc. What then: The Constitution of the United
States has expressly provided that tls principle shall
not apply within the limits Of Federal jurisdiction.
With reference to this country, it has abrogatcd fe
law every State is bound to respect the right Of the
Southern master to his saye. The Constitution
the whole territory of the Union, and throughout
that territory has taken slavery under the protection
of law. However foreign nations may treat fi-
gSe slaves tie States of this Coufedsracy bound
to treat them property aud to give them back to
their lawful owners. How Idle, therefore, to plead
principle of international law which, in reference TO
the relations Of the States of this Union, is formally
abolished Slavery is clearlya part of the municipal
law of the United States; and the whole argument
from the local character Of the institution falls to the
ground. Slaveholding and non-saveholding both
equally national.
(2.) A to the allegation that the Constitution nc
where recognizes the tight Of property in slaves that
is equally uniounded. We shall say nothing here Of
the well known decision of the Supreme Conrt,
though that, would think, is entitled to some
consideration. We sall appeal to the Constitution
ITSELF and il there is force in logic shall he aide
to make it appear that the right is not only recog
1 nized but recognized with philosophical accurae!
and precision that seize only the essential ant
omit the variable and accidental The subject in th'
language Of the Constitution, is transferred from the
technieaiities of law to the higher sphere of abs&c
{ and speculative morality. Morally cOnsidcred q
what class does the slave belongy To the class 0
persons held 10 service. The two ideas that he is
person, and as a person, held to service, constitute
the generic conception of slavery. How Is hs obi
CATION to service fundamentally derenced FROM tn.
of other la1oreIsg BY thiss.a essential circu
stance that it is independent Of the fonnaities
contract Add the circumstance that it IS for life
o and you have a complete conception Of the thing
f You have the very definition, almost in his owi
:, words. which celebrated English philosopher give
Of slavery: 81 define slavery says Dr. Paley, 80 b
IN obligation to labor for the benefit Of the master
without the contract or consent Of the servant"
Now, is suchan obligation recognized in the COnss