Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1861-02-07

rior to eiaVekcding, but II Is not the place tor
the Government to say so; much less 20 as
sumo The right o. saying SO upon principle
which, il properly applied, requires it to say
the very reverse.
Tbers is another sense 10 which the munich
pal is opposed 10 International, and in this
sense, slavery is said to be municipsi, because
there is no obligation, BY the law OF nations,
on the part Of States In which slavery is pro-
hibited, TO respect within The limits OF th eli
own territory the Tigh.s 0f The foreign slave
holder. This is the doctrine laid down BY
Judge Story. No nation is bound 20 accord TO
A stranger right OF property which it refuses
to its own subjects. We cannot, therefore de-
mand from the Governments OF France or
England, or any other foreign power, whose
I policy and interests are opposed to slavery,
the restoration Of our fugitives from bondage.
We are willing to ccncede, for the sake Of ar
Eumeut, that the principle in question is an ad-
mftted principle Of international law, though
we are quite persuaded that It is contrary to
toe whole current Of continental authorities, and
is intensely English. We doubt whether, even in
England, it can be found beyond the famous
decision Of Lord Mansfield, In the casa Of
Somerset. But let ms admit the principle.
Z What then? The Constitution Of The United
States has expressly provided that this prin-
eiple shah not apply within the limits of fed
Z eral iurildietinn. With reference to this
country, it has abrogated the law every STATE
is bound to respect the right OF the southern
master 70 bis slave. The Constitution covers
the whole territory Of the Union, and through
ost that territory has taken slavery, under the
protection Of law. However foreign nations
may treat our fugitive slaves, the States Of this
] confederacy are bound to treat them as prop
srty, and to giFe them back TO their lawful
owners How Idle, therefore, to plead a prin-
/ ciple OF International law, which. in reference
10 the relations % the States Of this Unoin, is
formally sbolishedi Slavery is clearly part
Of the municipal law Of the United States
and the whole argument, from the local char
acter Of the institution, falls to the ground.
I Slavshoiding and Ron-slaveholding are both
equally sectional, and both equally national
J (2) As to the allegation that the Constitu-
tion 10 where recognizes the right Of property
7 in slaves, that is equally unfonnded. We
shall say nothing here Of the decision Of the
: Supreme Court, though that, one would think,
I is entitled 20 some consideration. We shall
/ appeal to TIE Constitution Itself, and If there
I is force in logic, we shall be able to make it
appear that the right is not only recognized,
] but recognized with philosophical accuracy
I and precision that seize oulT on The essential
and omit the variable and accidental The
I subject, in the language Of che Constitution,
is transferred from the technicalities Of law TO
l the higher sphere Of abstract and speculative
morality. Morally considered, to what class
/ does the slave belong? To the class Of per-
sons held to service. The two ideas that be is
a person, and as a person, held to service,
constitute the generic conception Of slavery.
/ How is bis obligation 10 service fundamentally
I diffeTeuced from that OF other laborers? By
this, as one essential circumstance, that il is
! independent Of the formalities Of contract
Add the circumstance that it is for life, and
YOU have a complete conception Of the thing.
You have The very definition, almost in his
own words, which celebrated English phi
l0sopher gives Of slavery az define slavery"
says DR.. Palsy, ato be an obligation to labor
FOR the benefit Of the master, without tie con-
tract OF consent Of the servant"
Now, is such an obligation recognized in the
Constitution Of the United States? Are there
persons spoken Of in it, who are held to ser
vice BY claim so sacred that the Government
allows theG, however anxious they may be TO
do 90. to dissolve it neither by stratagem nor
force? If they run away, they must be re-
manded to those who are entitled to their la
Dor, even II theV escape TO territory whose
local laws would otherwise protect them. II
they appeal to force, the whole power Of the
Union may be brought to crush them. Can
any man say that the Constitution does not
here recognize right 70 the labor and service
Of men, Of persons, which springs from no
siipulations Of their own, is entirely inde-
pendent Of their own consent, and which can
never be annullsd BY any efforts, whether clan
destihs or open, on their part? This is slaV
sry--it is the very essence and core Of the in
stitu'ion That upon which the right Of prop
erty terminates in the slave, is bis service or
labor. It is not his soul, not bis person, not
bis moral and Intellectual nature-it is his
labor. This is The thing which is bought and
sold In the market, and it is IN consequence Of
the right to regulate, control and direct this,
that the person comes under an obligation to
obey. The ideas OF right on one side, and
duty on the other, show that the slave. in this
relation, is as truly person IS his master.
The Constitution, therefore, does recognize
and protect slavery, in every moral and ethical
feature Of It. The thing which, under that
name, has commanded the apprubstian Of
mankind, is tbs very thing, among others anal
ogous to it, included in the third clause Of the
second section OF the fourth chapter Of the
Constitution. We Sc no way Of getting
round this argument. It is idle to say that
slaves are not referred to-it is equally idle to
say that the right 70 their Dor is not respected
and guarded. Let this right be acknowledged
In the Territories, and we are not disposed to
wiring changes upon words. Let the Govern
ment permit the South to carry her persons
held to service, without their consent, into the
Territories, and LET the right to their labor be
protected, and there would be no quarrel about
slavery. Il is unworthy Of statesmen, in q
I L
technicslitiss. That The law Of slsveboldine
States classes slaves among e516fels, and
( speaks Of thsIn az marketable commodities,
I does not imply that morally and stbically
/ they are no. persons, nor that the property is
l in them, rathet than in their toll. These same
/ laws treat then 10 other respects as persons,
/ and speak OF their service az obedience or
/ duty. The meipinE II ehattel is relative, and
/ is to be restricted 70 tbe relation which it i'm
! plies.
We are hspgy 20. find th1t the Supreme
I Court Of the United States has fully confirmed
( the Interpretation which we have given 10 this
clause OF the Constitution. To the case Of
| Prigg vs. The commonwealth OF Pennsylvanis,
7 it was asserted by ey yery judge upon the bench,
I cure TO the citizens qf the slaveholdiag States
( the complete right End title Of ownership in
their slaves, as propRrty, in every State in the
/ Union into which they might escape from the
State where they ware held in ssrvitude" J."
These are the very hwor1s Of Mr.. Justice
Story, in delivering t opinion Of the court.
He went on 10 add; fhe full recognition nf
this right and title VI g indispensable to the
security OF this species Of property in all the
slsveholding States ana, indeed, was 90 vital
] to the preservation Of the domestic intsrases
and institutions that It cannot be DOUBTED that
/ It constituted a fundamental article, without
I the adoption Of which the Union could not
/ have been formed" Agsin: owe have said
/ that the clause contains a positive and un-
! qualified recognition Of the right Of the owner
! IN the slave" Chief-Justice Tansy held, that
"by the national compact, this right Of prop
! srty Is recognized as an existing right in every
/ State o. the Union" Judge Thompson said,
I sthe Constitution sfirms, In the most une-
/ quiVOcsl manner, the righ. Of the master 70
I she service OF his slave, according 70 the laws
( Of the State under which be is 80 held"
/ Judge Wayne affirmed that all the Judges con-
CURED "in the declaration that the provision
/ in the Constitution was a compromise between
| the slsveholdng ana the non-slayehol5ing
! States, to secure @ the former fugitive slaves
I as property" "Ihe paramount authority OF
/ this clause in the Constitution" saws Judge
/ Daniel, s'to guarantee to the owner the right
/ Of property in bis slave, and the absolute null
/ lity Of any State power, directly OF indirectly,
opsuly or coTertly, aimed to impair that right,
+ Of to obstruct its enjoyment, ] admit, nav, in
I sist upon, 10 the fullest extent"
I IL now, the Constitution recognizes slaves
/ as property, that is, as persons 90 whose labor
/ and service the master has right, then, upon
what primo pie shall Congress undertake to
abolish this right upon a territory, Of which
/ it is the local leg stature? It will not permit
] the slave to cancel it, because the service is
/ due. Upon what gTouHl can itself lnterpose
I between a man and bis dues ? Congress Is as
] huge re ok elt OF AlI utaftI0lQll4 as IL Is OF
/ ths uon-slavsbo'ding States and, IS equally
. bound to protect botn, and to hold the scales
Of justice even between them, it must guard
/ the property Of the one with the same care
with which il guards the property Of the
/ other.
W. have now refutsd the postulafes upon
I which TIE recent revolution 10 the Government
is attempted to be justified. We have shown
that slavery is not The creature Of local and
municipal law, and that The Constitution dis
tincily recognizes the right Of the master 10
the labor or service OF the slave that is, the
right Of property in slaves. There is 70 con-
ceiVable pretext, then, Tor saving that the
/ Government Should resist the circulation Of
| this kind Of property, more than any other.
That question it must isEYe 10 the providence
Of God, snd 10 the natural and marsi lava by
which iss solution is conditioned. All that
1 the Government eah DO, Is to give fair play 70
both parties, the slaVeholding and aon-save-
holding States protect the rights Of both on
their common soil, snd as soon - sovereign
STATE emerges, TO which the soil Is hsncsfor-
ward to bslorg, remit the matter 70 It's shso-
luts discretion. THIS is justice-this is the
impsrtislitr which becomes the agent of
great principle divided BY two such great in
terests.