The Oxford intelligencer. (Oxford, Miss.) 1860-18??, 1861-02-27
OXFORD, MISS, wEDNEsDAY, FEBRUARY q, 1861

annulIed by any efforts, whether clandesiine or open,
their parts This is saveryit is the very
and core of the institution. That upon which the
right of property terminates in the slave, is his
vice labor II is not his SOUL not his person. not
his moral and Intellectual nature-it is his labor
This is the thing which is bought and sold in the
ket and it Is in consequence of the right to regulate,
control and direct this that the person 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 rs truly person as 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
appreciation Of mankind, is the very thing, amoag
others analogous it, included in the third clause Of
the second section Of the fourth chapter Of the Con-
sttutiOn. We see way of getting round this
guent Ii is idle 10 say that slaves are referred
ot is equally idle say that the right to their labor
is not respected and guarded. Let this right be
acknowledged in the territories, and not dis
posed to wiring changes upon words. Let the Govern
nent permit the South to carry her persons held to
service without their consent into the territories,
and let the right their labor be protected and there
would be no quarrel about slavery IL is unworthy
of statesmen, in matter of this sort, to quibble
about legal teehnicalities. That the law of slave
holding States classes slaves among chattels, and
speaks of them rs marketable commodities, does not
imply that, morally and elieally, they not per
sons nor that the property is in them rather than in
their toll These same laws treat them in other
spects as persons and speak of their service obe
! ,f. l.
and Is TO be restricted TO the relation which 1t implies
We are happy to find that the Supreme Court of
the United States has fully confirmed the nterpreta-
ton which have given to this clause OF the Const
tuition. In the case of Prgg vs.. the Commonwealth
OF Pennsylvania, IT asserted by every Judge upon
the Bench that the design of the provision was 'to
secure to the citizens Of the slavehodlng States the
complete right and title Of ownership in their slaves
as property, in every State in the Union into which
they might escape from the State where they were
held in servitude" These are the very words of Mr.
Justice Story in delivering the opinion Of the Court
! lie went on to add. 'The full recognition Of this
right and title indispensable to the security of
this species of property in all the saveholdng States
and indeed was so vital to the preservation of the
domestic interests and institutions that il cannot be
doubted that it constituted fundamental article,
without the adoption of which the Union could not
have been formed" Again; eve have said that the
clause contains positive and unqualified recognition
Of the right of the owner in the slave" Chief JUS
tice Taney held that, ''by the national compact this
right of property is recognized existing right in
every State of the Union" Judge Thompson said /:
"Thc Constitution aflirns in the most unequyocal
a Il. -
slave according to the laws of the State under which
he is 50 held" Judge Wayne affirmed tha. all the
Judges concuTed in the declaration that the provi-
sion in the Constitution was compromise between
the slaveholding and the onsavehoding States, to
secure to the former fugitive slaves property"
''The paramount authority of this clause in the Con-
stulion," says Judge Daniel, ''to guarantee to the
owner the right Of property in his slave, and the alb
soute nulliy of any State power directly indirect
ly, openly or eoyetly aimed to impair that right, or
TO obstruct its enjoyment admit nay insist upon, to
the fullest extent"
If now the Constitution recognizes slaves as prop
crty that is as persons whose labor and service the
master has a right then upon what principle shall
Congress attempt to abolish this right upon terrific
~, of which il is the local LegslatureS 1t will not
permit the slave to cancel it, because the service il
due Upon what ground can itself interpOse between
"a man and his ducsY Congress is as much the agent
of the slaychoding as il is of the nonslaveholding
States aud, as equally bound to protect both and to
hold the scales of justice even between he it must
guard the property of the one with the care with
which it guards the property of the other
We have now iefutel the pcstulates upon which
the recent revolution in 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 distinctly recognizes the right of the
master to the labor service of the slaves that is
the right Of property in slaves There is no conceiv
able prctext then, for saving that the Government
should resist the circulation of this kind of property
more than any other. That question il must leave to
the Providence OF God, and to The natural and moral
laws by which its solution is conditioned All that
the Government do, Is to give fair play TO botl
parties the slayeboldng and non-lavehoding States
protect the rights of both their common soil, and
as soon as sovereign State emerges, to which the
soil is henceforward belong remit tae matter TO it
absolute discretion. This is justiee-this is the i'm
partaity which becomes the agent Of great people
divided by two such great Interests.
That the rights Of the South as slaveholding-foi
it in that relation only That she Is politically differ
ent section from the North-and the rights Of th'
North, as non-slareholding are absolutely equal i
50 plain proposition that wonders at the peril
: nacity with which it has been denied. Here let u
expose a sophsm whose only force consists in pla.
upon words 1t is alleged that the equality Of th
sections is not disturbed by the exclusion Of sayer
from the territories, because the Southern mat
take Nith him all That tie Northern man can take
The plain English of which is this if the Southern
{ man vii consent to become as n Northern man, am
q renOunce what distinguishes him as Southern man
he mas 20 into the territories Bat if he insists upo
: remaining southern man, he must stay at home
{ The geography is only accident in this matter
The Southern man, politically Is the Shareholder th
Northern man, politically, is the non-slaveholdel
Tie rights of the South are the rights of the Sout
as savehodng the rights Of the North the right
q of the North as non slayeholding. This is vha
makes the real difference betwixt the sections
To exclude slavehOlding Is therefore, to exclude th
, South BY the free soil doctrine, therefore, she,
South, utterly debarred from every foot Of the sol
+ which belongs Of right, as much to her as to be