Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1861-02-09

deem il advantageous for the ward may at any
time pass an order for the sale thereof
According to Blackstone, 'chattels personal,
are things moyeable, as animals, furniture OF a
house, jewels, corn &c Slaves, according to
the code Of slavery, are 'chatties PERSONAL Re
ducing men, therefore to slavery, is converting
them into property, as truly as catching a wild
horse is turning him into property. lie can 90
nothing, acquire nothing, possess nothing. AN
right to himself is abrogated and he may be
bought and sold, and mortgaged and rented and
traded, the same as any other property.
And yet Mr.. Van Dyke says 'Abolitionism
is abusive in its persistent Misrepresentation OF
the legal priuciple involved in the relation be-
tween master and slave. Its teachers reiterate,
10 thousand exciting forms, the assertion that
the idea Of property 10 man blots out his man
hood and degrades him 10 the level OF brute
or a stone He then asks do not these Abo-
litionist Philosophers know, that according to
the laws Of every civilized country on earth,
man has property in his children, and woman
has property in her husband No, Mr.. Van
Dyke, neither Abolition Philosophers nor any
other philosophers, unless they are PrO-stdUery
Philosophers, know, or believe any such doctrine,
as that fathers may have property in children,
husbands have property in wives, and wives
have property 10 husbands, 10 the true legal
technical sense of property.
With all Difference to Mr.. Van Dykes legal
knowledge. ! confess a suspicion that this is
dodge,-a mere evasion Of the real point at
ISSUE True, father may have right in his
children, husband may have a right in his
wife and a wife may have a right 10 her bus
band but are children a fathers chdtter ? and
can he advertise and sell them at public auc-
tion Can husbands mortgage, or sell their
wives, as shareholders do their 'chattels person
al I Or can wives sell their husbands whenev-
er a change is deemed desirable IL not, then
there is no parrellel between property in child
rem and husbands and property in slaves.
Mr.. Van Dyke, evidently sees, that the chat.
tel principle applied to Hebrew servitude, will
be fatal to his Scriptural argument based on the
Old Testament ; hence, the effort to explain
and soften down the doctrine Of property 10
man. so as to harmODize it with Hebrew servi-
tude, without impeaching the character of the
Bible Hence, after a supposed case to prove
that wife has property in her husband-viz t:
the husband is killed on the Railroad and the
wife collects damages-as if damages paid for
her loss-he adds Thus, the common law OF
Christendom, and the statutes of our own state,
recognize property in man. In what does that
property consist Simply, in such services as
a man, or a child may properly he required to
render This is all the Levitical Law, or any
other law means, when it says your bondsmen
shall be your possession, or property and an in
inheritance for your children
According to this definition, it is not the man,
but the serUice, that constitutes the property.
'ChGttets perSondn simply means services. and
not men! Whenever a STAKEHOLDER sells chat
TEL he sells the services but not the man, be.
cause the man is not property. Shareholders
do not oiCa men, but services
This, certainly, is distinction, not only with
out difference, but also without an intelligent
meaning, when applied to 'chattel slavery Let
us consider its consistency before we adopt ii
as a standard definition.
First If rendering such services rs may be
properly required of man, is all that slave laws
mean by 'chdttets perSonnL' then wherein does
the boHddge' consist ? And wherein does a
common Iaboring man. who renders such serVi
ces as may property be required differ from a
slave? Are we to infer, that all employers are
shareholders, and all working men slaves
Second II slavery with an iron grasp, hold;
on to the man while it grinds out the property
or serUice, then how does this definition heE
the poor victim of oppression, or vindicate the
moral character of slavery Is the slave less
miserable and degraded or slavery less oppres
sive and wicked in the sight of God and man
We object to this definition, when applied tc
slavery, not only because it is binder and
calculated to msIead honest men, and vindicate
lavery but because it is untrue both in fact
and principle, and is contradicted by every slave
code on earth. Did the Roman laws which
claimed the right and power of life and death
over the slave, consider the serUices, ard not
the slave, property {? The right 10 kill a man
for his services, is a strange right The Anne
rcan slave code, most emphatically declares
That slave is one that belongs to his master,
that slaves shall be deemed sold, taken, repu.
ted aud adjudged in law to be 'chGtteLs person.
aL' 10 the hands of their opners, to all iatents
constructions and purposes tOhateUer.' If the
language of this code does not mean that sldUes
are property, then law cannot express the idea
of proper in anything
But while this definition is utterly irreconcila-
BILE with the claims Of slavery, it nevertheless
deals death. blow to all the pretended support
that slavery derives from Hebrew servitude, not
withstandng the claim set up for divine authori-
ty. Mr.. Van Dyke informs u.s. that All the
LeUiticGL ldiO, or any other law means, when il
says yOur bOndSmeH, shall be yo1r possession
or property. and an inheritance for your child.
reu,' is that their services, such services as a
man may properly be required to render cen.
/ Slllul6 luG pIOpCib1 VI NOulSOi buCH HCOEGlC
seruants we're not Slaves either in the Roman
or the American sense of the word; an ! to as.
sumo it is a perversion of Scripture
But, notwithstanding, Mr.. Van Dykes plau
sible definition of property in man rather
suspect from his quotations and expositions oI
the Levitical Law that when we come to the
bottom line of his system we shall find sLaUery
that property 10 services, is only new name
for an old sinner who wishes to escape by de.
nyng his identity Indeed after quoting from
Leviticus Mr.. Van Dyke says in so many
words knOtO, from the plain passage IhGv,
quoted, and many more Ike it, that he (GOd,
did sanction sLdUehOLdiRg among his ancient peo
ple &c. p g. So then by The soft, gentle terml
'proDer services we are to understand slaceru-
with its chatesm and involuntary seIvtudG
forever. Hot0 he knOtOs that God sanctioned
saveholding among the Jews, while multitudei
as competent aud candid deny it, may be ques
ton for modest inquirers.
Mr.. Van Dyke does not go back to Noah
curse upon Canaan for evidence Of slavery a
many Others have done Nor does be stop t.
consider the case of Abraham, who ia usual,
regarded by our opponents as the Prince o
Old Testament Shareholders but merely says
Passing by the records of the Patrisrchal age
and waving the question as to those servants
10 Abrabams family, who in the simple, but ex