Year: 1860

! tlOH Wti4aG hOtG Tue negative, ana IlaI Il
/ the proposition l propose to discuss.


: Now, let it be remembered that this is en-
: tirely outside of. and independent Of any ques
| sion arising ont of the existing institution o
slavery IN the States. That is question dc
not propose to interfere with and with the or


igiB of which | have no concern. / do moi


propose 10 disturb it, and therefore it is moi


my purpose to inquire whether its origin is
right or not. / ani to consider what is the


proper Fslation between man and man, as an


original question in the original institution and


construction of society-whetbcr Robinson
Cruso might lawfully make chattel OF his


man Friday. Now, the first difficulty you


encounter in the advocacy of such a principle


that, is as to who shall be the master and


who shall be the slave. IF Robinson may


lawfully enslave his man Friday. may not Fri


day lawfully erslave Robinson? | can see


no d ference. Ard so it must of necessity re-
solve itself into question of physical power.


IT one man has the right to enslave another,


it is because he is wiser or stronger, and by
! the aid Of his intellectual or physical power,
! in some form or another, to subiugate another


man to his will. That is the only philosophy


there is init, The strong man may enslave
/ the weak. If that be so, if Napoleon or
! Nicholas may, through the instrumentalty of
superior wisdom, or by combination of num-
! bers, constitute themselves despots over mil
! lions, the existence of the power establishes
the right. 1t is precisely the same question,
whether applicable to one man ruling the mil
lion, or whether it is applicable to one man ru-
| ling his fellow. If might gives the right, if
.HfrfI x1roI
one man to subjugate another man to his will,
then it is just as applicable to despots subju-
eating millions, it is to the individual.


You are therefore cut loose from all moral
| Obligations or moral restraint, and you resolve
the whole government of mankind into tha
sheer question Of brute force. 1t is said the
white man may eDslave the negro because he
is his superior, physically and intellectually
But il will be remembered, if mere supcriori-
ty gives the title, then it is not simply that
white man may ens';ive the negro because he
| is inferior, but that he may ens'ave another
white man who is his inferior 1t is the nfe-
riority of slave aud the superiority Of the
master upon which the right rests. 1t is not,


therefore, question Of race or compIexion.--
Now, hat is not the Republican doctrine it
is not the Republican, philosophy.


! do not hold thai superior strength or su-
perior intellectual power gives TO one man any
right TO ens'ave, or subjugate, or control an
other. l hold and believe the Repuplican
party of the country holds, to the doctrine Of
natural equality Of man-that is, an equality
of rights. | do not mean to be misunderstood
when l speak Of II t equality Of men, that they
are equal in strength intelligence social pesi-
tlen, OF political rights. l mean that every
man has certain ;ituraI, inherent, aud inalicn-
able rights. All have them equally alike, and
to the protection OF these rights they are all
entitled. The right to live, tie right to the en-
ioyment of mans own earnings, the right of
locomotiou, to go from place to place, are rights
which all men have, without regard to their in
t.llcct, whether it be inferior or superior.


Mr. Chairman, this thing is obscured, and
mist is thrown over it, by bringing the two
races in juxtaposition, and claiming that the
black race may legally be subjected to the
white race Bat, Sir, it is not a question of
race; it is a question OF the essential man
hood Of the party sought to be subugated-
What is negro? l make no question about
his equality. What is he? Where docs he
belong in the scale of creation? Is he ra-
tional. accountable being, the proper subject
of civil and moral government or is he 4 beast?
Tint Is all the question. How do your laws


treat him in Virginin? II Save knock out
his masters brains, you arraigh him in your
cottits, you indict him and try BIN and hang
him for murder. II horse kicks out his own
crs brains, you do not indict the horse for mur-
der do you? Why not? Why do you make
the distinction? Because the one is rational
and accountable being, the proper subject of
civil and moral government, and the other is
nUt. There is, then, Il difference between a
man and Il horse-a difference as the subject
of property and as the subject of government.
Now, that being SO, the accountability and
nationality Of the negro being recognized, it
carries with it certain other consequences.-i
According to my understanding of moral phi
losophy, there is no other mode recognized
among men whereby the human race may be
perpetuated except through the instrumental
ty of the family relations-husband and wife.
parent and child. Whatever institution,
therefore, unterly destroys and prostrates these
relations, brutalizes the man, and is at war
with the essential attributes of humanity
The chattelizing Of men, OF necessity, cuts up
all these domestic relations. There can be no
such thing as marriage between slaves, be-
cause that is a permanent, lifelong union be-
tween the sexes. The relation OF parent and
child is also one that is guaranteed by the laws
OF nature and the system Of social organZa-
ton which utterly dsregards it and trlmples
it under foot, is system which cannot be re-
conciled with the ights of man.


Now, sir, these remarks bring me to the con-
elusion that one man may not legally hold
property in another, as an original abstract
question. l say he may not, because you can
not distinguish who shall be the master and
who the slave, except by giving the mastery
to the strongest. l say he may not, because


it is utterly inconsistent with the essential at
tributes Of humanity, and with the fundanIen-
tai laws that have been established by the AL
mighty for the government of the world in all
nations and in all ages. There is ITO country,
there never was any country known in any age,
where the family relation was not recognized.
You cannot abolish it, you cannot destroy it,
without brutalizing that community. l hold
therefore, that that system which is said to be
right, which the gentleman from Alabama
Mr.. CURRY maintains is the highest type OF
civilization, is essentially at war with the very
first principles on which social organization
can be sustained.


Mr.. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama


is right III another thing. He says that that
is the proposition which underlies all this con-


troversy and it is for this plain reason: if


this institution of slavery be the preferable


form of civilization, if one man may legally
| chattelize another, and make him his


property, then it is proper that you should


propagate that relation and that institution in


all the unsettled Territories. That is the form


of civilization which you should adopt and es-


tablish in all your unsettled domain. If it be


not, then hold you ought not to propagate it,