mutual good. And among these rights is
that of property—a right existing and exer-
cised by every people from time immemorial—
the divine writings clearly asserting the ex-
istence and enjoyment of this right. I might
almost say this right of property existed at
the first dawn of creation, for God bestowed
upon Adam and Eve the fair garden of Eden
And we find this right again and again re-
iterated and acknowledged in the divine his-
tory. We find the ancient men of those days
asserting their right to their wells, to their
flocks and their heads, their ??? , servants and
their maid-servants. And we find by tracing
the pages of history that as society increased
and multiplied, this right of property be-
came more fixed and determined in its char-
acter, governed and controlled by certain es-
tablished laws rand principles.
This great right of property, existing as it
does in our nation and State at the present
date, or rather I might say at the time of the
commencement of the existing war, was one
well defined, governed by principles well
known and comprehended by its owners
Property, Mr. President, is the wealth of a
nation, and the substance of its people, It
is that which forms tire strong and binding
tie of love and affection for our native land.
Why does the humble peasant with his lowly
cot, his lew acres, his rude and almost value-
less implements, esteem and love them? It
is because they are his and he is protected in
their enjoyment.
Now, if we desire to render a people un-
happy, turbulent and dissatisfied, we can
adopt no surer plan than depriving them of
that which they are justly entitled to, without
a just cause or a just compensation. It is
dangerous in the extreme for a nation to adopt
any measure which would interfere with this
great principle and right, or which might
render it unstable and insecure. Just so far
as you render this right uncertain and inse-
cure, so far do you weaken the confidence and
affection of a people.
I do not propose to enter into an argument
here to show that slaves are property. You
that doubt the right, take the Scriptures and
read them, study this great foundation of a]
government and law; and if you cannot dis
cern this right by your own study take a
"view of slavery" as compiled by the Rev
John Henry Hopkins, D. D., LL D., Bishop
of the diocese of Vermont, and it will aid you
and throw much light upon a subject which
to many is dark. But there is one thing we
can learn in the sacred pages without the as
sistance of the bishop; that is, to cast tile
beam from our own eye, before beholding the
mote in the eye of our brother.
Again, if you have doubts upon this point
read the decision of Judge. Story in the case
of Prigg (a citizen of Maryland) vs. The
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania—16 Peters
Reports, p. 540, adjudged in 1842 . |
"The full recognition of this right and title
was indispensable to the security of this
species of property in all the slaveholding
States; and, indeed, was so vital to the pre-
servation of their domestic interests and in-
stitutions, that it cannot be doubted that it
constituted a fundamental article, without
the adoption of which the Union could not
have been formed. Its true design was to
guard against the doctrines and principles
prevailing in the non-slaveholding States, by
preventing them from intermeddling with, or
obstructing, or abolishing the rights of the
owner of slaves. The clause in the Consti-
tution relating to fugitives from labor mani-
festly contemplates the existence of a positive,
unqualified right on the part of the owner of
the slave, which no State law or regulation
can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or
restrain. Any State law or regulation which
interrupts, limits, delays, or postpones the
rights of the owner to the immediate com-
mand of his service or labor, operates pro
tanto, a discharge of the slave therefrom. The
owner of a fugitive has the same right to seize
and take him in a State to which he has es-
caped, that he has in the State which be fled.
The court have not the slightest hesitation in
holding that under and in virtue of the Con-
stitution, the owner of the slave is clothed
with the authority, in every State of the
Union, to seize and recapture his slave."
What changes halve occurred since 1842?
Then the ablest jurist of our land fearlessly
maintained the right to slave property, not
only existing when the slave was within a
slave State, but attaching to the slave after he
might enter a free State. Slavery exists, then,
not only by divine right, but by the law of
our land, as set forth by the Supreme. Court
of the United States, which is the supreme
law of the land, and that right of property
exists until the law is repealed or the decision
reversed.
But there is one fact as regards this right,
the majority of this body cannot deny—that
many of them have held slaves, taken the
benefit of their labor, and when it did not
suit their purposes to hold them longer, have
sold them to other masters. I would like to
know how many in tills body, through acon-
scientious conviction of the evil of the thing,
have liberated their negroes. Although some
may have preached the doctrine of Wendell
Phillips and the higher law, few of us have
put it into practical operation, by beginning
at our pockets to remedy the evil.
But we are told this sacrifice must be made
on the part of Maryland to save the Union.
Now, I cannot see the point or force of this
argument. Why should Maryland make this
sacrifice over and above what is required of
the other States? If the war expenses re-
quire it by way of taxation, let the burden
be borne equally by all the States—not by
Maryland alone. We are not quite rich |
