[
256]
form of civilization; and second, that property in man is placed beyond the reach of Congressional prohibition.
To the first said he,--
I oppose the essential barbarism of slavery, in all its influences, whether high or low, as Satan is Satan still, whether towering in the sky, or squatting in the toad.
To the second I oppose the unanswerable, irresistible truth, that the Constitution of the United States nowhere recognizes property in man. These two assumptions naturally go together.
They are ‘twins’ suckled by the same wolf: they are the “couple” in the present slave-hunt; and the latter cannot be answered without exposing the former.
It is only when slavery is exhibited in its truly hateful character, that we can fully appreciate the absurdity of the assumption which, in defiance of the express letter of the constitution, and without a single sentence, phrase, or word upholding human bondage, yet foists into this blameless text the barbarous idea that man can hold property in man.
He represented the barbarism of slavery under the law of slavery in five distinct elements,--
First, assuming that man can hold property in man; secondly, abrogating the relation of husband and wife; thirdly, abrogating the parental tie; fourthly, closing the gates of knowledge; and fifthly, appropriating the unpaid labor of another.
In respect to the last element he said,--
By such a fallacy is a whole race pauperized; and yet this transaction is not without illustrative example.
A solemn poet, whose verse has found wide favor, pictures a creature who
