FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520  
521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   >>   >|  
--one, the power to take the slaves from their masters, the other, the power to take the property of the United States to pay for them. If Congress cannot constitutionally impair the right of private property, or take it without compensation, it cannot constitutionally, _legalize_ the perpetration of such acts, by _others_, nor _protect_ those who commit them. Does the power to rob a man of his earnings, rob the earner of his _right_ to them? Who has a better right to the _product_ than the producer?--to the _interest_, than the owner of the _principal_?--to the hands and arms, than he from whose shoulders they swing?--to the body and soul, than he whose they _are_? Congress not only impairs but annihilates the right of private property, while it withholds from the slaves of the District their title to _themselves_. What! Congress powerless to protect a man's right to _himself_, when it can make inviolable the right to a _dog_? But, waving this, I deny that the abolition of slavery in the District would violate this clause. What does the clause prohibit? The "taking" of "private property" for "public use." Suppose Congress should emancipate the slaves in the District, what would it "_take_?" Nothing. What would it _hold_? Nothing. What would it put to "public use?" Nothing. Instead of _taking_ "private property," Congress, by abolishing slavery, would say "private property shall not _be_ taken; and those who have been robbed of it already, shall be kept out of it no longer; and since every man's right to his own body is _paramount_, he shall be protected in it." True, Congress may not arbitrarily take property, _as_ property, from one man and give it to another--and in the abolition of slavery no such thing is done. A legislative act changes the _condition_ of the slave--makes him his own _proprietor_ instead of the property of another. It determines a question of _original right_ between two classes of persons--doing an act of justice to one, and restraining the other from acts of injustice; or, in other words, preventing one from robbing the other, by granting to the injured party the protection of just and equitable laws. Congress, by an act of abolition, would change the condition of seven thousand "persons" in the District, but would "take" nothing. To construe this provision so as to enable the citizens of the District to hold as property, and in perpetuity, whatever they please, or to hold it as property in al
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   513   514   515   516   517   518   519   520  
521   522   523   524   525   526   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
property
 

Congress

 

private

 

District

 

slavery

 

Nothing

 
abolition
 

slaves

 

taking

 

clause


constitutionally

 

condition

 

persons

 

public

 

protect

 

proprietor

 

legislative

 

protected

 

arbitrarily

 
paramount

longer
 
classes
 
thousand
 

change

 

equitable

 
construe
 

provision

 
perpetuity
 

citizens

 
enable

protection

 
original
 
determines
 

question

 
justice
 
restraining
 

granting

 
injured
 

robbing

 

preventing


injustice

 
United
 

shoulders

 

compensation

 

impair

 

withholds

 
impairs
 
annihilates
 

principal

 
earnings