who
receives stolen property, knowing it be such, is equally guilty with the
thief.

On this point Daniel O'Connell was very explicit, when, in a public
assembly, he used this language: "When an American comes into society,
he will be asked, 'are you one of the thieves, or are you an honest man?
If you are an honest man, then you have given liberty to your slaves; if
you are among the thieves, the sooner you take the outside of the house,
the better.'"

The error just referred to was this: they based their opposition to
slavery on the principle, that it was _malum in se_--a sin in
itself--like the slave trade, robbery and murder; and, at the same time,
continued to use the products of the labor of the slave as though they
had been obtained from the labor of freemen. But this seeming
inconsistency was not the only reason why they failed to create such a
public sentiment as would procure the emancipation of our slaves. The
English emancipationists began their work like philosophers--addressing
themselves, respectfully to the power that could grant their requests.
Beside the moral argument, which declared slavery a crime, the English
philanthropists labored to convince Parliament, that emancipation would
be advantageous to the commerce of the nation. The commercial value of
the Islands had been reduced one-third, as a result of the abolition of
the slave trade. Emancipation, it was argued, would more than restore
their former prosperity, as the labor of freemen was twice as productive
as that of slaves. But American abolitionists commenced their crusade
against slavery, by charging those who sustained it, and who alone, held
the power to manumit, with crimes of the blackest dye. This placed the
parties in instant antagonism, causing all the arguments on human
rights, and the sinfulness of slavery, to fall without effect upon the
ears of angry men. The error on this point, consisted in failing to
discriminate between the sources of the power over emancipation in
England and in the United States. With Great Britain, the power was in
Parliament. The masters, in the West Indies, had no voice in the
question. It was the voters in England alone who controlled the
elections, and, consequently, controlled Parliament. But the condition
of things in the United States is the reverse of what it was in England.
With us, the power of emancipation is in the States, not in Congress.
The slaveholders elect the members to the State Legis