FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662  
663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   >>   >|  
s right to his own body shall be protected." 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 all circumstances--all necessity, public welfare, and the will and power of the government to the contrary notwithstanding--is a total perversion of its whole _intent_. The _design_ of the provision, was to throw up a barrier against Governmental aggrandizement. The right to "take property" for _State uses_ is one thing;--the right so to adjust the _tenures_ by which property is held, that _each may have his own secured to him_, is another thing, and clearly within the scope of legislation. Besides, if Congress were to "take" the slaves in the District, it would be _adopting_, not abolishing slavery--becoming a slaveholder itself, instead of requiring others to be such no longer. The clause in question, prohibits the "taking" of individual property for public use, to be employed or disposed of _as_ property for governmental purposes. Congress, by abolishing slavery in the District, would do no such thing. It would merely change the _condition_ of that which has been recognized as a qualified property by congressional acts, though previously declared "persons" by the constitution. More than this is done continually by Congress and every other Legislature. Property the most absolute and unqualified, is annihilated by legislative acts. The embargo and non-intercourse act, levelled at a stroke a forest of shipping, and sunk millions of capital. To say nothing of the power of Congress to take hundreds of millions from the people by direct taxation, who doubts its power to abolish at once the whole tariff system, change the sea
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   660   661   662  
663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681   682   683   684   685   686   687   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
property
 
Congress
 

District

 

condition

 

slavery

 

persons

 

change

 
question
 

millions

 

public


legislative

 
provision
 

abolition

 

abolishing

 

disposed

 
governmental
 

employed

 
purposes
 
slaves
 

adopting


Besides

 

legislation

 

recognized

 

slaveholder

 
prohibits
 

taking

 

individual

 

clause

 

longer

 

requiring


embargo

 
hundreds
 

people

 

capital

 

stroke

 

forest

 

shipping

 

direct

 

taxation

 
tariff

system

 

abolish

 

doubts

 

levelled

 

intercourse

 

continually

 

constitution

 
declared
 

congressional

 

previously