SUPPORTING BRIEF #5: SLAVERY, Page 2
Property
**********************************************************************
Volume II of Channing's works, entered into the records of the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts pursuant to an Act of Congress in 1841, states the following in his INTRODUCTION to the subject of slavery.
"The first question to be proposed by a rational being is, not what is profitable, but what is Right. Duty must be primary, prominent, most conspicuous among the objects of human thought and pursuit. If we cast it down from its supremacy, if we inquire first for our interests, and then for our duties, we shall certainly err. We can never see the right clearly and fully, but by making it our first concern. No judgement can be just or wise, but that which is built on the conviction of the paramount worth and importance of duty. This is the fundamental truth, the supreme law of reason; and the mind which does not start form this, in its inquires into human affairs, is doomed to great, perhaps fatal error.
"The right is the supreme good, and includes all other goods. In seeking and adhering to it, we secure our true and only happiness. All prosperity, not founded on it, is built on sand. If human affairs are controlled, as we believe, by Almighty Rectitude and Impartial Goodness, then to hope for happiness from wrong-doing is as insane as to seek health and prosperity by rebellion against the laws of nature, by sowing our seeds on the ocean, or making poison our common food. There is but one unfailing good; and that is, fidelity to the Everlasting Law written on the heart, and re-written and republished in God's Word.... There are times when the assertion of great principles is the best service a man can render society. The present is a moment of bewildering excitement, when men's minds are stormed and darkened by strong passions and fierce conflicts; and also a moment of absorbing worldliness, when the moral law is made to bow to expediency, and its high and strict requirements are denied, or dismissed as metaphysical abstractions or impracticable theories. At such a season, to utter great principles without passion, and in the spirit of unfeigned and universal good-will, and to engrave them deeply and durably on men's minds, is to do more for the world, than to open mines of wealth, or to frame the most successful schemes of policy.... A community can suffer no greater calamity than the loss of its principles. Lofty and pure sentiment is the life and hope of a people.... Let no man touch the great interests of humanity, who does not strive to sanctify himself for the work by cleansing his heart of all wrath and uncharitableness, who cannot hope that he is in a measure baptized into the spirit of universal love.... Slavery, indeed, by its very nature, must be a ground of alarm wherever it exists. Slavery and security can by no device be joined together.... As men, as Christians, as citizens, we have duties to the slave, as well as to every other member of the community. On this point we have no liberty. The eternal law binds us to take the side of the injured; and this law is peculiarly obligatory when we forbid him to lift an arm in his own defense.... Let it not be said we can do nothing for the slave. We can do much. We have a power mightier than armies, the power of truth, of principle, of virtue, of right, of religion, of love." The Works of William E. Channing (Boston: American Unitarian Assoc., 1873.) Vol. II, pp. 7-11.
The slaveholders of the South claimed the right in property in slaves for the purposes of economic gain in their agricultural pursuits in the South. Channing stated: "The slave-holder claims the slave as his Property." ibid., pg. 17. The very essence of this statement can be brought to bear in its clearest sense by the slaveholders themselves. In Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments(Pritchard, Abbott, & Loomis: Augusta, Ga., 1860), on page 314 we read that slavery is "merely the transfer of a right to labor." It should be therefore clear that what the slaveholders wanted was, not the physical body of the slave, even though the slave was bought and sold like cattle, but the laborof the slave to tend the fields and perform all the other domestic duties on the plantation. We must keep this in mind, that when Channing talks about "property in man", he meant the property in the labor of the man.
In fact, Jefferson Davis himself brought this fact to bear in a speech in Bangor, Maine in the days of Lincoln. Stephen A. Douglas, in his joint debates with Lincoln, quoted Jefferson Davis from Davis' Bangor, Maine speech.
"In the case of property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave property..." The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. V, pg. 24.
Channing continues:
"The very idea of a slave is, that he belongs to another, to be another's instrument, to make another's will his habitual law, however adverse to his own. Another owns him, and, of course, has a right to his time and strength, a right to the fruits of his labor, a right to task him without his consent, and to determine the kind and duration of his toil, a right to confine him to any bounds, a right to extort the required work by stripes, a right, in a word, to use him as a tool, without contract, against his will, and in denial of his right to dispose of himself, or to use his power for his own good. 'A slave,' says the Louisiana code, 'is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, his labor; he can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but which must belong to the master.'" Channing's Works, Vol. II, pg. 17. (emphasis added)
Channing perceived "that, if one man may be held as property, then every other man may be so held.... If one man may be rightfully reduced to slavery, then there is not a human being on whom the same chain may not be imposed." ibid., pg. 18. Think of this for a moment. The taxing powers pursuant to the Social Security Act of 1935 began taxing the labor of around half the wage earning population at the rate of 1% in 1937. Therefore, if half the wage earning population can be taxed, then why not the whole? If the whole of the wage earning population can be taxed, then why not all others who are not wage earners that receive their labor by contract? Indeed, if we can tax some who labor, then why not all?
"As men, we cannot justly be made slaves. Then no man can be rightfully enslaved.... We are now not speaking of criminals. We speak of innocent men, who have given us no hold on them by guilt; and our own consciousness is a proof that such cannot be rightfully seized as property by a fellow creature." ibid., pp. 19-20.
Again, let me reassert that property in man means the superior right to the labor of the man.
"Now, I say, a being having rights cannot be justly be made property; for this claim over him virtually annuls all his rights. It strips him of all power to assert them. It makes it a crime to assert them. The very essence of slavery is, to put a man defenseless into the hands of another. The right claimed by the master, to task, to force, to imprison, to whip, and to punish the slave, at discretion, and especially to prevent the least resistance to his will, is a virtual denial of all the rights of the victim of his power. The two cannot stand together. Can we doubt which of them ought to fall?" ibid., pg. 20.
The slaveholders argued:
"that the institution of slavery is designed by the South not for the enlightened and the free, but only for the ignorant and the debased." Cotton is King and Pro-Slavery Arguments, pg. 296.
However, Channing refuted this argument by saying:
"By such arguments it is attempted to set aside the principle of equality, on which the soundest moralists have reared the structure of social duty; and in these ways the old foundations of despotic power, which our fathers in their simplicity thought they had subverted, are laid again by their sons." Channing's Works, Vol. II, pg. 21.
It cannot be denied that many of the slaveholders were well educated men. However, Channing stated that "Great learning is often put to shame by the mother-wit and keen good sense of uneducated men." ibid., pg. 21.
I cannot emphasize enough the fact that property in man means a superior right to the labor of a man. Once power over labor becomes firmly established in law upon one class of human beings who labor, then why not expand the power to all who labor?
"Thus equal are men; and among these equals, who can substantiate his claim to make others his property, his tools, his mere instruments of his private interest and gratification? Let this claim begin, and where will it stop? If one man may assert it, why not all? Among these partakers of the same rational and moral nature, who can make good a right over others, which others may not establish over himself? Does he insist on superior strength of body or mind? Who of us has no superior in one or the other of these endowments? Is it sure that the slave or the slave's child may not surpass his master in intellectual energy, or in moral worth? Has nature conferred distinctions, which tell us plainly who shall be owners and who be owned? Who of us can unblushingly lift his head and say, that God has written 'Master' there? or who can show the word 'Slave' engraven on his brother's brow? The equality of nature makes slavery a wrong. Nature's seal is affixed to no instrument by which property in a single human being is conveyed." ibid., pg. 22.
Why is it that the political departments are so blinded to the fact that taxing the labor of a human being binds the human being to servitude? Is it their desire to enslave the people? I would submit, they have been blinded by power. The mass of people counting on the promise of social insurance and welfare represent a large mass of voters. In other words, their desire to maintain their political support has blinded them to the fact that they are using their tax laws to reduce the laboring masses to slavery.
"Property is an exclusive right. It shuts out all claim but that of the possessor. What one man owns, cannot belong to another.... His will, intellect, and muscles, all the powers of body and mind which are exercised in labor, he is bound to regard as another's.... It is true, that a man may by contract give to another a limited right to his strength. But he gives only because he possesses it, and gives it for considerations which he deems beneficial to himself; and the right conferred ceases at once on violation of the conditions on which it was bestowed. To deny the right of a human being to himself, to his own limbs and faculties, to his energy of body and mind, is an absurdity too gross to be confuted by any thing but a simple statement. Yet this absurdity is involved in the idea of his belonging to another." ibid., pp. 22-23.
There is no middle ground on this issue. Either the individual has the superior right to his own labor, or he doesn't. If a court ruled that the state has the superior right to the labor of an individual, in that, the state has the power to tax that labor at whatever rate it desires, then that individual has had his lawful right to his labor torn away from him. He is bound to servitude. He is the political slave of the state. "Our laws know no higher crime than that of reducing a man to slavery." ibid., pg. 23.
It should be noted that the income tax has been applied to labor now for six decades and has steadily increased. "Does the duration of wrong, the increase of it by continuance, convert it into right?" ibid., pg. 24. For example, should our government degenerate into tyranny, and the habit of murdering innocent people by the venal slaves of government become commonplace for an extended period of time, would we then say that long use legalizes murder? Would we then say that long use legalizes persecution of the innocent? "Hence, no right accrues to the master from the length of the wrong which has been done to the slave." ibid., pg. 25.
Every right involves a corresponding obligation.
"If, then, a man has a right to another's person or powers, the latter is under obligation to give himself up as a chattel to the former. This is his duty. He is bound to be a slave; and bound not merely by the Christian law, which enjoins submission to injury, not merely by prudential considerations, or by the claims of public order and peace; but bound because another has a right of ownership, has a moral claim to him, so that he would be guilty of dishonesty, of robbery, in withdrawing himself from this other's service. It is his duty to work for his master, though all compulsion were withdrawn; and in deserting him he would commit the crime of taking away another man's property, as truly as if he were to carry off his owner's purse. Now do we not instantly feel, can we help feeling, that this is false? Is the slave thus morally bound? When the African was first brought to these shores, would he have violated a solemn obligation by slipping his chain and flying back to his native home? Would he not have been bound to seize the precious opportunity of escape? Is the slave under a moral obligation to confine himself, his wife, his children, to a spot where their union in a moment may be forcibly dissolved? Ought he not, if he can, to place himself and his family under the guardianship of equal laws? Should we blame him for leaving his yoke? Do we not feel, that, in the same condition, a sense of duty would quicken our flying steps? Where, then, is the obligation which would necessarily be imposed, if the right existed which the master claims? The absence of obligation proves the want of the right. The claim is groundless. It is a cruel wrong." ibid., pp. 25-26.
Correspondingly today, does not the individual who comes to the realization that the tax laws of government are imposing servitude upon him have the right to break the chains of that servitude? Does the master (state) from which he has fled, have the right to find him and again fasten the yoke upon his neck, under whatever specious pretext? If this be the state of things, then we live under despotism.
John C. Calhoun, who was a slaveholder and; member of the South Carolina legislature in 1808-09, member of the U.S. House from 1811-17, and elected Vice-President in 1824 and 1828, stated the following on the principles of Liberty:
"It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike;- a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving;- not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and viscous, to be capable either of appreciating or of enjoying it.... A reward more appropriate than liberty could not be conferred on the deserving;- nor a punishment inflicted on the undeserving more just, than to be subject to lawless and despotic rule." The Works of John C. Calhoun (N.Y., D. Appleton and Co., 1854), Vol. I, pg. 55.
However, Channing stated:
"Thought, Reason, Conscience, the capacity of Virtue, the capacity of Christian Love, an immortal Destiny, an intimate moral connection with God,- here are attributes of our common humanity which reduce to insignificance all outward distinctions, and make every human being unspeakably dear to his Maker. No matter how ignorant he may be. Channing's Works, Vol. II, pp. 26-27. (emphasis added)
In providing my labor for the last 20 years in the field of commercial and residential construction, I have found that the vast majority of people I have come in contact with, even those who do not profess Christianity, are good people. They have a sense of right and wrong and would do nothing to intentionally violate the rights of others.
"He has the idea of Duty; and to unfold, revere, obey this, is the very purpose for which his life was given. Every human being has the idea of what is meant by that word, Truth; that is, he sees, however dimly, the great object of Divine and created intelligence, and is capable of ever-enlarging perceptions of truth. Every human being has affections, which may be purified and expanded into Sublime Love. He has, too, the idea of Happiness, and a thirst for it which cannot be appeased. Such is our nature. Wherever we see a man, we see the possessor of these great capacities. Did God make such a being to be owned as a tree, or a brute? How plainly was he made to exercise, unfold, improve his highest powers, made for a moral, spiritual good! and how is he wronged, and his Creator opposed, when he is forced and broken into a tool to another's physical enjoyment!" ibid., pg. 27.
As already stated, the mass of people looking to government for the promise of social insurance and welfare represent a large amount of voters. Indeed, many politicians get much physical enjoyment out of retaining their power through this type of political support. But do they have the right to sanction, by the force of statutes, the chain of slavery upon the laboring masses of the people to retain their comfortable position? Would any of them be willing to come down from their high and comfortable position, and place the yoke upon their own neck? What right do they have to claim a superior power over the labor of their fellow human creatures? Any claim of such a right is as void as the right the slaveholders claimed over the labor of the Negro in the South.
"The sacrifice of such a being to another's will, to another's present, outward, ill- comprehending good, is the greatest violence which can be offered to any creature of God. It is to degrade him from his rank in the universe, to make him a means, not an end, to cast him out from God's spiritual family into the brutal herd." ibid., pp. 27-28.
The education of our children in the public schools is sorely lacking. The great fundamental principles upon which America was built are not taught. One would assume that the great importance of the right to labor would be given extensive study. Our children deserve essential knowledge to protect them from abuses of their rights.
"The great purpose of all good education and discipline is, to make a man Master of Himself, to excite him to act from a principle in his own mind, to lead him to propose his own perfection as his supreme law and end. And is this highest purpose of man's nature to be reconciled with entire subjection to a foreign will, to an outward, overwhelming force, which is satisfied with nothing but complete submission?" ibid., pg. 28.
Acquiring property, it cannot be denied, brings happiness to many people. By acquiring an automobile, we travel about in comfort. By acquiring a television set, we provide ourselves with a wide variety of entertainment. However, there is one kind of property which no one has the lawful right to claim. Again emphasizing that property in man means the superior right to the labor of the man, Channing stated: "Every thing else may be owned in the universe; but a moral, rational being cannot be property.... Lay not your hand on God's rational offspring." ibid., pg. 29.
It is not necessary to hold a human being against their will if, by coercion, power can be gained over their labor. The laborer is allowed to roam free. He may work at whatever job he chooses; but he must give the quantity of labor demanded by the taxing authorities.
"We have thus seen, that a human being cannot rightfully be held and used as property. No legislation, not that of all countries or worlds, could make him so. Let this be laid down, as a first, fundamental truth. Let us hold fast against all customs, all laws, all rank, wealth, and power. Let it be armed with the whole authority of the civilized and Christian world." ibid., pg. 29.
We should not be shocked that political power has, once again, imposed slavery upon a people. In America though, many will refuse to admit it. After all, are we not "the land of the free, and the home of the brave"? However, slavery has already existed once in our history, and, throughout the history of mankind, political forces have had an insatiable craving for power over the labor of the people. Also, since it is the political power that makes the laws, it can be readily imposed by the force of law. However, to impose it all at once would alert the majority of people to its existence. But to first begin taxing labor only slightly, and then slowly increasing the taxation over a period of many years, blinds the multitude to its existence.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once- David Hume.
Our lawmakers have, indeed, worked very hard to maintain the illusion of prosperity for many years. The flooding of the economy with fiat money combined with a massive extension of public credit has allowed the people to continue acquire property. However, in a future economic crisis, many people who become unemployed would find that they own very little without the ability to make their monthly payments. In this sense, perhaps we could also say that many people are the slaves of the wealthy bankers.
Let us not forget, that our primary duty is to God and our fellow human creatures, many of which are ignorant or indifferent to what is happening around them. The few of us that see the danger have a duty to sound the alarm. Let not the laws of men blind us to the laws of God, for God's laws are good, mens laws are written by imperfect men who, unfortunately, can be corrupted with power.
"What! is human legislation the measure of right? Are God's laws to be repealed by man's? Can government do no wrong? To what a mournful extent is the history of human governments a record of wrongs! How much does the progress of civilization consist in the substitution of just and humane, for barbarous and oppressive laws! The individual, indeed, is never authorized to oppose physical force to unrighteous ordinances of government, as long as the community choose to sustain them. But criminal legislation ought to be freely and earnestly opposed. Injustice is never so terrible, and never so corrupting, as when armed with the sanctions of law. The authority of government, instead of being a reason for silence under wrongs, is a reason for protesting against wrong with undivided energy of argument, entreaty, and solemn admonition." ibid., pg. 30.
On a closing note for this discussion of property in labor, consider the following brief statement of George Fitzhugh, a Virginia lawyer who was a prolific slavery propagandist. He stated that slavery was the "very best form of socialism." Sociology for the South (Richmond, Va.: A. Morris, 1854), pg. 26.