All these I put aside,--not because I do not regard them of moment in exhibiting the true character of Slavery, but because I desire to present this argument on grounds above all controversy, impeachment, or suspicion, even from slave-masters themselves. Not on triumphant story, not even on indisputable fact, do I now accuse Slavery, but on its character, as revealed in its own simple definition of itself. Out of its own mouth do I condemn it. By the _Law of Slavery_, man, created in the image of God, is divested of the human character, and declared to be a mere chattel. That this statement may not seem to be put forward without precise authority, I quote the law of two different States. The Civil Code of Louisiana thus defines a slave:--

“A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. The master may sell him, dispose of his person, his industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, possess nothing, nor acquire anything but what must belong to his master.”[3]

Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 5 (of 20) — Part 9

The law of another polished Slave State gives this definition:--

Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 5 (of 20) — Part 9

“Slaves shall be deemed, sold, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be _chattels personal_, in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.”[4]

Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume 5 (of 20) — Part 9

And a careful writer, Judge Stroud, in a work of juridical as well as philanthropic merit, thus sums up the law:--

“The cardinal principle of Slavery, that the slave is not to be ranked among _sentient beings_, but among _things_, is an article of property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted law in all of these [Slave] States.”[5]

Sir, this is enough. As out of its small egg crawls forth the slimy, scaly, reptile crocodile, so out of this simple definition crawls forth the whole slimy, scaly, reptile monstrosity by which a man is changed into a chattel, a person is converted into a thing, a soul is transmuted into merchandise. According to this very definition, the slave is held simply for the good of his master, to whose behest his life, liberty, and happiness are devoted, and by whom he may be bartered, leased, mortgaged, bequeathed, invoiced, shipped as cargo, stored as goods, sold on execution, knocked off at public auction, and even staked at the gaming-table on the hazard of a card or die. The slave may seem to have a wife; but he has not, for his wife belongs to his master. He may seem to have a child; but he has not, for his child is owned by his master. He may be filled with desire of knowledge, opening to him the gates of joy on earth and in heaven; but the master may impiously close all these gates. Thus is he robbed, not merely of privileges, but of himself,--not merely of money and labor, but of wife and children,--not merely of time and opportunity, but of every assurance of happiness,--not merely of earthly hope, but of all those divine aspirations that spring from the Fountain of Light. He is not merely restricted in liberty, but totally deprived of it,--not merely curtailed in rights, but absolutely stripped of them,--not merely loaded with burdens, but changed into a beast of burden,--not merely bent in countenance to the earth, but sunk in law to the level of a quadruped,--not merely exposed to personal cruelty, but deprived of his character as a person,--not merely compelled to involuntary labor, but degraded to a rude thing,--not merely shut out from knowledge, but wrested from his place in the human family. _And all this, Sir, is according to the simple Law of Slavery._