LIBERTY AND EQUALITY.
Aware, that we are constantly liable to perversion as to the intent of
our remarks in these pages, it is proper for us to say, that we have
not taken up this topic in order to bring our interpretation of it to
bear against the right of slaves to their freedom. That is a question
which we do not assume to discuss, though we have signified our
opinion, and are ready freely and frankly so to do on all proper
occasions. But our object at this time is to correct the vague,
poetic, and romantic notions which are commonly attached to these
terms. In this country, their origin may fairly be ascribed to a
notable declaration, so often quoted from our national bill of rights:
“that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Now, what is the meaning of
this? The history of those times, and of the occasions which produced
it, will answer this question.
First, as to the term _Liberty_. The British Government refused the
Colonies a representation in the law-making power of the empire, and
this was the ground of the quarrel, the cause of the Revolution. We
have, then, in this great historical fact, a fair and clear
interpretation of the meaning of the term “liberty” in the declaration
of Rights, viz. the right to a representation of the people in the
law-making authority. So much and no more, we conceive, is the meaning
of this term in this place; and that is enough for the free and full
action of “the principles of our republican form of Government.” In
connexion with the provisions of our National and State Constitutions,
the people are thus constituted the law-making power. That is, they
are entitled to _govern_ themselves. But the very idea of Government
is _subjection_ to law, not a _liberty_ for every man to do as he
pleases. This last meaning is the _vague_, _poetic_, and _romantic_
notion commonly attached to this term--to do as one pleases; whereas,
the Constitutional and proper meaning is the _right_ to a voice in the
making of law. In the strict sense of the term, therefore, it is not
liberty, but a right. The moment a man enters into society, he
resigns his liberty, and consents to be _subjected_ to the
regulations of the community, of which he is a member. There is no
liberty, except in the simple state of nature, where man is isolated
from man, and becomes a solitary savage.
Having alluded to _the state of nature_, it may be proper in this
place to observe, that the same poetic fancies are constantly played
off on “natural rights,” as on liberty and equality; whereas, the
slightest reflection ought to teach us, that all society is artificial
and conventional, and that no man who enters into society can any
farther lay claim to “natural rights” than the law allows. Every
regulation of society is so far an infringement on natural rights, if,
indeed, we have any correct notion of the meaning of these terms. It
is difficult, indeed, to define natural rights. We have never yet seen
it done, and confess our own inability for the task. What is the use,
then, in talking about that for which we cannot find even a
definition? We have a right, however, since it is used for practical
purposes, to make it mean something. Say, then, that it means such
rights as a savage would be entitled to, when alone in the desert, to
do what he is inclined, as in such circumstances he would not
interfere with any social right. But in society men give up their
natural rights, if the above is a fair statement of what they are; and
the law becomes the rule of right. The whole system of society is
artificial, and at war with natural rights; and he who claims the
privilege of natural right, in opposition to the established code of
society, asserts the right of rebellion. We have no objection,
however, that any body should give us a definition of natural rights,
that would lead to a different conclusion, if it can be done; but till
that time, we are compelled to say, that this talk about natural
rights, for any practical purpose in society, is something we do not
understand, unless, for example, it be the right to live and to
breathe; and even that may be forfeited to the law. Suppose the
murderer sentenced to be hung, should claim the privilege of natural
rights--would he be heard? Natural rights, as we understand them, are
not available in society, when they interfere with law. That is to
say, the law is always above them, and must be, so long as it is
judged best to maintain the social state. There is not a single
natural right that can be named, which may not, in given cases, be
abridged, or controlled, or superseded, or entirely suppressed, by the
artificial organisation of society. To talk of natural right,
therefore, as being paramount to law, simply because it _is_ natural
right, is arrant nonsense--mere declamation, at best.
But, to return to “liberty.” We have seen, that the Constitutional
meaning of this term in our Charter or Bill of rights is limited to
the single and simple claim to a voice by representation in the power
of making law, and that laws are made for our _subjection_. All the
rest beyond this is _duty_, _obedience_, _not_ liberty. Law limits and
circumscribes us at all points, in the house and out of it, every
where, in relation to every body, and to every body’s rights. All the
rights of our fellow beings, as secured by law, are an abridgment of
our liberty. The higher the degrees of civilization, which add to the
multiplication of laws, so much greater is the abridgment of liberty.
That is, the more perfect society is made, so much less of liberty do
we have; and, as good citizens, we are not only contented with it, but
we prefer it. For the advantages of society, we enter into terms of
mutual concession; and every degree of concession cuts us off from
liberty.
Now for the romance of “Equality”--“that all men are created _equal_.”
And what is the meaning of this in the Charter of our rights? Simply,
that royal blood, and noble blood, is no better than any other blood;
and therefore, that we will have no king, and no aristocracy. The
hereditary and divine right of kings, and the hereditary right of
nobles, are here barred, and the _people_ are enthroned in their
place, with all the chances open before them of _rising_ in society,
according to their merits, even to the highest honors of the Republic.
This, we think, is the exact meaning of equality in this place, and
that it goes no farther than to cut off the hereditary claims of kings
and nobles, and of privileged orders in the community--that is, of
orders privileged by the enactments of Constitutional law. But this
principle, obviously, was never intended to apply practically to
general society, nor to any ranks of society below these degrees. In
this sense of the term the whole community is reduced fairly to what
is generally understood by the republican level: that all may have a
chance to rise according to their merits. But who will say, that it
was intended to make a President of the United States of a man, who
has no sort of qualification or claim to that office? Or to raise any
man to an honor or office, to which he is not judged to be entitled by
a majority of those voices appointed by law to determine such a
question? Who will say, that it was intended to annihilate those
grades of society, which the use of common rights necessarily creates,
because one man is more industrious, or more virtuous, or more
fortunate than another? Who will say, that it was intended to
establish the Agrarian principle, that because the industry of one man
has built him a good house, the lazy, idle, and worthless man has a
right to claim a part of it, and a part of the wealth of its owner?
Or, that all inequalities of wealth and condition in life, produced by
different degrees of virtue, application to business, and good luck,
are to be levelled by making all things common, and an equal
distribution to every man, whatever may be his character? We are
disposed to believe, that our American society is hardly yet prepared
for the application of such a rule as this; or that there is a single
man in the community who will relinquish his fairly acquired rights
and property to those, who may happen not to have acquired the same
advantages.
As a matter of fact, there is no such thing as equality among men, nor
can there be. There is no equality in their physical powers, none in
the circumstances of their birth and education, none in the privileges
and wealth which they inherit or acquire, none in their social
advantages--_no_ equality in any thing. The two men cannot be found
who are in all or any respects exactly equal. If all the talents and
powers of the whole community were solely devoted to produce equality,
they would be unequal to the task. Neither God nor man ever instituted
equality. We do not say, that God could not have done it; but, to our
taste, he would have spoiled creation, if he had. We desire,
therefore, and think we have good reasons, to be contented with such a
Universe as he has made. We desire also to be contented, that any man,
by his virtues or good fortune, should be more elevated and better off
than ourself. If we are not, we sin: “Thou shalt not covet.” This
Divine law, was enacted for such a case, as well as others; and the
very frame of society was intended to maintain these inequalities;
that is, to secure to every man his own rights.
What, then, becomes of this _song_ of liberty and equality--this
poetry and romance of popular declamation--this soul-stirring and
heaven-appealing claim?--Has nothing really been acquired? Yes, much:
We have acquired the right of making our own laws, and cut off kings
and nobles from all claim to hereditary ascendancy. This is a great, a
mighty achievement, if we prove wise enough to know how to use it. We
hold it to be an advance in human society--a most important
acquisition to the liberties and rights of mankind. But it will be
seen, that the general and vague notion commonly attached to these
terms is utterly without foundation--mere poetry and romance.
We may ask, then, with what propriety the Abolitionists apply this
passage in our National bill of rights to slavery? Obviously, there is
no warrant for it, if we stick to the meaning and intent thereof. If
they see fit to give it another meaning--to force a construction from
it that was never intended, of course, in such an arbitrary
interpretation, we can have no farther controversy with them, than to
state, that it _is_ arbitrary.
We deem it proper to say, that the Bill of Rights set forth in the
Declaration of our Independence, was never intended for such an
application; but that this particular passage was limited to the two
single points which we have noticed. It neither affirms nor denies, it
neither vitiates nor strengthens, the claim of the slave to his
freedom, because it never contemplated the case. We are now settling a
question of fact. To be wrong is one thing; to be inconsistent
another. That there is wrong in slavery we do not deny; but we do say,
that there is no inconsistency in the existence of slavery in the
United States with our National Bill of Rights, when fairly
interpreted. It will doubtless be allowed, that the Federal
Constitution is a good interpreter of that Bill; and that decrees the
perpetuity of slavery, at the will of the slave States. The
_consistency_ of our Government, and of our country, therefore, is
maintained and defended, in this particular, against all imputation to
the contrary, whatever may be the _right_ of the case. If any body
chooses to say, that the _principle_ involved in this passage of our
Bill of Rights _reaches_ the case of the slave, we have no objection.
For, we frankly confess, we have always thought so too. But we deny,
that it was ever intended to have such an application, and that there
is any inconsistency, however there may be wrong, in the existence of
slavery in our country, so long as we abide by the Bill of Rights and
the Constitution as the rule, when interpreted according to their
meaning.
We gained a great step in the acquisition of our National
Independence; but we did not arrive to a state of _perfectionism_.
Since that time we have made advances in society, for the better, too.
We have abolished the slave trade, and slavery itself in all the
States north of Mason’s and Dixon’s line; and it is manifest, that the
slave States bordering on the free, are greatly affected by the
influence of the latter, to make slave property less valuable, and to
lead towards emancipation. But so long as the laws of the land are
respected and maintained, the slave States can never be compelled to
emancipation by foreign dictation; nor will they be advised. By the
existing regulations of society, there is no power authorized to
advise them. We, of the North, in like circumstances, would not be
advised. Every State and nation is the best judge of what may be
expedient in the management of its own domestic polity; and if any of
its component parts are depressed and oppressed, they have an
undoubted right to relieve themselves, if they can, at their own risk.
But the law of nations, which is the highest and most important of all
laws, and the breach of which is most momentous in its consequences,
does not authorize, but forbids, interference.