The great fundamental principle of Abolitionists is, that man cannot rightfully hold his fellow man as property. Therefore, we affirm, that _every slaveholder is a man-stealer_. We do so, for the following reasons: to steal a man is to rob him of himself. It matters not whether this be done in Guinea, or Carolina; a man is a _man_, and _as_ a man he has _inalienable_ rights, among which is the right to personal _liberty_. Now if every man has an _inalienable_ right to personal liberty, it follows, that he cannot rightfully be reduced to slavery. But I find in these United States, 2,250,000 men, women and children, robbed of that to which they have an _inalienable_ right. How comes this to pass? Where millions are plundered, are there no _plunderers_? If, then, the slaves have been robbed of their liberty, _who_ has robbed them? Not the man who stole their forefathers from Africa, but he who now holds them in bondage; no matter _how_ they came into his possession, whether he inherited them, or bought them, or seized them at their birth on his own plantation. The only difference I can see between the original man-stealer, who caught the African in his native country, and the American slaveholder, is, that the former committed _one_ act of robbery, while the other perpetrates the same crime _continually_. Slaveholding is the perpetrating of acts, all of the same kind, in a _series_, the first of which is technically called man-stealing. The _first_ act robbed the man of himself; and the same state of mind that prompted _that act, keeps up the series_, having _taken_ his all from him: it _keeps_ his all from him, not only _refusing_ to _restore_, but still robbing him of all he gets, and as fast as he gets it. Slaveholding, then, is _the constant or habitual perpetration of the act of man-stealing. To make_ a slave is _man-stealing_--_the ACT itself_--to _hold_ him such is man-stealing--the _habit_, the _permanent_ state, made up of _individual_ acts. In other words--to _begin_ to hold a slave is man-stealing--to _keep on_ holding him is merely a _repetition_ of the first act--a doing the same identical thing _all the time_. A series of the same acts continued for a length of time is a _habit_--_a permanent state_. And the _first_ of this series of the _same_ acts that make up this _habit_ or state is just like all the rest. If every slave has a right to freedom, then surely the man who withholds that right from him to-day is a man-stealer, though he may not be the first person who has robbed him of it. Hence we find that Wesley says--‘Men-_buyers_ are _exactly on a level_ with men-_stealers_.’ And again--‘Much less is it possible that any child of man should ever be _born a slave_.’ Hear also Jonathan Edwards--‘To hold a man in a state of slavery, is to be _every day guilty_ of robbing him of his liberty, or of _man-stealing_.’ And Grotius says--‘Those are men-stealers who abduct, _keep_, sell or buy _slaves_ or freemen.’