But natural liberty—the power of one to do whatever he sees fit to do, subject only to the laws of nature—may have an existence, as by a man placed alone on a mountain, in a desert, or, like Selkirk, on an island in the ocean, for then, there are none his rights to dispute. But as man is a being of many wants, which he can not himself supply, such liberty is possibly the most grievous of all oppressions. From such liberty man flees to a state of society, and, in doing so, surrenders a portion of his natural rights that he may secure and enjoy others. This state, we concede, when natural liberty is so far restrained and no farther than is just essential, etc., is civil liberty. But what amount of restraint is just so essential is the great practical problem, at the very beginning of which the commentator’s theory ends. Settle this, and in the language of “great Cesar,” “Our toils may cease, The sword be sheathed, and earth be blessed with peace.” But how will you settle it by declaring unequals in nature, equals by force of law? The problem, by your theory of a general equality of the _genus homo_, ignoring the distinction of races, can not be solved, nor can peace and happiness return to the nation while legislation and nature are at war. You must concede the division of inequality of species, and upon that division frame your laws. Then may true civil liberty be assigned to all. Nature, though our greatest friend, is, at the same time, our greatest oppressor; for she keeps us in a constant struggle for life. We must be fed, and clothed, and sheltered, and, to be happy, must have many other wants supplied. To secure these we retreat into society, throw off native rights, and continue our retreat until we find the point at which our wants are best supplied. When we have done this, then have we found the true measure of our civil liberty. But, as species differ, both in their abilities and in their instincts, no two find their measures at the same point, but are scattered all along the line from the lowest to the highest endowment of intellectual man. The white man, in obedience to the demands of his own nature, must reserve dominion over himself, for the moment he surrenders it, he loses his liberty. But it is not so with the negro, for he is differently endowed, and a being of different wants. Where the white man’s nature craves for dominion, his craves for protection, and as that point is not attained short of an absolute surrender, he gives up self-dominion that he may receive, in return, that shelter which his nature desires. When this is done—when he has made the surrender and secured the protection, then has he attained to his time measure of civil liberty: then his cares of the future are thrown upon his master, and, as a consequence, he can sing, and dance, and chatter, regardless alike of what is or is to be, and live out his life in accordance with his own nature. Thus his