The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. I., No. 6, February, 1835Various
History
The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. I., No. 6, February, 1835
Various
American literature -- 19th century -- Periodicals
Now it is obvious, I think, that this argument, duly considered, very
fairly answers, by anticipation, the new matter which the Annotator has
brought into view. For how, I ask, can a temporary right to confine
your captive _durante bello_, become the basis for the transfer of an
absolute right to enslave and deport him? Obviously, if I must even
grant that you can transfer your right of self-defence, or the powers
which it involves, to a neutral, (which I might well question,) you can
only transfer it to the extent to which you possess it yourself. But
your right over your prisoner of war ceases with your war against the
nation, or tribe, to which he belongs. And what right, then, can you
have to hand him over to an assignee, who you know will continue his
dominion over him, (and over his children after him,) without putting
it in your power again to restore him, as in duty bound, upon the
cessation of hostilities, to his family and friends? Or what right can
your assignee have to hold the prisoner under your assignment, one
moment after your right itself has run out? Obviously, none at all. A
holds a slave, who is to serve for the life of B, but to be free
afterwards, and sells him to C in fee simple; what right has C to hold
him after the death of B? Clearly none at all.
There is no escaping from the force of this argument, as far as I can
see, but by maintaining, (as the Annotator indeed seems disposed to
do,) that barbarians can have no peace with each other; but that war
among them must be waged _ad internecionem_, to the point of mutual
extermination, or something equivalent. But this notion is plainly more
barbarous than the practice of the most barbarous tribes that we have
ever read, or heard of; for there is not one of them that does not make
peace, after its fashion; (or did not at least, before our European
slavers taught them a different lesson,) and the act of making peace
obviously implies that there can be, and is, a reasonable security
against future hostilities, without the destruction of either party.
And there is no tribe on earth, I suppose, (or was not before the
slave-trade began,) so absolutely and desperately barbarous as to
insist upon holding its captives after the war is over, and the treaty
of peace fairly ratified by a smoking match, or a dance upon the green.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account