THE 



SOUTHERN 



Devoted to Agriculture, Horticulture, and the Household Arts. 



Agriculture is the nursing mother of the Arts. I Tillage and Pasturage are the two breasts of 

 °—Xenophon. | the State.— Sully. 



FRANK. G. RUFFIN, Editor. 



F. G. RUFFIN & N. AUGUST, Prop'rs. 



Vol. XVI. 



RICHMOND, JULY, 1856. 



No. 7. 



COMMUNICATION. 



To the Editor of the Southern Planter: 



My Dear Sir — I have read, with unmixed 

 pleasure, the critique in your last number on 

 my little book, entitled ''Liberty and Slavery," 

 and desire thus publicly to thank the writer 

 for his manly strictures no less than for his 

 generous praise. Indeed, as truth is dearer to 

 every true man than reputation, so such criti- 

 cism should be more coveted than the most ex- 

 alted enconiums. Hence, if it were not believed 

 that truth is involved in the issue, I should far 

 more reluctantly endeavor to repel the charges 

 which have been urged against my little essay. 



I fear, sir, that there must be some want of 

 clearness in my expressions, or some other defect 

 in my mode of presenting the subject treated of, 

 since so able a critic has charged me, not only 

 with self-contradiction in regard to a funda- 

 mental point, but also with having "surrend- 

 ered the argument" to the abolitionists. On 

 the other hand, it has seemed to me, that if he 

 had more carefully weighed the import of my 

 words, he would have seen that the self-contra- 

 diction complained of is apparent only, and not 

 real. This point, however, I shall not presume 

 towdecide, but cheerfully submit it to the determi- 

 nation of the impartial reader. 



The strictures in question are introduced with 

 the remark, that the abolitionists usually appeal 

 to the Declaration of Independence. This is 

 very true. The Declaration of Independence 

 is, as understood by themselves, the great strong- 

 hold of the abolitionists. At the very last meet- 

 ing of the "American Anti-Slavery Society," 

 in which Wm. Loyd Garrison, Lucy Stone, Theo- 

 dore Parker, and Lucretia Mott, acted the most 

 conspicuous parts, it was resolved that slavery 

 "is not a debateable question, any more than is 

 the right to commit adultery, burglary, high- 

 way robbery, or piracy." " And to every de 

 fence or apology" thereof, continues the resolu 

 tion, "ours is the good old revolutionary reply 

 "We hold these truths to be self-evident — that 

 all men are created equal; that they are en 



rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and 

 the pursuit of happiness." 



"Professor Bledsoe," says the writer in 

 question^ "concludes a strong reply to this 

 fallacy with a declaration in conflict, as it seems 

 to us, with his own principles and subversive of 

 his argument." This charge is based on the 

 fact, that I have asserted "that life and liberty 

 are not inalienable," (article p. 150;) yet, if I 

 am not very greatly mistaken, this assertion 

 may be_ thoroughly vindicated, as well as recon- 

 ciled with every other portion of my essay on 

 Liberty and Slavery. But let the reader see, 

 and judge for himself. 



I have questioned, it is true, and still do 

 question, that portion of the Declaration of 

 Independence, which asserts for all men an 

 inalienable right to life and liberty. And if I 

 am wrong here, we should be compelled, it 

 seem to me, really to surrender the argument to the 

 abolitionists, and allow their insulting insolence 

 to go unchecked. But let us see, in the first 

 place, if, in assuming this position, I have con- 

 tradicted myself. 



Having referred to this position, that life and 

 liberty may be alienated, the writer of the arti- 

 cle in question continues : "Yet the author had 

 previously pointed out the error of defining ina- 

 lienable rights, as those over which society had 

 no control. . 'An inalienable right,' he says (p. 

 35) is either one which the possessor of it him- 

 self cannot alienate or transfer, or it is one 

 which society has not the power to take from 

 him. According to the import of the terms, the 

 first would seem to be what is meant by an alien- 

 able right. But 'according to the view of the 

 Abolitionists, an alienable right is one of which 

 society itself cannot, without doing wrong, de- 

 prive the individual/ Why, we respectfully 

 ask, does the author reject the 'import of the 

 terms/ and adopt 'the view of the abolition- 

 ists?' " On this passage, I have several distinct 

 remarks to offer. 



In the first place, nothing was farther from 

 my intention than to point out "the error of de- 

 fining inalienable rights as those over which 



dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable J society had no control;" and, with all respect for 



