194 



THE SOUTHERN PLANTER. 



Mr. "E." as the writer signs himself, my words, 

 it seems to me, cannot be made to bear any such 

 construction. For whatever may be the naked 

 import of the term inalienable, Avhen standing 

 alone, or in no particular connexion; yet when 

 found in a political instrument, and in relation 

 to the natural rights ©f all men, it usually and 

 very properly, it seems to me, denotes those in- 

 herent rights over which society has no control, 

 except to defend and protect he possessor in the 

 enjoyment of them. Hence, as any one I think 

 may see, by referring to the whole passage in 

 question, (p. 35^, I have simply stated the fact, 

 that such is the meaning attached to the expres- 

 sion inalienable rights by the abolitionists, with- 

 out intending to signalize this as one of their er- 

 rors. 1 have never regarded it as one of their 

 errors. On the contrary, it has ever appeared 

 to me a perfectly legitimate sense of the words, 

 and, accordingly, I have repeatedly so used them 

 myself. An inalienable right is-, it seems to me, 

 a right which the possessor of it cannot give up 

 or transfer to society, and which society cannot 

 take from him. 



Secondly, I have to reply that I do not "re- 

 ject the import of the terms." On the contrary, 

 as I have just declared, I hold an inalienable 

 right to be one which the individual cannot 

 transfer to society. But it is true that in deba- 

 ting the justice of slavery with the abolitionists, 

 I have laid this meaning of the terms out of the 

 question; because, as I have most explicitly sta- 

 ted, in regard to this meaning of the words 

 there is no dispute between us. Let the pas- 

 sage speak for itself. Here it is: "An inalien- 

 able right is either one which the possessor of 

 it himself 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 inalienable right; but in this sense it is not 

 pretended that the right to either life or liberty 

 has been transferred to society or alienated by the 

 individual. And if, as we have endeavored to 

 show, the right, or power, or authority of society 

 is not derived from a transfer of individual 

 rights, then it is clear that neither the right to 

 life nor liberty is transferred to society. That 

 is, if no rights are transferred, then these par- 

 ticular rights are still untransferred,*and, if you 

 please, untransferable. Be it conceded, then, 



THAT THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NEVER TRANSFERRED 

 HIS RIGHT TO LIFE OR LIBERTY TO SOCIETY." 



Hence, as in regard to this meaning of the 

 terms inalienable rights there was no dispute be- 

 tween us, so it was very properly laid aside, we 

 think, as having nothing to do with the contro- 

 versy. Most assuredly, if we mean to combat 

 the proposition of an adversary, we should take 

 its terms as he intends them to be understood. 



Thirdly, it seems hardly correct to ask, why I 

 have adopted "the view of the abolitionist?" 

 For, in reality, I have merely admitted that the 

 sense in which he "uses the expression, ina- 

 lienable rights," (p. 35), is one of its legitimate 



significations, and then proceeded to combat 

 " the view" which is peculiar to him, or which 

 may be properly called "the view of the aboli- 

 tionists." I adopt none of their views. I de- 

 clare eternal hostility to them. 



"Was it necessary," continues Mr. R., (p. 150) 

 "for his argument in behalf of slavery, to main- 

 tain that man has a right to alienate his life 

 and his liberty?" I answer, it was 'not atall ne- 

 cessary. It was necessary, however, to contend 

 that whatever may be a man's right, he certain- 

 ly has the power to alienate both his life and his 

 liberty, and that he sometimes exercises this fa- 

 tal power. No man, for example, has the right 

 to murder his fellow man ; but he has the power 

 to do so, and by the perpetration of so horrible 

 a crime, he alienates his own right to life, and 

 it is extinguished. He does not alienate it in 

 the sense above specified; that is, he does not 

 confer it upon society; but he casts it from him- 

 self, and it is forever gone. And society pro- 

 ceeds, not by virtue of any right derived from 

 him or his consent, but by virtue of authority 

 direct from God and from his law, to take away 

 that life to which he no longer has a right, and 

 which self-protection requires her to take. 



Nor is it otherwise with, liberty. The man 

 who has a right to freedom, has no right to 

 make his freedom a nuisance to society. But he 

 has the power to do so, if unrestrained and left 

 to himself. He may steal, slander, rob, mur- 

 der, kill, and in various other ways, wage war 

 against the peace and well-being of society. 

 Thus his right to freedom may, be alienated 

 from himself, though not conferred upon society; 

 which derives her sacred rights from a higher 

 source. Hence, she takes away no natural 

 right, when she proceeds to strip the villain of 

 his ill-used freedom, and secure herself against 

 his evil deeds. She takes no right from him ; 

 she merely Avields the right invested in herself 

 by God to keep such outlaws in their own place. 



But although it was not indispensably neces- 

 sary to assume such ground, I have not hesita- 

 ted to plant myself upon it, and as I trust not 

 without good and sufficient reason. For, if I 

 mistake not, a man may have " a right to alien- 

 ate his life and his liberty." If the public good 

 require, (and that is the case I have always put,) 

 then he has a right to alienate either life or lib- 

 erty ; or, in other words, if the sacred rights of 

 man demand the sacrifice, then may his life or 

 liberty be freely sacrificed. Nay, it were not 

 only his right, it were his bounden duty, to lay 

 down both life and liberty in such a cause. . Let 

 the abolitionists, for example, endeavor to urge 

 their bloody schemes upon the South by force 

 of arms, and what true man is there among us, 

 who does not purpose to lay down his life as 

 freely as he ever breathed the air of heaven? 



Here I beg that my precise expressions may 

 be noted. For these are very delicate, as well 

 as^ very difficult matters; and hence whosoever 

 aspires to the truth in regard to them should not 

 only think closely, but also narrowly watch his 



