The first of these, it will no doubt readily be seen, can have no existence below him to whom all things move by command. For none other can do whatever he sees fit to do, consequently such liberty has no existence in the world of men.
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 civil liberty and the civil liberty of the white man are as opposite as are the colors of their skins. One man is a being dominant and commanding; the other inferior and subordinate, and by this opposition do they harmonize in civil life. One supplies what the other wants; one thinks and directs, the other labors and obeys, and, as a consequence, the circle is complete. If one gets hands to do his physical labor, the other gets a mind, superior to his own, for his care and protection.
The negro, as a slave, is contented with his lot, and, under it, is the freest as well as the happiest man in the world; for he is freed from the cares of life, and particularly from the cares of state, which, on the civilized plane, he has ever found himself unable successfully to manage.
His subordination as a race of man pertains to him alone; and yet we have a very marked parallel within the very limits of our own species. We are males and females; but to the male alone belongs the desire of dominion. Our women reject the right of suffrage and official position in the state. They do not want to be voters, or legislators, or officers in command, nor do they even want the position of suitors in our courts of law; because such rights to them are burdens, therefore do they reject them, and find their civil liberty, not by accepting, but by rejecting those very rights which alone make their husbands freemen. Why is this so? It is because, in nature, the woman is subordinate to the man, as is also the negro to the Caucasian species.