their persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, which
taught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. "Partus
sequitur ventrem," says this law, or the "condition or lot of the mother
determines the condition or lot of the offspring." It is the same law,
which we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession.
Thus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to the
man who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, which
were the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law,
and not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to the
services of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this law
they denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral and
intellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves,
and they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, as
upon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however,
their efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the House
of Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed the
falsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affections
and the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same as
those of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For as
it takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicable
to those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?

This is the grand plea, upon which our West Indian planters have founded
their right to the perpetual services of their _Creole_ slaves. They
consider them as the young or offspring of cattle. But as the slaves in
question have been proved, and are now acknowledged, to be the offspring
of men and women, of social, intellectual, and accountable beings, their
right must fall to the ground. Nor do I know upon what other principle
or right they can support it. They can have surely no _natural right_ to
the infant, who is born of a woman slave. If there be any right to it by