_nature_, such right must belong, not to the master of the mother, but
to the mother herself. They can have no right to it again, either on the
score of _reason_ or of _justice_. Debt and crime have been generally
admitted to be two fair grounds, on which men may be justly deprived of
their liberty for a time, and even made to labour, inasmuch as they
include _reparation of injury_, and the duty of the magistrate to _make
examples_, in order that he may not bear the sword in vain. But what
injury had the infant done, when it came into the world, to the master
of its mother, that reparation should be sought for, or punishment
inflicted for example, and that this reparation and this punishment
should be made to consist of a course of action and suffering, against
which, more than against any other, human nature would revolt? Is it
reasonable, is it just, that a poor infant who has done no injury to any
one, should be subjected, _he and his posterity for ever_, to _the
arbitrary will and tyranny of another_, and moreover to _the condition
of a brute_, because by _mere accident_, and by _no fault_ or _will of
his own_, he was born of a person, who had been previously in the
condition of a slave?

And as the right to slaves, because they were born slaves, cannot be
defended either upon the principles of reason or of justice, so this
right absolutely falls to pieces, when we come to try it by the
touchstone _of the Christian religion_. Every man who is born into the
world, whether he be white or whether he be black, is born, according to
Christian notions, a _free agent_ and _an accountable creature_. This is
the Scriptural law of his nature as a human bring. He is born under this
law, and he continues under it during his life. Now the West Indian
slavery is of such an arbitrary nature, that it may be termed _proper_
or _absolute_. The dominion attached to it is a despotism without
control; a despotism, which keeps up its authority by terror only. The