This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1840. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... APPENDIX D. FREE AND FRIENDLY REMARKS On a speech lately delivered to the Senate of the United States, by Henry Clay, of Kentucky, on the subject of the abolition of North American slavery. It is to me a matter of regret and astonishment that so enlightened a statesman as Henry Clay, of Kentucky, can treat as a "visionary dogma," and "speculative abstraction," the simple, yet sacred proposition, that man cannot hold a property in his fellow man. Familiar as this gentleman must be with the distinction between de facto and de jure, he must surely have been aware that when tried by the former test--that of actual practice--such a proposition is no philosophical refinement, but a mere falsehood. Every one knows, that in point of fact, man is, to an enormous extent, held as the property of his fellow man; for example, in Russia, in connection with despotism, and in many of the United States, in connection with democracy. In both these instances, man-- immortal, rational man--is reduced to the condition of a chattel --may be bought, sold, mortgaged, bequeathed by will, given over as security for debts, &c. &c. Farther than this, it must be freely acknowledged, that so far as human laws are concerned, the de facto, in reference to this portentous subject, is supported by the de jure; since the property of man in his fellow man, is amply recognised--sanctioned, though not as this statesman would have it, " sanctified"--by the laws of the empire and of the states, to which I have now alluded. But when we treat the subject with a sole reference to the de jure, and take the de jure in its highest sense, as relating to the principles of justice, the immutable law of God, then the proposition that man cannot hold a property in his fellow man, is neither a speculative abstrac...