Early in Barbour’s notes, Holcombe presented an argument about the Fugitive Slave Law similar to that reflected in Thurmond’s notes from the same Junior Law class in 1856: that the Fugitive Slave Law, according to Holcombe, actualized a commitment to higher legal ideals by the federal government, and that the welfare of society at large was threatened by abolitionists. Then, Holcombe pivoted to a rebuke of English criticism of American slavery, pointing to the English colonization of India as the basis for an argument that southern enslavers possessed a parallel right over those they enslaved.
"The fugitive slave law was passed and acknowledged as law - & yet the abolitionists think it right to break those laws for conscience sake as they say which is sitting false. The question is does the moral law leave it to our decision [illegible] - suppose their god gave him the right to [illegible] the law - our rights are not those that we would have in a natural state -- that is by ourselves, but they are relative, they depend on our condition in society, there can be no uniform measure of restraint laid down [...]
Parallelism between the case of the right that England claims over India & that of southern masters over their slaves
The English government says that they have a right to hold India in subjection & yet they disapprove of our system of slavery - saying that every individual has a right to his freedom holding according to this (law?) the enslaving of a whole country is perfectly right but to enslave individuals is wrong which is as absurd if they held that India is benefited by being subject to their laws & it is not the case with slaves, they derive a hundred percent more benefit from their association with the government of their masters than ever India derived from those of England." (p. 4)