misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrections, blood, and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection twenty-eight years ago, in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United States I do not think a general or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are nor can be supplied the indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by southern people about the affections of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case only about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and by consequence averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open.

or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local revolts, extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears or much hopes for such an event will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "it is still in our power to direct the progress of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slave-holding States only. The Federal government however as we insist has the power of restraining the extension of the institution-the power to ensure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.

In

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insur rection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. fact it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts related in history at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon and John

Vol. 16-D

Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy,

precisely the same. land in the one case and on New England in the other does not disprove the sameness of the two things.

The eagerness to cast blame on old Eng

And how much would it avail you if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's Book, and the like break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified to some extent but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a fceling against slavery in this nation which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling that sentiment—by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some right plainly written down in the constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into the Federal Territories and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We on the contrary

deny that such a right has any existence in the constitution even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the constitution as you please on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But, waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court have substantially said it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided court by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact-the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the constitution."

An inspection of the constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there" distinctly," that is, not mingled with anything else; "expressly," that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such'

66

nor

right is affirmed in the instrument by implication it would be open to others to show that neither the word "slave slavery" is to be found in the constitution, nor the word property," even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to he is called a "person;" and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due,"—as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show by contemporaneous history that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

66

And then it is to be remembered that our fathers who framed the government under which we live "—the men who made the constitution-decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago: decided it without division among themselves when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and so far as any evidence is left without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government, unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event you say you will destroy the Union; and