Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-06-29


obreak up the Union rather than submit 10
a denial Of your constitutional rights. That
has somewhat reckless sound; but il
would qe palliatcd, If not fully justified,
were We proposing, by the mere force Of
numbers, to deprive you Of some right,
plainly written down in the constitutional
But we arc proposing no such thing. When
you make these declarations, you have a
specific and we'll understood allusion to an
assumed constitutional right of yours, to
take slaves into the federal territories, and
to hold them there as property.
SILENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION AS TO THE
RIGHT OF TAKING SLAVES INTO THE TER
R1ToRIEs.
But no such right is specifically written
in the Constitution. That instrument is
literally silent about any such right. We,
on tho contrary, deny that such right has
any existence in the Constitution, even by
imp plcation. Applause Your purpose,
then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy
the Government unless you be allowed 10
construe and enforce the Constitution as
you please, on all points in dispute between
r you and us. You will ruin or rule in all
events. This, plainly stated, is your Ian
guago to us. Perhaps you will say that
? the Supreme Court has decided the disput-
t ed constitutional question in your favor
> Not quite SO. But waving the lawyers
) distinction between dctum and decision,
the Court have decided the question for you
$ in sort of way. The Court nave sub
I stantially said that it is your constitutional
right to take slaves into the Federal Ter
o rtores and hold them there as property
r When say the decision was made in
r sort of way, mean it was made in di-
: vided Court, by bare majority of the
5 Judges, and they not quite agreeing with
= one another in the reasons for making it;
that it is so made as that its avowed sup
Z. porters disagree with one another about its
Y meaning; and that it was mainly based up
,f on mistaken statement of the fact-the
+ statement in the opinion that "the right Of
n property in a slave is distinctly and express
e ly affirmed in the Constitution"
It SLAVES CONSIDERED AS PERSONS AND NOT
n As PROPERTY.
; An inspection Of the Constitution will
l. show that the right of property in a slave
is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in
it. (Applause.) Bear in mind, the judges
n do not pledge their judicial opinion that
n such right is implicitly affirmed in the Con-
G stitution; but they pledge their veracity that
}, it is distinctly and expressly affirmed there
IS -"distinctly is, not mingled with
n anything else-expressly, that is, in words
% meaning just that, without the aid of any
1t inference, and susceptible of no other mean
n ing If they had only pledged their judi
i. cal opinion that such right is affirmed in
!, the instrument by implication, it would be
J, open to others to show that neither the
# word 'slave" nor slavery" is to be found in
IS the Constitution, nor the word property
+; even, in any connection with language allud
3. ing to the things slave or slavery applause,
v and that wherever in that instrument the
e, slave is alluded to, he is called "person :
n- and wherever his masters legal right in re
lation to him is alluded to, it is spoken Q
ut "service or labor DUE as ''debt" payable
ID in service or labor. Also, it would be opel
e, to show, by cotemporaneous history, tha
e. this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery
d. instead OF speaking of them, was employed
he on purpose to exclude from the Constitu
Id ton the idea that there could be propert
We in man.
to THE SUPREME COURT TO RECONSIDER THEI
lr- DECISION.
IT. To show all this is easy and certain
IN When this obvious mistake of the Judge
ny shall be brought to their notice, is it nc
et' reasonable to expect that they will withdra
ve the mistaken statement, and reconsider tn
ID, conclusion based upon it2 And then it
)c- to be remembered that sour fathers wh
nd framed the government under which W
ID, lve"-the men who made the Constitute
or decided this same constitutional questio
'e- in our favor long ago-decided it withor
&C. division among themselves when maxim
IN the decision; without division among then
er selves about the meaning Of it after it ws
an made; and so far as any evidence is lef
without basiug it upon any mistaken statt
ment of facts. Under all these crcun
ed stances do you really feel yourselves just
to fed to break up ibis government unle'
le- such court decision of yours shall be sui
10. mitted to as conclusive and final rule
ly: actionY
IN DISSOLUTION or THE UNION.
q. But you will not abide the election of
elf Republican President. In that suppose
he event you say you will destroy the Unio
not and then you say the crime of having d
of stroyed it will be upon u.s. Laughter.
Mt. That is cool. Great laughter.] A hig
yer wayman holds pistol to my ear, and mt
Id ters through his teeth, "Stand and delivt
ent or shall kill you, and then you will be
re- murderer Continued laughter. To
- sure, what the robber demanded Of me-
ion my money-was my own-and had
ich clear right to keep it; but it was no mo
l. my own than my vote is my -["Tha
vas So" and applause ]-aud the threat Of dea
npt to me, to extort my money, and the thre
ing of destruction to the Union, to extort n
,ar- vote, can scarcely be distinguished in pri
the ciple.
oily A few words now to Republicans. 1t
air, exceedingly desirable that all parts of Il
the great confederacy shall be at peace and b;
the mony, one with another. Let us Repub
An cans do our part TO have itso. ["We wi