The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1860-06-04
LineoIn,s PoIifical Onintolls.

FOR SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, |
MILES J. FLETCHER, OF Putnam.
LincoIn's Political Opinions.
The Dred Scott Case.-The bred Scott
Decision of heSupreme Court is recognized |
both by the Democratic State Convention
and the Democratic National Convention at
Charleston as good law and good political
doctrine. Sound Democrats must swear by
it-none dare deny its correctness and bind
ing force on the party. Mr.. Douglas inter-
prets the decision one way-Mr. Buchanan
another but they are both agreed that
under that decision sLayes are recognized
and regarded as property by the Constitu-
ton of the United States.
We hear much of the bred Scott case,
but perhaps have reflected little upon it, and
know little of its force and effect upon the
nation We give the views of one Of the
soundest lawyers, ablest statesmen, and
elearest minds of the country upon it; and
we ask our readers if the argument is not
overwhelming?
In the joint debate at Galcshurgh, Mr.
Lincoln spoke as follows;
The essence of the Dred Scott case is
compressed into the sentence which l will
now read "NOw, as we have already said
in an earlier part of this opinion, upon Il
different point, the right of property in a
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in
the Constitution" [ repeat if, "The right
Of property IN a sZQce as distinctly ami e.
oressly affirmed IN the Constitution p What
is it to be "afrmed' in the Constitution p
Made firm in the Constitutions made
that it cannot be separated from the Consti-
tuition without breaking the Constitution
durable as the Constitution, and part of the
Constitution. Now, remembering the pro-
vision of the Constitution which | have
read, affirming that that instrument is the
supreme law of the land that the Judges Of
every State shall be bound by it, any law
or Constitution of any State to the contra
ry notwithstanding; that the right Of prop
erty in slave is affirmed in that Constitu-
ton, is made, formed into, and cannot be
separated from it without breaking it; dura-
bic as the instruments part OF the instru-
meEt what follows as short and even
syllogistic argument from il? think it
follows, and | submit to the consideration Of
men capable OF arguing, whether as | state
it, in syilogistic form, the argument has any
fault in it?
Nothing in the Constitution or laws Of
any State can destroy Il right distinctly and
expressly affirmed i'll the Constitution of
the United States.
The right of property in slave is dis
tinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con-
stitution of the United States.
Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or
laws Of any State can destroy the right of
property in a slave.
l believe that no fault can lie pointed out
in that argument; assuming the truth OF
the premises, the conclusion, 50 lar rs [
have capacity at all to understand it, follows
inevitably There is q fault in 1t as | think,
but the fault is not in the reasoning; but
the falsehood in fact is fault Of the prem
ises. | believe that the right Of property IN
slave is not distinctly and expressly
affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge
Douglas thinks it IS. | believe that the
Supreme Court and tile advocates Of that
decision may search 10 vain for The place in
the Constitution where the right of tie
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed.
| say, therefore, that l think one of the
premises is not true in fact But il is true
with Judge Douglas. Il is true with the
Supreme Court who pronounced it. I hey
are estopped from denying it, and being es-
topped from denying it, the conclusion fol-
lows that the Constitution Of the United
States being the supreme law, no constitu-
ton or law can interfere with il. It being
affirmed in the decision that the right OF
property in n slave Is distinctly and express
ly affirmed in the Constitution, the Conclu-
sion ueuitcblg folders that ao Stlts tar or
constitution can destroY that right | then
say to Judge Douglas and to Ill others, that
think it will take better answer than a
sneer to show that those who have said that
the right OF property in slave is distinctly
and expressly affirmed in the Constitutions
are not prepared to show that no constitn-
ton or law can destroy that right say
believe it will take far better argument
than a mere Sneer To show the minds Of IN
fellioent men that whoever has so said, is
not prepared, wherever public sentiment is
so far advanced as to Justify it, 70 say the
other. This is but an opinion, and the
opinion of one very humble man bat il Is
my opinion that The bred Scott decision, rs
it is, never would have been made in its pre-
sent form if The party that n,ade ii lad not
been sustained previously By the elecfiOHS.
My own opinion is, that the new bred Scott
decision deciding against the right Of the
people of the States to exclude slavery, will
never be made, II that party is not sustained
by the elections. believe, further, That II
q just rs sure 10 be g4uLe as f5-nortosr IS
20 come, u th0t party shoH tr ,usfu7ssd
Hosg Dougias regards H-At another de