Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-03-03
docs not disprOve the sameness of the twO

does not disprove the sameness of the two
things
And how much would it avail you if
you could, by the use of John Brown, Hell
per's book, and the like, break up the Re-
publican organization? Human action
can bc modified to some extent, but haman
nature cannot be changed. There is n
judgement and feeling against slavery in
this nation, which cast mt least million
and half of votes. You cannot destroy
that sentiment-by breaking up the organ
ization which rallies around it. HOu can
scarcely scatter and disperse an army which
has been formed into order in the face of
yonr heaviest fire, but if you could, how
much would you gain by forcing the senti-
ment 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 by the operation?
But you will break up the Union, rather
than submit to denial of your constitu-
tonal rights
That las 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 con-
stitution. But we are proposing no such
thing.
When you make these declarations, you
have q specific and we'll understood
allusion to an assumed constitutional
right of yours, to take slaves into the feder-
al territories, and to hold them there as
property. But no such right is spccifical-
~ written in the constitution. That in
strument is literally silent about any such
right. We, on the contrary, deny that
such right has any existence in the con-
stitution, 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 to
us. Perhaps you will say the Supreme
Court has decided the disputed cOns,itu-
tional question in your favor. Not quite
so. But, waving the lawyers distinction
between dictum and decision, the court
have decided the question for yOu in -
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 say the decision was made i'll
! sort of Il way, mean it was made i'll Il
divided court, by Il bare majority OF the
| judges, and they not quite agreeing with
| one another in the reasons for making 1t;
that it is so made as that its avowed sup
portcrs disagree with one another about
| its meaning; and that it was mainly based
upon mistaken statement of fact-the
statement in the opinion that "the right of
property in a slave is distinctly and eX-
pressly affirmed in the constitution"
An inspection of the constitution will
show that the right of property in slave
| is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in
it.. Bear in mind the judges do not pledge
their judicial opinion that such right is
implicitly affirmed in the constitution; but
they pledge their veracity that it is dis
tinctIy and expressly affirmed there
''distinctlyn-that is, not mingled with any
thing elsc-"expressly" ly"-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 right is affirmed in the
instrument by implication, it would be
open to others to show that neither the
word "slaven or 'sIavery' is to be found
in the constitution, nor the word proper
ty'' even, in any connection with language
nlluding to the things slave or slavery, and
| that wherever in the instrument the slave
| is alluded to he is called ''a personi" and
wherever his masters legal right in Tela-
/
ssservicc or labor due" as "debt'' payable
in service or labor. Also, it would be open
to show, by contemporaneous history, that
this mode of alluding to slaves and slave
| ry instead of speaking of them. was en-
ployed 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 judg-
es shall be brought to their notice is it not
reasonable to expect that they will with
! draw the mistaken statement, and recon-
| slider the conclusion based upon il?
And then it is to be remembered that
tour fathers, who framed the government
under which we live"-the men who made
the Observation-Disclosures this same con-
stitutionaI question in our favor, long ago
I-dccidcd it without division among
themselves, when making the decisions
without division among themselves about
tho meaning of il after it was made, and so
| far as any evidence is left, wthOat basinS
| it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
| Under all these circumstances, do you
really feel yourselves justified to break up
this government, unless such court de-
cision as yours is shall be mt once submit
ted to as a conclusive and final rule of po-
| litical action?
| But vou will not abide the election of a
| Republican President. In that supposed
| event, you say, you will destroy the Union;
and then you say, the great crime OF hay
! ing destroyed il will be upon us!
! That is cool. a higlwayman holds IL
pistol TO my ear, and mutters through his
teeth, ''Stiind and deliver, or shall kill
you, and then you will be a murderer
To be sure, what the robber demanded
of me-my money-was my own; and
had clear right to keep ii; but it was no
more my own than my vote is my own and