Year: 1860

I believe this is the first nation on God S
earth that ever put a being in human
form upon so low level as that. But
majority of the Court said that Dred
Scott being negro, descendant of Af-
rican ancestors, who having been slaves,
he could not maintain suit in that
Court, because he was not citizen. I
ask if that was not the end of that case?
Then, in the name of God, Judge Taney,
why did you retain it any longer2 1t
was settled upon every principle of ad-
! judication, and no Court was held to it
more solemnly than that one.


All, then, the Court may say beyond
the case was mere talk, and might just
as we'll have been uttered in bar-room
as in Court. The majority of that
Court are interested in that decision,
and, strange as it may appear, those who
complain of Northern aggression, have
had majority of that Court on their
side. I will not say that is the reason
why the decisions are magnifed to such
importance. The very men of the very
party who, few years ago, held these
decisions of no effect, have turned
around of late and have found a virtue
in that Court that can ride triumphantly
over every other part of this Government.
Such heresy, if persisted in, can result
in nothing but consolidated despotism.
And if the dicta, or talk of such Court
should be established, we will have the
weakest despotism that ever failed on
God Almighty's earth; for the doctrine
is so absurd it cannot stand.
When did they get the Constitutional
power to carry slaves into the Terrific
ries2 It is said now, that the Terrific
ries being the common property of the
States, each State has right to go into
them with any kind of property. 1 deny
the postulate. These Territories do not
belong to the States; they belong to the
people of the United States, and Con-
gress is the trustee for them. Suppose,
for instance, the Senator from Illinois,
(Mr. Douglas should own a plantation
in Mississippi, and should wish to take
slaves into Territory, which State in
it's sovereignty is affected? That where
the negroes are, or the State where the
slaves are owned? On the same ground
we might say, suppose, as will probably
be the case, we should annex the Fejee
Islands to this nation, and suppose the
Senator from the State of Fejee should
appear in this body, then | believe they
not only hold part of their population
in slavery, but they hold to eating a
portion of them.


/ Suppose he should take his chattels
to our territory and claim the protection
of our country, that he might practice
cannlbalism there, it is plain you would
be bound to protect him, else the State
of Fejec would not have her equal rights
with the other States He might say ii
is the law of my country. We have a
right to roast and eat this property, and
if you don't protect us in it, we will pull
down the pillars of this Republic and
involve all in one common ruin. sup
pose the Senator from Illinois would say
the Territories have perfect right to
have cannibalism or not, and he don't
care whether they have it or not; they
are perfectly free. Another Senator
says they have right to bring them
there, and be protected by the laws Of
Congress. Another man says Congress
has no right to pass laws, but the Courts
which are now omnipotent, can proclaim
law, and we must all bow down to it.
There is just this difference of opinion
on that side of the Chamber, but all
agree that slavery should be spread to
the ends of the earth But suppose an
other case. Suppose Brigham Young
should come from Utah to Kansas, OF
any other Territory, with his forty
wives, Brigham says these are my prop.
erty, and [ must have right to bring
them in here, or the State of Utah will
not have her equal rights Away with
such doctrine. There is no guarantee
in the Constitution for any such posi-
ton as that.


Our safety consists in keeping close
to the Constitution, and the moment we
stray from this we endanger the har-
mony of our action But waiving the
Constitutional law, I will suppose that
you have a right to take your slaves
into the Territories and hold them there
Still, sir, is it expedient, right and
proper to do it? And that brings me tc
consider question that has been Incl
dentally brought up. The fathers Of
the Republic, [ believe, without dis
senting voice, agreed that slaveholdine
was against the common right of man
was wrong in itself, and should not be
cherished But we find they did moi
understand it. And now the slavehold
ing States have found out slavery is the
natural condition of the black race anc
a blessing to society, and therefore ough
to be extended.


That is the only issue I wish to make
because | know your determination tt
extend slavery arising from this new
philosophy, that slavery is the norma
condition of the laboring man, and tina
it is right, just and proper, if not neees
sary to the happiness of all concerned
If you are right in that I will go with
YOU Let US extend it, and let US EN-
ploy missionaries to preach the glory o
slavery, and induce the whole world tt
turn shareholders or slaves, I am glac
at last to see this great question placed
on solid foundation, for every ma1
knows that no principle can be placee
on anything short of eternal justice ant
right. The Senator from Georgia may
tell us that slavery is the basis on which
society has been founded for thirty cen
turies. Sir, it is discovered that it is /;
sandy foundation which is fast washing
away with the advance of mankind il
civilization and knowledge. 1t is {
principle that is deemed barbarous, and
which is passing away. s25 y ls


i On that issue let us stand. Ifslavery
is right, let US extend it; if it is wrong
let it die the death. I hardly know how