Abraham Lincoln

reference to the laws of Missouri.' Five of the Justices, then (if no more of them), regard the law of Missouri

as decisive of the plaintiff's rights."]

[Footnote 35:--"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion upon a different point, the right

of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an

ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States in every

Abraham Lincoln

86

---

State that might desire it, for twenty years."--_Ch. J. Taney_, 19 _How. U.S.R_., p. 451. Vide language of Mr.

Madison, note 34, as to "merchandise."]

[Footnote 36:--Not only was the right of property not intended to be "distinctly and expressly affirmed in the

Constitution"; but the following extract from Mr. Madison demonstrates that the utmost care was taken to

avoid so doing:

"The clause as originally offered [respecting fugitive slaves] read, 'If any person LEGALLY bound to service

or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State," etc., etc. (Vol. 3, p. 1456.) In regard to

this, Mr. Madison says, "The term '_legally'_ was struck out, and the words 'under the laws thereof,' inserted

after the word State, in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term 'legally' equivocal and

favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral point of view."--Ib., p. 1589.]

[Footnote 37:--We subjoin a portion of the history alluded to by Mr. Lincoln. The following extract relates to

the provision of the Constitution relative to the slave trade. (Article I, Sec. 9.)

_25th August_, 1787.--The report of the Committee of eleven being taken up, Gen. [Charles Cotesworth]

Pinckney moved to strike out the words "the year 1800," and insert the words "the year 1808."

Mr. Gorham seconded the motion.

Mr. Madison--Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import

slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the

Constitution.

* * * * *

Mr. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once--

"The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited," etc.

This, he said, would be most fair, and would avoid _the _ ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to

naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known, also, that this

part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however, should be

objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

Col. Mason (of Virginia) was not against using the term "slaves," but against naming North Carolina, South

Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

Mr. Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress

and were not pleasing to some people.

Mr. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, said that _both in opinion and practice he was against slavery; but thought

it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia, on those

terms, than to exclude them from the Union_.

Mr. Morris withdrew his motion.

Mr. Dickinson wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the

importation of slaves, and for that purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read--

Abraham Lincoln

87

---

"The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be prohibited by the

Legislature of the United States, until the year 1808," which was disagreed to, _nem. con_.

The first part of the report was then agreed to as follows:

"The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit,

shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808."

* * * * *

Mr. Sherman was against the second part ["but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or

importation at a rate not exceeding _the average of the duties laid on imports_"], as acknowledging men to be

property by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

* * * * *

Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the like idea that there could be property in men.

The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves _are not, like merchandise_, consumed.

* * * * *

It was finally agreed, _nem. con_., to make the clause read--

"But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each

PERSON."--_Madison Papers, Aug_. 25, 1787.]

[Footnote 38:--Compare this noble passage and that at page 18, with the twaddle of Mr. Orr (note 30), and the

slang of Mr. Douglas (note 37).]

[Footnote 39:--That demand has since been made. Says MR. O'CONOR, counsel for the State of Virginia in

the Lemon Case, page 44: "We claim that under these various provisions of the Federal Constitution, a citizen

of Virginia has an immunity against the operation of any law which the State of New York can enact, whilst

he is a stranger and wayfarer, or whilst passing through our territory; and that he has absolute protection for

all his domestic rights, and for all his rights of property, which under the laws of the United States, and the

laws of his own State, he was entitled to, whilst in his own State. We claim this, and neither more NOR

LESS."

Throughout the whole of that case, in which the right to pass through New York with slaves at the pleasure of

the slave owners is maintained, it is nowhere contended that the statute is contrary to the Constitution of New

York; but that the statute and the Constitution of the State are both contrary to the Constitution of the United

States.

The State of Virginia, not content with the decision of our own courts upon the right claimed by them, is now

engaged in carrying this, the Lemon case, to the Supreme Court of the United States, hoping by a decision

there, in accordance with the intimations in the Dred Scott case, to overthrow the Constitution of New York.

Senator Toombs, of Georgia, has claimed, in the Senate, that laws of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin, for the exclusion of slavery,

conceded to be warranted by the State Constitutions, are contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and

has asked for the enactment of laws by the General Government which shall override the laws of those States

and the Constitutions which authorize them.]

Abraham Lincoln

88

---

[Footnote 40:--"Policy, humanity, and Christianity, alike forbid the extension of the evils of free society to

new people and coming generations."--_Richmond Enquirer, Jan_. 22, 1856.

"I am satisfied that the mind of the South has undergone a change to this great extent, that it is now the almost