it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact—­the statement in the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."[35]

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not “distinctly and expressly affirmed” in it.  Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is “distinctly and expressly” affirmed there—­“distinctly,” that is, not mingled with anything else—­“expressly,” 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 “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a “person";—­and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which may be due,”—­as a debt payable in service or labor.[36] Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

    To show all this, is easy and certain.[37]

    When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their
    notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
    mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live”—­the men who made the Constitution—­decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago—­decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action?  But you 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 having destroyed it will be upon us!  That is cool.  A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver or