[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—­