^^ ^^ \t .o^.->,'^o. ./^>^'\> .^°/^<>- /' '* -0 i°-^* ^9^ I ■« ^ ^ " o, ^0 r LOYAL PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 863 BROADWAY. JTo^ 51. P0 ^x^txii ill ^UtK si^EEOiEi o:f Hon. CHARLES SUMNER, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION ABOLISHING SLAVERY THROUGH THE UNITED STATES. Li the Senate of the United States, April 8th, 1864. NEW YORK : Published by the Loyal League Publication Society. 1864. LOYAL PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 863 BROADWAY, NEW YORK. DECJ-ARATORY RESOLUTION- . The object of the Society is expressed in the following Resolu- tion^ formally adopted hy unanimous vote of the Society, at its first Anniversary Meeting, February 13, 18G4. Resolved and declared, That the object of the Loyal Publication Society is, and shall be, to pubhsh and distribute tracts, papers and journals, of unquestionable loyalty, throughout the United States, in the cities and the country, in the army and navy, and in hospitals, thus to diffuse knowledge and stimulate a broad national patriotism, and to aid in the suppression of the Rebelhon by the extinction of its causes, and in the preservation of the in- tegrity of the Nation, by counteracting the efforts of the advocates of a dis- graceful and disintegrating Peace. Persons sympathising witli the design of this Society, and wishing to contribute to its support, may address MORRIS KETCHUM, Esq., Treasurer, 40 Exchange Place, by whom receipts will be promptly returned. OFFICERS OF THE SOCIETY. President* Treasurer* FRANCIS LIEBER. MORRIS KETCHUM. Secretary. JOHN AUSTIN STEVENS, Jb. Finance Committee* JAMES A. ROOSEVELT, Chairman, T. B. CODDINGTON, WILLIAM E. DODGE, Jr. DAVID DOWS, ^^,,, „ ,.^T,a.^.T JACKSON S. SCHULTZ. ' LEVI P. MORTON. l:*ubllcutlon Committee* JAMES McKAYE, Ghairmajt, GROSVENOR P. LOWREY, JOHN AUSTIN STEVENS, Ja., DR. R SCHUTZ, CHARLES ASTOR BRISTED, GEO. P. PUTNAM, THEODORE G. GLAUBENSKLEE. ExccutlTe Coniinlttee* WILLIAM T. BLODGETT, CnATRWAN, CHRISTIAN E. DETMOLD, J. BUTLER WRIGHT, GEORGE GIBBS, LE GRAND B. CANNO:^ SINCLAIR TOUSEY, W. C. CHURCH, CHARLES BUTLER GEORGE BLISS, Jr. LOYAL PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 863 BROADWAY. J\^o. 51. NO PROPEllTY IN MAN. SI^EECKC OF Hon. CHARLES SUMNER, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION ABOLISHING SLAVERY THROUGH THE UNITED STATES. In the Senate of the United States, April 8th, 1864. NEW YORK ; Published by the Loyal Publication Society. 186 4 t 3d ^«t^ IL^ Loyal Leagues, Clubs, or individuals may obtain any of our Publications at the cost price, by application to t\e Executive Committee, or by calling at the Rooms of the Society, No, 863 Broadway, where all information may be obtained relating to the Society, ..... jangre x'eabody Inat.,Balto, Jan. -28 < n NO PROPERTY IN MAN. >> SPEECH OF HON. CHARLES SUMNER, ON THE Proposed Amendment of the Constitution Abolishing Slavery through the United States, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 8, 1864. "Maj^ not Congress pronounce all slaves free? The Constitution speaks to the point. They have the poicer in clear and uncqvicocal terms, and will clearly and certainly ixercise it. — Patrick Henry Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, if an angel from the skies or a stranger from another planet were permitted to visit this earth and to examine its surface, who can doubt that his eyes would rest with astonishment upon the outstretched extent and exhaustlesa resources of this Republic of the New World, young in years but already rooted beyond any dynasty in history? In proportion as he considered and understood all those things among us which enter into and constitute the national life, his astonishment would increase, for he would find a numerous people, powerful beyond precedent, without a king or a noble, but with the schooLnaster instead. And yet the astonishment which he confessed, as all these things appeared before him, would swell into marvel as he learned that in this Republic, which had arrested his admiration, where there was neither king nor noble, but the schoolmaster in- stead, there were four million human beings in abject bondage, degraded to be chattels, under the pretense of property in man, driven by the lash like beasts, despoiled of all rights, even the right to knowledge and the sacred right of family ; so that the relation of husband and wife was impossible and no parent could claim his own child; while all were condemned to brutish igno- rance. Startled by what he beheld, the stranger would naturally inquire by what authority, under what sanction, and through what terms of law or Constitution, this fearful inconsistency, so shock- ing to human nature itself, continued to be upheld. But his growing astonishment would know no bounds, when he was pointed to the Constitution of the United States, as the final guardian and conservator of this peculiar and many-headed wickedness. "And is it true," the stranger would exclaim, "that in laying the foundations of this Republic, dedicated to human rights, all these wrongs have been positively established ?" He would ask to see that Constitution and to know the fatal words by which the sacrifice was commanded. The trembling with which he be- gan its perusal would be succeeded by joy as he finished it ; for he would find nothing in that golden text, not a single sentence, phrase, or word even, to serve as origin, authority, or apology, for the outrage. And then his astonishment, already knowing no bounds, would break forth anew, as he exclaimed, " Shameful and irrational as is slarery, it is not more shameful or irrational than that unsupported interpretation which undertakes to make your Constitution the final guardian and conservator of this terrible and unpardonable denial of human rights." Such a stranger as I have described, coming from afar, with eyes which no local bias had distorted, and with understanding which no local custom had disturbed, would naturally see the Constitution precisely as it is in its actual text, and he would in- terpret it in its true sense, without prepossession or prejudice. — Of course he would know, what all jurisprudence teaches and what all reason confirms, that human rights cannot be taken away by any indirection or by any vain imagining of something that was intended but was not said, and, as a natural consequence, that slavery can exist — if exist it can at all — only by virtue of a posi^ live text, and that what is true of slavery is true also of all its incidents ; and the enlightened stranger would insist that in all interpretation of the Constitution, that cardinal principal must never for a moment be out of mind, but must be kept ever forward as guide and master, that slavery cannot stand o?i inference, nor can any support of slavery stand on inference. Thus informed, and in the light of a pervasive principle. " IIow far tliat little candle throws its beams !" he would peruse the Constitution from beginning to end, from its opening preamble to its final amendment, and then the joyful opinion would be given. There are three things which he would observe : first and fore- most, that the dismal words " slave " and " slavery " do not ap- pear in the Constitution ; so that if the unnatural pretension of property in man lurk anywhere in that text, it is under a feigned name or an alias^ which of itself is cause of suspicion, while an imperative rule renders its recognition impossible. Next, he would consider the preamble, which is the key to open the whole succeeding instrument; but here no single word can be found which does not open the Constitution to freedom and close it to slavery. The object of the Constitution is announced to be "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure do- mestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity;" all of which, in every particular, is absolutely inconsistent with slavery. And thirdly, he would observe those time-honored, most efficacious, chain-breaking words in the Amend- ments : " No person shall he deprived of life, liberty^ or property, without due process of law.''^ Scorning all false interpretations and glosses which may have been fastened upon the Constitution as a support of slavery, and with these three things before him, he would naturally declare that there was nothing in the original text on which this hideous wrong could be founded anywhere within the sphere of its operation. With astonishment he would ask again by what strange delusion or hallucination the reason had been so far overcome as to recognize slavery in the Constitu- tion, when plainly it is not there, and cannot be there ? The answer is humiliating, but it is easy. People naturally find in texts of Scripture the support of their own religious opinions or prejudices ; and, in the same way, they naturally find in texts of the Constitution the support of their own political opinions or prejudices. And this may not be in either case because Scripture or Constitution, when truly interpre- ted, support these opinions or prejudices ; but because people are apt to find in texts simply a reflection of themselves. Most clearly and indubitably, whoever finds any support of slavery in the Constitution of the United States has first found such support in himself; not that he will hesitate, perhaps, to condemn slavery in words of approved gentleness, but because from unhappy edu- cation or more unhappy insensibility to this wrong, he has already conceded to it a certain traditional foothold of immunity, which he straightway transfers from himself to the Constitution. In dealing with this subject, it is not the Constitution, so much as human nature itself, which has been at fault. Let the people change, and the Constitution will change also ; for the Constitu- tion is but the shadow, while the people are the substance. But under the influence of the present struggle for national life, and in obedience to its incessant exigencies, the people have ' already changed, and in nothing so much as slavery. Old opin- ions and prejudices have dissolved, and that traditional foothold which slavery once possessed has been gradually weakened until now it scarcely exists. Naturally this change must sooner or later show itself in the interpretation of the Constitution. But it is already visible even there, in the concession of powers over slavery which were formerly denied. The time, then, has come when the Constitution, which has been so long interpreted for slavery, may be interpreted for freedom. This is one stage of tri- umph. Universal emancipation, which is at hand, can be won only by complete emancipation of the Constitution itself, which has been degraded to wear chains so long that its real character is scarcely known. Sometimes the concession is made on the ground of military necessity. The capacious war powers of the Constitution are in- voked, and it is said that in their legitimate exercise slavery may be destroyed. There is much in this concession; more even than is imagined by many from whom it proceeds. It is war, say they, which puts these powers in motion ; for they forget that wherever slavery exists there is perpetual war — that slavery itself is a state of war between two races, where one is for the moment victor — pictured accurately by Jefferson when he described it as " permit- ting one half of the citizens to trample on the rights of the other, transforming those into enemies, and these into despots." There- fore, wherever slavery exists, even in seeming peace, the war pow- ers may be invoked to put an end to a condition which is interne- . cine, and to overthrow pretensions which are hostile to every at- tribute of the Almighty. But it is not on military necessity alone that the concession is made. There are many who, as they read the Constitution now, see its powers over slavery more clearly than before. The old superstition is abandoned ; and they join with Patrick Henry when, in the Virginia convention, he declared the power of manu- mission was given to Congress. He did not hesitate to argue against the adoption of the Constitution because it gave this power. And shall we be less perspicacious for freedom than this Virginia statesman was for slavery ? Discerning this power he confessed his dismay ; but let us confess our joy. We have already seen that slavery can find no support in the Constitution. Glance now at the positive provisions by which it is brought completely under the control of Congress. 1. First among the powers of Congress and associated with the power to lay and collect taxes, is that " to provide for the common defence and general welfare.'* It has been questioned whether this is a substantive power, or simply incident to that with which it is associated. But it seems difficult, if not absurd, to insist that Congress has not this substantive power. Shall it not provide for the common defence? Shall it not provide for the general welfare ? If it cannot do these things in a great crisis it had better abdicate. In the discussions on the Constitution in the Virginia convention, Mr. George Mason, one of its most de- cided opponents, said ; " That Congress should have power to pro- vide for the general welfare of the Union, I granV (2 Eliot's Debates, 327.) But the lai^guage of Patrick Henry, to which allusion has been already made, was still more explicit. He fore- saw that this power would naturally be directed against slaveryj and he said : " Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects. We deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Con- gress. Let that urbanity which, I trust, will distinguish Ameri- cans, and the necessity of national defence — let all these things operate on their minds; they will search that paper [the Constitu- tion] and see if they have the power of manumission. And have they not, sir ? Have they not the power to provide for the general defence and welfare f May they not think that they call for the abolition of slavery ? May they not pronounce all the slaves free ? And will they not be warranted by that power ? This is no am- biguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point. They have the power in clear and unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.'' — Eliot's Debates, vol. 3. p. 590. Language could not be more positive. To all who ask for the power of Congress over slavery, here is a sufficient answer ; and remember that this is not my speech, but the speech of Patrick Henry, who says that the Constitution " speaks to the point." 2. Next comes the clause, " Congress shall have power to de- clare war ; to raise and support armies ; to provide and maintain a navy." A power like this is from its very nature unlimited. — In raising and supporting an army, in providing and maintaining a navy. Congress is not restrdined to any particular class or color. It may call upon all and authorize that contract which the Govern- ment makes with an enlisted soldier. But such a contract would be in itself an act of manumission ; for a slave cannot make a contract. And if the contract be followed by actual service, who can deny its completest efficiency in enfraiichising the soldier- slave and his whole family ? Shakspeare, immortal teacher, gives expression to an instinctive sentiment wlien ho makes Henry V, 8 on the eve of the battle of Agincourt, encourages his men by pro- mising, '* For he to-day that sheds his blood with me, Shall be my brother ; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition.''^ 3. There is still another clause; "The United States shall guaranty to every state in this Uuion a republican form of govern- ment." There again is a plain duty. But the question recurs, what is a republican form of government ? John Adams, in the correspondence of his old age, says : " The customary meanings of the words republic and common- wealth have been infinite. They have been applied to every Gov- ernment under heaven ; that of Turkey and that of Spain, as well as that of Athens and of Rome, of Geneva and San Marino." — Johji Adam's Works, volume 10, page 378. But the guarantee of a republican form of government must have a meaning congenial with the purposes of the Constitution. If a Government like that of Turkey, or even like that of Yenice, could come within the scope of this guarantee, it would be of little value. It would be words and nothing more. Evidently it must be construed so as to uphold the Constitution according to all the promises of its preamble, and Mr. Madison has left a record, first published to the Senate by the distinguished Senator from Ver- mont, [Mr. CoLLAMER,] the chairman of the Committee on the Library, showing that it was originally suggested in part by the fear of slavery, so that in construing it we must not forget slavery. The preamble and the record are important, disclosing the real intention of this guarantee. But no American need be at a loss to designate some of the distinctive elements of a republic ac- cording to the idea of American institutions. These will bo found, first, in the Declaration of Independence, by which it is solemnly announced " that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." xind they will be found, secondly, in that other guarantee and prohibition of the Constitution, in harmony with the Declaration of Independence : " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. "^^ Such are some of the essential elements of a " republican form of governmentj" which cannot be disowned by us without disowning the very muniments of our liberties ; and it is these which the United States arc bound to guaranty. But all these make slavery impossible. It is idle to say that this result was not an- ticipated. It would be, then, only another illustration that our fathers " builded wiser than they knew." 4. But, independent of the clause of guarantee, there is the clause just quoted, which in itself is a source of power : "No per- ^on shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property wit/wut due pro- cess of law." This was a part of the amendments to the Constitu- tion proposed by the First Congress, under the popular demand for a Bill of Rights. Though brief, it is in itself alone a whole Bill of Rights. Liberty can be lost only by " due process of law," words borrowed from the old liberty-loving common law, illustra- ted by our master in law. Lord Coke, but best explained by the late Mr. Justice Bronson, of New York, in a judicial opinion where he says : " The meaning of the section then seems to be, that no member of the State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of his rights or privileges unless the matter shall be adjudged against him upon trial had according to the course of common law. The words *due process of law ' in this place cannot* mean less* than a prose- cution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed forms and solemnities for ascertaining guilt or determining the title to property." — 4 Hiirs Reports, 146. Such is the protection which is thrown by the Constitution over every " person," without distinction of race or color, class or condition. There can be no doubt about the universality of this protection. All, without exception, come within its scope. Its natural meaning is plain ; but there is an incident of history which makes it plainer still, excluding all possibility of misconcep- tion. A clause of this character was originally j-ecommended as an amendment by two slave States, North Carolina and Virginia, but it was restrained by them to freemen, thus : " No freemen ought to be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the law of the land^ But, when the recommendation came before Congress, the word " person " was substituted for *' freemen," and the more searching phrase "due process of law" was substituted for " the law of the land." In making this change, rejecting the recommendation of two slave States, the authors of this amend- ment revealed their purpose, that no person wearing the human form should be deprived of liherty without due process of law ; and the proposition was adopted by the votes of Congress and then of the States as a part of the Constitution. Clearly on its face it is an express guarantee of personal liberty and an express prohibition against its invasion anywhere. In the face of this guarantee and prohibition — for it is both — how can any " person " be held as a slave? But it is sometimes said that this provision must be restrained to places within the exclusive jurisdiction of the national Government. Let me say frankly that such formerly was my own impression, often avowed in this Chamber : but I never doubted its complete efficacy to ren- der slavery unconstitutional in all such places, so that " no per- 10 son " could be held as a slave at the national Capitol or in any national territory. Constitutionally slavery has always been an outlaw wherever that provision of the Constitution was applica- ble. Nobody doubted that it was binding on the national courts, and yet it was left unexecuted — a dead letter, killed by the pre- dominant influence of slavery, until at last Congress was obliged by legislative act to do what the courts had failed to do, and to put an end to slavery in the national Capitol and national terri- tories. But there are no words in this guarantee and prohibition by which they are restrained to any exclusive jurisdiction. They are broad and general as the Constitution itself; and since they are in support of human rights they cannot be restrained by any interpretation. There is'no limitation in them, and nobody can sup- ply any such limitation, without encountering the venerable max- im of law, Impius et crudelis qui lihertati non favet — ''Impious and cruel is he who does not favor liberty." Long enough courts and Congress have merited this condemnation. The time has come when they should merit it no longer. The Constitution should become a living letter under the predominant influence of freedom. It is this conviction which has brought petitioners to Congress, during the present session, asking that the Constitution shall be simply executed against slavery and not altered. Ah ! sir, it would be a glad sight to see that Constitution, which we have all sworn to support, interpreted generously, nobly, glorious- ly for freedom, so that everywhere within its influence the chains should drop from the slave. If it be said that this w^as not anti- cipated at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, I remind you of the words of Patrick Henry at the time when he said, " the paper speaks to the point." No doubt. It does speak to the point, especially since the adoption of the amendments. Cicero preferred to err with Plato rather than to think right with other men. And pardon me if on this occasion, when my country is in peril from slavery, and when human rights are to be rescued, I prefer to err with Patrick Henry, in assuming power for free- dom, rather than to think right with Senators who hesitate in such a cause. • Mr. President, thus stands the case. There is nothing in the Constitution on which slavery can rest, or find any the least sup- port. Even on the face of that instrument it is an outlaw; but if we look further into its provisions we find at least four distinct sources of power, which, if executed, must render slavery impos- sible, while the preamble makes them all vital for freedom : first, the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare^ secondly, the power to raise armies and maintain navies; thirdly, 11 the power to guaranty to every State a republican form of gov- ernment ; and fourthly, the power to secure liberty to every per- son restrained without due process of law. But all these provis- ions are something more than powers ; thei/ are duties also. And yet we are constantly and painfully reminded in this Chamber that pending measures against slavery are unconstitutional. Sir, this is an immense mistake. Nothing against slavery can be uncon- stitxitional. It is only hesitation which is unconstitutional. And yet slavery still exists — in defiance of all these requirements of the Constitution ; nay, more, in defiance of reason and justice, which can never be disobeyed with impunity — it exists, the per- petual spoiler of human rights and disturber of the public peace, degrading master as well as slave, corrupting society, weakening Government, impoverishing the very soil itself, and impairing the natural resources of the country. Such an outrage, so offensive in every respect, not only to the Constitution, but also to the whole system of order by which the universe is governed, is plainly a national nuisance, which, for the general welfare, and the name of justice, ought to be abated. But at this moment, when it menaces the national life, it will not be enough to treat slavery merely as a nuisance, for it is much more. It is a public enemy and traitor wherever it shows itself, to be subdued, in the discharge of solemn guarantees of Clovernment and of personal rights, and in the ex- ercise of unquestionable and indefeasable rights of self-defense. All now admit that in the rebel States it is a public enemy and traitor, so that the rebellion may be seen in slavery, and slavery may be seen in the rebellion. But slavery throughout the coun- try, everywhere within the national limits, is a living unit, one and indivisible — so that even outside the rebel States it is the same public enemy and traitor, lending succor to the rebellion, and holding out "blue lights" to encourage and direct its operations. But whether regarded as national nuisance or as public enemy and traitor, it is obnoxious to the same judgment and must be abolished. If, in abolishing slavery, any injury were done to the just interests of any human being, or to any rights of any kind, there might be something " to give us pause," even against these irre- sistible requirements. But nothing of the kind can ensue. No just interests and no rights can suffer. It is the rare felicity of such an act, as well outside as inside the rebel States, that, while striking a blow at the rebellion, and assuring future tranquility, so that the Republic shall no longer be a house divided against itself, it will add at once to the value of the whole fee simple wherever slavery exists, will secure individual rights, and will advance civilization itself. • 12 There is another motive to abolish slavery at this time. Em- battled armies now stand face to face, on the one side fighting for slavery. The gauntlet that has been flung down we have yet taken up only in part. In abolishing slavery entirely we take up the gauntlet entirely. Then we can look with confidence to the blessings of Almighty God apon our arms. *' 'Till America comes into this measure," said John Jay during the Revolution, "her prayers to Heaven will be impious." So long as we sustain slavery, so long as wc hesitate to strike at it, the heavy battalions of our armies will fail in power. Sir Giles Overreach found his sword, as he attempted to draw it, " glued with orphan's tears." Let not our soldiers find their swords "glued" with the tears of the slave. There is one question and only one which rises in our path ; and this only because the national representatives have so long been drugged and drenched with slavery, which they have taken in all forms, whether of dose or douche, that, like a long-sufi'ering pa- tient, they are not yet emancipated from its influence. I refer, of course, to the question of compensation under the shameful as- sumption that there can be property in man. Sir, there was a moment when I was willing to pay money largely, or at least to any reasonable amount, for emancipation; but it was as ransom, and never as compensation. Thank God! that time has now passed, never to return; and simply because money is no longer needed for the purpose. Our fathers^ under Washington, never paid the Algerines for the emancipation of our enslaved fellow- citizens, except as ransom, and they ceased all such tribute when emancipation could be had without it. Such must be our rule now. Any other rule "would be to impoverish the Treasury for nothing. The time has come for the old tocsin to sound, " Mil- lions for defense, not a cent for tribute." Ay, sir ; millions of dollars — with millions of strong arms also — to defend our country against slave-masters : but not a cent for tribute to slave- masters. But if money is to be paid as compensation, clearly it cannot ^0 to the master, who for generations has robbed the slave of his toil and all its fruits, so that, in justice, he may be regarded now as the trustee of accumulated earnings with interest which he has never paid over. Any money paid as compensation must belong, every dollar of it, to the slave. If the case were audited in Heaven's chancery, there must be another allowance for the denial of inestimable rights. The loss of wages may be estimated, but where is the tariff or price-current by which those other losses which have been the lot of every slave shall be determined ? Mortal arithmetic is impotent to assess the fearful sum total. In u presence of this infinite responsibility the whole question must be- referred to that other tribunal where master and slave will be- equal, while infinite wisdom tempers justice with mercy. But the proposition of compensation is founded on the intolerable- assumption of property in man, an idea which often intrudes into these debates, sometimes from its open vindicators and sometimes from others, who reluctantly recognize it, but allow it to influence their conduct which is thus " sicklied o'er " with slavery. Sir, parliamentary law must be observed ; but if an outburst of indig- nant hisses were ever justiable in a parliamentary assembly it ought to break forth at every mention of this proposition, what- ever form it may take — whether of daring assumption, or the mildest suggestion, or equivocation even. Impious toward God and insulting toward man, it is disowned alike by the conscience- and the reason ; nor is there any softness of argument or phrase by which its essential wickedness can be disguised. The fool hath said in his heart that there is no God; but it is kindred folly to say that there is no Man. The first is Atheism, and the second m like unto the first. Foremost of all persons in history who have vindicated human liberty, and associated their names with, it forevermore, stands John Milton, the Secretary of Oliver Cromwell and the author of Paradise Lost. Cradled under a lawless royalty, he helped to found and support the English Commonwealth, while in all that he wrote he pleaded for human rights now in defense of the Eng- lish people, who had beheaded their king, and now in immortal poems which show how wisely and well he loved the cause which he had made his own. Nowhere has the assumption of property in man been encountered more completely, than in the conversa- tion between the Archangel and Adam, after the former had pic- tured a hunter whose game was "men, not beasts :" •* O execrable So7i ! so to aspire Above his brethren, to himself assuming Autliority usurped, from God not given I He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl. Dominion absolute ; that right we hold By His donation; but man over men He made not Lord, svich title to Himself Reserving, human left from human free. Paradise Lost, Book Twelte — 64 — 73. But every asserter of property in man puts himself in the very place of this hunter of " men, not beasts," who is described as " < .ocrable son so to aspire." The language is strong, but not too strong. "Execrable" is the assumption ; "execrable" wherever made ; " execrable " on the plantation ; " execrable" in this cham- ber ; " execrable" in all its forms ; " execrable " in all its conse- quences ; especially " execrable" as an apology for hesitation against slavery. The assumption, wherever it shows itself, must 14 like Satan himself, in whom it has its origin, be beaten down under our feet. Again, we are brought by learned Senators to the Constitution, which requires that there shall be "just compensation" where " private property" is taken for public use. But plainly on the present ocasion the requirement of the Constitution is absolutely inapplicable, for there is no " private property" to take. Slavery is but a bundle of barbarous pretensions, from which certain per- sons are to be released. At what price shall these pretensions be estimated? How much shall be paid for the controlling preten- sion of property in man ? How much shall be allowed for that other pretension to shut the gates of knowledge, and keep the victim from the Book of Life? How much shall be expended to redeem the pretension to rob a human being of all the fruits of his toil? And, sir, what "just compensation" shall be voted for the renunciation of that Heaven-defying pretension, too disgust- ing to picture, which, trampling on the most sacred relations, makes wife and child the wretched prey of lust or avarice? Let these pretensions be renounced, and slavery ceases to exist ; but there can be no " just compensation" for any such renuncia- tion. The human heart, reason, religion, the Constitution itself, rise in judgment against it. As well vote "just compensation '' to the hardened offender who renounces his disobedience to the Ten Commandments, and promises that he will cease to steal — that he will cease to commit adultery — and that he will cease to covet his neighbor's wife ! Aye, sir, there is nothing in the Con- stitution to sanction any such outrage. Such an appropriation would be unconstitutional. Mr. Madison said in the convention that " it was wrons: to ad- mit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man." (3 Madison Papers, 17