8 Mr. Chairman, if the framers of the constitution cast the word, “ slave,” as a reprobate, out of the constitution, because its definition is “ a man held as property,” how dare our bogus democrats and slaveholders interpolate that venerated instrument with the execrable term? No, sir ; the argument is irresistible, that wherever the authority of the United States, in any of its departments, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, is invoked to interfere against a “person” held as a slave by the laws of any state, the United States must treat such slave as a person ; and if such person’s “life, liberty, Or property,” may be brought in jeopardy by authority of the United States, that “ person,” however humble, however bruised or trodden under foot by other states or other nations, is entitled to “ due process of law,” which, by the common consent of all—whether slaveholders, slave democrats, or republicans—is admitted to be a “trial by jury, according to the course of the common law.” Thus, sir, the thrice- execrable “ fugitive slave law,” with its catchpole bevy of slave-hunting commissioners and deputy marshals, becomes a nullity and nuisance—the villanous concoction of slaveholding usurpation and doughfaced subserviency—and dissolves like stubble before the devouring fire. Now, sir, I flatter myself that I have vindicated the memory and the fame of our fathers who bequeathed to us a constitution based on justice—a union knit and held together by the gentle, genial, humanizing spirit of God-given, and God-honoring freedom. I have proven by facts and arguments which no sophistry can overthrow, that the spirit which created the constitution and the union, was the love of personal liberty under just and humane law. The same spirit which created must preserve the constitution and the union; but the spirit which has taken possession of the slaveholders, and their base tools, the slave democracy of the free states, is the unclean spirit of slavery propagandism and perpetuation; and j ust as sure as animal life perishes in mephitic gaseSj so sure is it, that this consitution and union must perish, when smothered in the foul embraces of these allies of human slavery. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask of our union-saving physicians and craftsmen, whether in their opinion, the health of the union is improving under the slavery-extension nostrums; which they have been administering to it now for some twenty years past ?—whether their last dose of Nebraska bitters, bids fair to improve the health or prolong the life of their unhappy patient? To me, sir, though I am no political doctor, and my opinion is therefore, of little value, I confess that the writhings and pantings of the patient, and the agitated and anxious countenances of the doctors and nurses, do not look like a favorable working of the medicines; and I would respectfully suggest a change of prescriptions. When you took your patient in hand, some twenty years ago, it was blessed with a robust constitution, seemingly calculated to outlive all the quacks and grandames who had taken its cure in hand, and only needed to be wisely let alone, to outlive the years of Methuselah himself. But you could not rest. You pronounced ' the union in danger, and again commenced administering your doses of pro-slavery agitation, In 1836 you “saved” the union by “Pinckney’s resolution.” That was by laying “ anti-slavery petitions on the table without reading or reference.” You pronounced your patient “ cured”— still, to all but the doctors, it was now evidently made sick by your medicine. You nevertheless tried the same remedy in 1838, in another resolution of the same character. In 1842 you administered another pro-slavery dose, in the attempt to expel from the House, the venerable ex-president Adams, merely for presenting a petition to congress. The union was thereby again saved, however; still, strange to say, it grew more and more feeble under these repeated salvations ; and again in 1843, you saved it by expelling from the House, my venerable friend and colleague, [Mr. Giddivos,] for offering a resolution in respect to slave trading under the flag of the union. But, like all your past quackery, this also, only made bad worse. But the union made out to keep above ground until 1846, when it was again saved by the annexation of the slave state of Texas and the Mexican war, and in 1848, by the acquisition of the new slave territories of New Mexico and Utah, and by the exertions of Colonel Fremont, .the free territory of California, making of slave territory 124,000 square miles, and the free territory of California 188,000 square miles, At about the same time, yon commenced depleting your patient by a treaty with Great Britain, and the cession to her Majesty of 5° 40z of latitude and 26° of longitude, equal to 114,000 square miles of free territory, to which your slaveholding president had declared the title of the United States to be “ clear and unquestioned,” Still the union only grew worse, and in 1852, was again declared by the pro-slavery and slaveholding doctors, to be “ as good as dead.” So you called in both whig and democratic doctors to a consultation over your old patient, the union. The council of doctors were unanimously of the opinion, not only that the patient was very sick, but, in addition thereto, was badly wounded— having “seven bleeding wounds” which were to be stanched at once, or the case was hopeless. As usual on those occasions, more concessions to slavery were prescribed ; California was graciously permitted to come into the union as a free state; Texas was consigned to the dissecting room, to be cut into only five slave states ; and New Mexico and Utah were to be slave or free at their option. With this came a withdrawal of the slaveholders’ license to convert the District of Columbia into a slave stable. But above all, this arrangement was declared final—was to be the very last dose of patent medicine to be administered—the “ all-healing ointment” for the convalescent union. But did the union recover on taking this dose of“ finality” physic ? The doctor's told us it was cured—that in this new ointment, of letting the slaveholders have their own way in the territories, the union was restored—was “ good as new.” But, alas 1 Mr. Chairman, however well it might fare with the union, the case was different with the doctors. In curing their patient, they killed
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=