aw
before the courts; because what do they mean by the _status_ of all
persons held to involuntary servitude or labor? They mean rightfully
held. They do not mean if a man is kidnapped and held illegally to
involuntary service or labor that he is always to be so held. It means
that the _status_ of persons who are rightfully and legally held shall
not be changed; and who is to determine that? The courts are to
determine it according to the common law. That is to be determined by
judges who are to be appointed from a party, and by a party who
believe that there cannot be property in man; by a party who believe
that, in the Somerset case, Lord MANSFIELD has laid down the common
law properly; by a party who will probably believe that the decision
of the English courts, in regard to the slave ANDERSON, that it was no
murder for a slave when escaping to kill his master, was a correct
exposition of the common law.

How, then, do we stand? Why, sir, in relation to our right to slaves,
we have to try that right before judges who are thus appointed, and
appointed from a party who we know entertain these opinions. Why, sir,
you might poll that party through the whole United States, and I would
venture any thing upon the assertion that you cannot get one in a
hundred thousand who would not deny that there could be property in
man, especially under the common law. We thus lose the advantage of
the Dred Scott decision. According to the Dred Scott decision, we can
carry them into the territory of the United States and hold them, and
it is decided that there is property in slaves--decided under the
Constitution. The court maintain that the Constitution recognizes it.
It is upon constitutional ground that we have made our claims, and so
far, it is upon this that we have fought and won the battle, not upon
common law; and now we are to abandon the advantages that we have got
from that ground of title under the Dred Scott decision, and go into
court and try a case that has been already decided in our favor; and
under the common law, try it before judges who are to be selected by a
party entertaining such opinions as I have just described; and I am
sorry to say, without appeal to the Supreme Court; because, in the
territorial bills which have been lately passed, that right has been
taken from us. My friend from North Carolina will be kind enough to
read an article in the Chicago platform, showing what is held on that
subject by those who