once incorporated into the
fundamental law, there could not then arise questions touching the
validity of acts by which slaves are declared freemen. There would be
nothing left to hang a doubt upon. The Proclamation of Emancipation as a
war measure is undoubtedly a proper proceeding; but as a means of
effecting organic changes, and as possible to operate beyond the period
of actual war, it is open to many grave objections. Freedom being thus
made the law of the land, there would be no longer reason for
differences, as now there are wide differences among conscientious and
capable men, as to the proper mode of reinvesting the States usurped by
the rebellion with their rightful powers as kindred republics of the
nation. Constituent parts of a common and indivisible empire, those
powers cannot be destroyed by a usurping rebellion.

But, it is objected, the proposed amendment destroys certain of those
powers. Yes, it takes away all pretended right to hold slaves. For the
right of slavery is nowhere recognized in the Constitution. The fact of
slavery as part of the local establishments of some States could not be
ignored, although, as is well known, the word 'slave' was expressly
ruled out of the Constitution. Hence, the famous provisions for the
rendition of '_persons held to service_' (art. iv. sec. 2), and for the
apportionment of representatives and direct taxes, 'by adding to the
whole number of free persons ... _three fifths of all other persons_'
(art. i. sec. 2): which are the only recognition slavery finds in our
Constitution.

It is true, therefore, that slavery, never a right, but always a wrong,
under the Constitution, as under the law of nature and revelation, is
now to be no longer recognized even as a fact. To abolish it by this
amendment is to abolish it entirely throughout the Union, irrespective
of apparent State rights. The repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law remits
the question of restoring 'persons held to service' to the safeguards of
trial by jury, but has no further force. To supplement and complete the
work of reconstruction, we need to make impossible the pretence of a
power anywhere within the domain of the United States to hold a person
in bondage.

To the objection we have just noted, that certain State rights are thus
destroyed, there are two sufficient answers. First, in no State of the
Union, it is believed, does slavery exist by virtue of positive law. It
is the subject of legislation only as