which, of course, had been, and would be,
vehemently assailed by the loyal Border-States men and their Free-State
Democratic allies.
This contention proceeded largely upon the lines of construction of that
clause in the Constitution of the United States and its Amendments,
which provides that no person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or
Property, without due process of Law, etc. The one side holding that,
since the beginning of our Government, Slaves had been, under this
clause, Unconstitutionally deprived of their Liberty; the other side
holding that Slaves being "property," it would be Unconstitutional under
the same clause, to deprive the Slave-owner of his Slave property.
Mr. Crittenden, the leader of the loyal Border-States men in Congress,
was at this time especially eloquent on this latter view of the
Constitution. In his speech of April 23, 1862, in the House of
Representatives, he even undertook to defend American Slavery under the
shield of English Liberty!
Said he: "It is necessary for the prosperity of any Government, for
peace and harmony, that every man who acquires property shall feel that
he shall be protected in the enjoyment of it, and in his right to hold
it. It elevates the man; it gives him a feeling of dignity. It is the
great old English doctrine of Liberty. Said Lord Mansfield, the rain
may beat against the cabin of an Englishman, the snow may penetrate it,
but the King dare not enter it without the consent of its owner. That
is the true English spirit. It is the source of England's power."
And again: "The idea of property is deeply seated in our minds. By the
English Law and by the American Law you have the right to take the life
of any man who attempts, by violence, to take your property from you.
So far does the Spirit of these Laws go. Let us not break down this
idea of property. It is the animating spirit of the Country. Indeed it
is the Spirit of Liberty and Freedom."
There was at this time, a growing belief in the minds of these loyal
Border-States men, that this question of Slavery-abolition was reaching
a crisis. They saw "the handwriting on the wall," but left no stone
unturned to prevent, or at least to avert for a time, the coming
catastrophe. They egged Congress, in the language of the distinguished
Kentuckian, to "Let these unnecessary measures alone, for the present;"
and, as to the President, they now, not only volunteered in his defense,
against the at
|