zed by the Constitution--and in the establishment of slavery
throughout its vast limits, actually and substantially under the
auspices of that instrument which declares its only objects to be--"to
form a more perfect union, establish JUSTICE, insure DOMESTIC
TRANQUILITY, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of LIBERTY to ourselves and our
posterity."[A]

[Footnote A: It may be replied, The colored people were held as
_property_ by the laws of Louisiana previously to the cession, and that
Congress had no right to divest the newly acquired citizens of their
property. This statement is evasive. It does not include, nor touch the
question, which is this:--Had Congress, or the treaty-making power, a
right to recognise, and, by recognising, to establish, in a territory
that had no claim of privilege, on the ground of being part of one of
the "Original States," a condition of things that it could not establish
_directly_, because there was no grant in the constitution of power,
direct or incidental, to do so--and because, _to do so_, was in
downright oppugnancy to the principles of the Constitution itself? The
question may be easily answered by stating the following case:--Suppose
a law had existed in Louisiana, previous to the cession, by which the
children--male and female--of all such parents as were not owners of
real estate of the yearly value of $500, had been--no matter how
long--held in slavery by their more wealthy land-holding
neighbors:--would Congress, under the Constitution, have a right (by
recognising) to establish, for ever, such a relation as one white
person, under such a law, might hold to another? Surely not. And yet no
substantial difference between the two cases can be pointed out.]

In this case, the violation of the Constitution was suffered to pass
with but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were
content to receive in exchange, multiplied commercial benefits and
enlarged territorial limits.

The next stride that slavery made over the Constitution was in the
admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. _She_ could claim no
favor as part of an "Original State." At this point, it might have been
supposed, the friends of Freedom and of the Constitution according to
its original intent, would have made a stand. But no: with the exception
of Massachusetts, they hesitated and were persuaded to acquiesce,
because the country was j