a trouble and a stumbling-block. The delusion could not be
traced in any of the component parts of the Southern Constitution.
In that instrument we solemnly discarded the pestilent heresy of
fancy politicians, that all men of all races were equal, and we
have made African inequality, and subordination, the chief
corner-stone of the Southern Republic.'

Here we have the great idea of an essential difference in relation to
the Constitution and slavery existing at the present day South, from
that which did exist at the time of its ratification universally by the
people of the thirteen States. The Vice-President of the Southern
Confederacy frankly admits that slavery is its chief corner-stone; that
our ancestors were deluded upon the subject of slavery; that the ideas
contained in the Declaration of Independence respecting the equality of
all men, and their natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, are only the pestilent heresy of fancy politicians;
consequently that in the Southern Constitution all such trash was
solemnly discarded. Can clearer proof be wanted to show that the
stand-point of slavery and freedom has altogether changed since the days
of Washington? Is it not true that our country at the present day
presents the singular spectacle of two great divisions, one holding to
the Constitution as interpreted by our ancestors North and South, the
other openly repudiating such interpretation? Is it strange, with such a
radical difference existing as to the import of the Constitution upon
the subject of slavery, that we should have such frequent and ever
persistent charges of Northern aggression? If the history of slavery be
kept in mind, it will be seen that it has steadily had its eye upon one
end, and that is national aggrandizement. Thus about two hundred
thousand slaveholders wield all the political power of the South, and
compel all non-slaveholders to acquiesce in their supremacy. But
whatever the South may choose to do, the North is under obligation to
give to slavery nothing more than what is guaranteed in the
Constitution. If more than this is asked for, the North is bound by a
just regard for its own interests and the prosperity of the country to
refuse compliance. It has been seen that even admitting that a State has
a just cause of complaint, or supposing as a matter of fact that the
Constitution is violated, she can not set herself up to be exclusively
the judg