But Congress can exercise no power except in conformity with the Constitution.

Its exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever is controlled and limited by the Constitution, out of which it is derived.

Now, looking at the Constitution, we find, first, that there are no words authorizing Congress to establish or recognize Slavery, and, secondly, that there are positive words which prohibit Congress from the exercise of any such power.

The argument, therefore, is twofold: first, from the absence of authority, and, secondly, from positive prohibition.

Of course, a barbarism like Slavery, having its origin in force and nothing else, can have no legal or constitutional support except from positive sanction.

Here I repeat an argument which I have presented before, when on other occasions arraigning the pretensions of Slavery under the Constitution, but which, so long as Slavery claims immunity, cannot be allowed to drop out of sight.

Even the language, “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,” cannot be made to sanction Slavery.

The word king nowhere occurs in the Constitution, nor does the word slave.

It is a pretension which has thus far prevailed simply because Slavery predominated over Congress and courts.

To all who insist that Congress may sustain Slavery in the national capital I put the question, Where in the Constitution is the power found?

If you cannot show where, do not assert the power.

So hideous an effrontery must be authorized in unmistakable words.

Insult not human nature by pretending that its most cherished rights can be sacrificed without solemn authority.

Remember that every presumption and every leaning must be in favor of Freedom and against Slavery.

Remember, too, that no nice interpretation, no strained construction, no fancied deduction, can suffice to sanction the enslavement of our fellow-men.

And do not degrade the Constitution by foisting upon its blameless text the idea of property in man.

It is not there; and if you think you see it there, it is simply because you make the Constitution a reflection of yourself.

Such an act, however consistent with slaveholding tyranny, would not be regarded as constitutional at Bunker Hill.

Deliberately rejecting this limitation, the authors of the Amendment recorded their purpose that no person, within the national jurisdiction, of whatever character, shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law.

But Congress, undertaking to support Slavery at the national capital, enacts that persons may be deprived of liberty there without any presentment, indictment, or other judicial proceedings.

Therefore every person now detained as a slave in the national capital is detained in violation of the Constitution.

Not only is his liberty taken without due process of law, but, since he is tyrannically despoiled of all the fruits of his industry, his property also is taken without due process of law.

The five-headed barbarism of Slavery, beginning in violence, can have no legal or constitutional existence, unless through positive words expressly authorizing it.

As no such positive words are found in the Constitution, all legislation by Congress supporting Slavery must be unconstitutional and void, while it is made still further impossible by positive words of prohibition guarding the liberty of…

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.