And, Sir, what “just compensation” shall be voted for renouncing that Heaven-defying pretension, too disgusting to picture, which, trampling on the most sacred relations, makes wife and child the wretched prey of lust and avarice?

Let these pretensions be renounced, and Slavery ceases to exist; but there can be no “just compensation” for any such renunciation.

Heart, reason, religion, the Constitution itself, rise in judgment against it.

As well vote “just compensation” to the hardened offender who renounces disobedience to the Ten Commandments, and promises that he will cease to steal, cease to commit adultery, and cease to covet his neighbor’s wife!

Ay, Sir, there is nothing in the Constitution to sanction any such outrage.

Madison said it was “wrong.” But if “wrong” at the adoption of the Constitution, how much worse now!

There is no instinct of patriotism, as there is no conclusion of reason, which must not be against the abomination; and yet, Sir, it is allowed to enter into these debates.

Sometimes it stalks, and sometimes it skulks; but whether stalking or skulking, it must be encountered with the same indignant rebuke, until it ventures no longer to show its head.

Putting aside, then, all objection, whether from open opposition or lukewarm support, the great question recurs, that question which dominates this debate, How shall Slavery be overthrown?

The answer is threefold: first, by the courts, declaring and applying the true principles of the Constitution; secondly, by Congress, in the exercise of the powers belonging to it; and, thirdly, by the people, through an Amendment of the…

But, alas! one of the saddest chapters in our history is the conduct of judges, lending themselves to the support of Slavery.

Courts, which should be asylums of Liberty, have been changed into strongholds of Slavery; and the Supreme Court of the United States, by final decision as shocking to the Constitution as to the public conscience, proclaimed itself…

It was part of the national calamity, that, under the influence of Slavery, Justice, like Astræa of old, fled.

Its business is justice; and when, under any apology, it ceases to do justice, it loses those titles to reverence otherwise so willingly bestowed.

There are instances of great magistrates openly declaring disobedience to laws “against common right and reason,” and their names are mentioned with gratitude in the history of jurisprudence.

Vainly do you attempt to frame injustice into a law, or to sanctify it by any judgment of court.

Men cannot covenant themselves out of their rights and their duties; nor by any other means can arbitrary power be conveyed to any man.

A slave cannot fairly be called a thief for taking anything from his master, or for stealing his own liberty.

If courts were thus inspired, it is easy to see that Slavery would disappear under righteous judgment.

Appeal must be made to Congress; and here, as has been fully developed, the powers are ample, unless in their interpretation you surrender in advance to Slavery.

By a single brief statute, Congress may sweep Slavery out of existence.

Here we encounter again the “execrable” pretension of property in man, with the attendant claim of “just compensation” for the renunciation of Heaven-defying wrongs.

Let the “idea,” originally branded as so “wrong” that it could not find place in the Constitution, never find place in our debates.

Even if Congress be not prepared for that single decisive measure promptly ending this whole question and striking Slavery to death, there are other measures by which the end may be hastened.

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