It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the recent decision of the Supreme Court. The grounds and methods of that decision we have exposed elsewhere; and we now turn from them to contemplate the great fact which it establishes -- the fact that Slavery is National; and that, until that remote period when different Judges, sitting in this same Court, shall reverse this wicked and false judgment, the Constitution of the United States is nothing better than the bulwark of inhumanity and oppression.
It is most true that this decision is bad law; that
it is based on false historical premises and wrong
interpretations of the Constitution; that it does not
at all represent the legal or judicial opinion of the
Nation; that it is merely a Southern sophism
clothed with the dignity of our highest Court.
Nevertheless there it is; the final action of the
National Judiciary, established by the founders of the
Republic to interpret the Constitution, and to
embody the ultimate legal conclusions of the whole
people -- an action proclaiming that in the view of
the Constitution slaves are property. The inference
is plain. If slaves are recognized as property by the
Constitution, of course no local or State law can either
prevent property being carried through an individual
State or Territory, or forbid its being sold as such
wherever its owner may choose to hold it. This
is all involved in the present decision; but let a
single case draw from the Court an official
judgment that slaves can be held and protected under
National law, and we shall see men buying slaves
for the New York market. There will be no legal
power to prevent it. At this moment, indeed, any
wealthy New York jobber connected with the
Southern trade can put in his next orders: "Send
me a negro cook, at the lowest market value!
Buy me a waiter! Balance my account with two
chambermaids and a truckman!" Excepting the
interference of the Underground Railroad and the
chance of loss, there will be nothing to stop this.
But then these underhanded efforts for stealing
property must, of course, be checked by our
Police. Mr. Matsell will have no more right
to allow gentlemen's servants to be spirited
away by burgarious Abolitionists than
gentlemen's spoons. They are property under
even stronger pledges of security than mere lifeless
chattels. The whole power of the State -- the military,
the Courts and Governor of the State of New
York -- will necessarily be sworn to protect each
New York slave-owner from the robbery or
burglary of his negro. If they are not sufficient, why
then the United States Army and Navy can be
called upon to guard that singular species of property
which alone of all property the Constitution of the
United States has especially recognized. Slaves
can be kept in Boston; Mr. Toombs can call the
roll of his chattels on the slope of Bunker Hill;
Another most pregnant change is wrought by this decision, in respect of the Northern people. We have been accustomed to regard Slavery as a local matter for which we were in no wise responsible. As we have been used, to say, it belonged to the Southern States alone, and they must answer for it before the world. We can say this no more. Now, wherever the stars and stripes wave, they protect Slavery and represent Slavery. The black and cursed stain is thick on our hands also. From Maine to the Pacific, over all future conquests and annexations, wherever in the islands of western seas, or in the South American Continent, or in the Mexican Gulf, the flag of the Union, by just means or unjust, shall be planted, there it plants the curse, and tears, and blood, and unpaid toil of this "institution." The Star of Freedom and the stripes of bondage are henceforth one. American Republicanism and American Slavery are for the future synonymous. This, then, is the final fruit. In this all the labors of our statesmen, the blood of our heroes, the life-long cares and toils of our forefathers, the aspirations of our scholars, the prayers of good men, have finally ended! America the slavebreeder and slaveholder!
This document was produced as part of a document analysis project by Lloyd Benson, Department of History, Furman University. (Proofing info: Entered by Lloyd Benson. .) This electronic version may not be copied, or linked to, or otherwise used for commercial purposes, (including textbook or publication-related websites) without prior written permission. The views expressed in this document are for educational, historical, and scholarly use only, and are not intended to represent the views of the project contributors or Furman University.