File:History of Illinois Republicanism, embracing a history of the Republican party in the state to the present time with biographies of its founders and supporters also a chronological statement of (14764548491).jpg

Identifier: historyofillinoi00raum (find matches)
Title: History of Illinois Republicanism, embracing a history of the Republican party in the state to the present time ... with biographies of its founders and supporters ... also a chronological statement of important political events since 1774
Year: 1900 (1900s)
Authors: Raum, Green B. (Green Berry), 1829-1909
Subjects: Republican Party (U.S.)
Publisher: Chicago, Rollins Pub. Co.
Contributing Library: The Library of Congress
Digitizing Sponsor: The Library of Congress

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right dis-tinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United States. The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in theConstitution of the United States. Therefore nothing in the constitution or laws of any State can destroy theright of property in a slave. I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument. Assuming thetruth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to understandit, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it, as I think; but the fault is not inthe reasoning; but the falsehood in fact is a fault of the premises. I believe thatthe right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in theConstitution, and Judge Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Courtand the advocates of that decision may search in vain for the place in the Consti-tution where the right of (property in) a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed. 52
Text Appearing After Image:
STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. S3 I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. Butit is true with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court, who pronouncedit. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, theconclusion follows that the Constitution of the United States being the supremelaw, no (State) constitution or law can interfere with it. It being affirmed inthe decision that the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expresslyaffirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion inevitably follows that no State law orconstitution can destroy that right. Senator Douglas in reply said: I have a few words to say upon the DredScott decision, which has troubled the brain of Mr. Lincoln so much. He insiststhat that decision would carry slavery into the free States, notwithstanding thatthe decision says directly the opposite; and goes into a long argument to makeyou believe that I am in favor of, and would sanction the doctrine that woulda

Note About Images