control domestic slavery within her borders. What right then, have the
citizens of free states, to intermeddle with it? They have none, as
long as the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The
union of these states is based on that instrument, and whenever we
cease faithfully to observe its provisions, the Union must necessarily
cease to exist. All interference then on the part of the North,
endangering the rights or injuriously affecting the interests of the
South in slave property, is a violation of the supreme law of the
nation. I need not say more; the argument must be clear to every one;
and I think the duty of all concerned equally clear.

Ralfe, referring to the adoption of the Federal Constitution, says,
"It was no easy task to reconcile the local interests and discordant
prepossessions of different sections of the United States, but it was
accomplished by acts of concession." Madison says, "Mutual deference
and concession were absolutely necessary," and that the Southern
States never would have entered the Union, without concession as to
slave property. And Governor Randolph informs us, "That the Southern
States conceived their property in slaves to be secured by this
arrangement?"

We are also informed by Patrick Henry, Chief Justice Tiglman,
Chancellor Kent, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Justice Shaw, Chief
Justice Parker, Edward Everett and others, that no union of these
states ever could have taken place, had not the right to hold slave
property, and the sole right to control that property been conceded to
the southern States. And, Edward Everett, moreover, tells us that the
northern States "deemed it a point of the highest policy, to enter
with the slave states into the present Union." The reader will
observe, that a majority of the authorities referred to, are northern