being adverse to slavery, that policy has been almost exclusively upon
the side of slaveholders. The domestic institution has been ever the pet
interest of the land.

In all that pertains to political power, the slaveholding interests have
been in the ascendant. Even when Lincoln was elected, it was found that
the Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the Judiciary, were
numerically upon the side of slavery, so that he could not, even had it
been his wish, carry out any measure inimical to the South. True, the
South had not the same power as under Buchanan; they could not hope ever
again to wield the resources of government to secure the ascendency of
slavery in Kansas; but for all that, Lincoln was powerless to encroach
upon their supposed rights, even if thus disposed. Is it not, then,
evident, that so far from the slaveholding States holding to the
opinions of the framers of the Constitution, there has been within the
last forty years a mighty change going on in the South, giving to
slavery an essentially aggressive policy, and an extension never dreamed
of by the authors of the Constitution? The ground of the Constitution
respecting slavery, was simply non-interference in the States where it
already existed. It left slavery to be curtailed, or done away with by
the local legislature, but it used language the most guarded, to
preclude the idea that slavery rested upon natural right, and that
slaves, like other property, could be carried into the territories. It
has been said, that the position of the Constitution is that of absolute
indifference, both to freedom and slavery; that it advocated neither,
but was bound to protect both. But how could the Constitution be
indifferent to the very end for which it was made? Was not its great
design to secure the liberty of the country, and promote its highest
welfare? The Constitution simply tolerated the existence of slavery, and
no more. As union was impossible without the provision for the rendition