different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and
expressly affirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed" in
the Constitution? Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it cannot
be separated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution;
durable as the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now,
remembering the provision of the Constitution which I have
read--affirming that that instrument is the supreme law of the land; that
the judges of every State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution
of any State to the contrary notwithstanding; that the right of property
in a slave is affirmed in that Constitution, is made, formed into, and
cannot be separated from it without breaking it; durable as the
instrument; part of the instrument;--what follows as a short and even
syllogistic argument from it? I think it follows, and I submit to the
consideration of men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, in
syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it:

Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a right
distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United
States.

The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in
the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy
the right of property in a slave.

I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming the