police regulations as would give security to their property or to his,
it would be rendered more or less valueless, in proportion to the
difficulty of holding it without such protection. In the case of
property in the labor of man, or what is usually called slave
property, the insecurity would be so great that the owner could not
ordinarily retain it. Therefore, though the right would remain, the
remedy being withheld, it would follow that the owner would be
practically debarred by the circumstances of the case, from taking
slave property into a territory where the sense of the inhabitants was
opposed to its introduction. So much for the oft repeated fallacy of
forcing slavery upon any community.

If Congress had the power to prohibit the introduction of slave
property into the territories, what would be the purpose? Would it be
to promote emancipation? That could not be the effect. In the first
settlement of a territory the want of population and the consequent
difficulty of procuring hired labor, would induce emigrants to take
slaves with them; but if the climate and products of the country were
unsuited to African labor--as soon as white labor flowed in, the
owners of slaves would as a matter of interest, desire to get rid of
them and emancipation would result. The number would usually be so
small that this would be effected without injury to society or
industrial pursuits. Thus it was in Wisconsin, notwithstanding the
ordinance of '87; and other examples might be cited to show that this
is not mere theory.

Would it be to promote the civilization and progress of the negro
race? The tendency must be otherwise. By the dispersion of the slaves,
their labor would be rendered more productive and their comforts
increased. The number of owners would be multiplied, and by more