He reviewed the question of human Slavery from the time when the
Constitutional Convention was held; showed that at that period, as well
as at the time of the Declaration of our Independence "there was but one
sentiment upon the subject among enlightened Southern statesmen"--and
that was, that Slavery "is a great affliction to any Country where it
prevails;" and declared that "a prosperous and permanent Peace can never
be secured if the Institution is permitted to survive."

He then traversed the various methods by which statesmen were seeking to
prevent that survival of Slavery, addressing himself by turns to the
arguments of those who, with John Sherman, "seemed," said he, "to
consider it as within the power of Congress by virtue of its Legislative
authority;" to those of the "many well-judging men, with the President
at their head, who," to again use his own words, "seem to suppose that
it is within the reach of the Executive;" and lastly, to those "who
express the opinion that it is not within the scope of either Executive
or Legislative authority, or of Constitutional Amendment;" and after
demolishing the arguments of those who held the two former of these
positions, he proceeded to rebut the assumption that Slavery could not
be abolished at all because it was not originally abolished by the
Constitution.

Continuing, he said: "Remember, now, the question is, can that
Institution, which deals with Humanity as Property, which claims to
shackle the mind, the soul, and the body, which brings to the level of
the brute a portion of the race of Man, cease to be within the reach of
the political power of the People of the United States, not because it
was not at one time within their power, but because at that time they
did not exert the power?