tell me that all this was commanded by urgent necessity.
Indeed! Is the necessity of restoring the true life-element
of the Union less urgent than the necessity of imprisoning
a traitor or stopping a secession newspaper? [Applause.]
Will necessity which justifies a violation of the dearest
guarantees of our own rights and liberties, will it not justify
the overthrow of the most odious institution of this
age? [Cheers.] What? Is the Constitution such as to
countenance in an extreme case a most dangerous imitatation
of the practices of despotic governments, but not
to countenance, even in the extremest case, the necessity
of a great reform, which the enlightened spirit of our
century has demanded so long, and not ceased to demand?
[Cheers.] Is it, indeed, your opinion that in difficult
circumstances like ours neither the writ of habeas corpus,
nor the liberty of the press, nor the authority of the regular
courts of justice, in one word, no right shall be held
sacred and inviolable under the Constitution but that most
monstrous and abominable right which permits one man
to hold another as property? [Great cheering.] Is, to
your Constitutional conscience, our whole magna charta of
liberties nothing, and slavery all? [Loud applause.]
Slavery all, even while endeavoring by the most damnable
rebellion to subvert this very Constitution?
But do not misunderstand me. I am far from underestimating the importance of Constitutional forms. Where Constitutional forms are not strictly observed, Constitutional guarantees will soon become valueless. But, where is the danger in this case? Nobody denies the constitutionality of the power of the Government to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; nobody will deny the constitutionality of an offer of compensation to loyal slave-owners. Or would the confiscation of rebel property be unconstitutional? The Constitution defines clearly what treason consists in; and then it gives Congress the
