At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review now this argument, and gather it together. Considering that Slavery is of such an offensive character that it can find sanction only in "positive law," and that it has no such "positive" sanction in the Constitution,--that the Constitution, according to its preamble, was ordained to "establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty,"--that, in the Convention which framed it, and also elsewhere at the time, it was declared not to sanction slavery,--that, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Address of the Continental Congress, the nation was dedicated to "liberty," and the "rights of human nature,"--that, according to the principles of the common law, the Constitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually for freedom,--that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it acts upon slaves, _not as property_, but as PERSONS,--that, at the first organization of the national Government under Washington, Slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere on the national territory, beneath the national flag, but was openly condemned by Nation, Church, Colleges, and Literature of the time,--and, finally, that, according to an amendment of the Constitution, the National Government can exercise only powers delegated to it, among which is none to support Slavery,--considering these things, Sir, it is impossible to avoid the single conclusion, that Slavery is in no respect a national institution, and that the Constitution nowhere upholds property in man. There is one other special provision of the Constitution, which I have reserved to this stage, not so much from its superior importance, but because it fitly stands by itself. This alone, if practically applied, would carry Freedom to all within its influence. It is an amendment proposed by the First Congress, as follows: "No _person_ shall be deprived of life, _liberty_, or property, _without due process of law_."