. This might be all
very well for Mr. Crittenden in the slave State of Kentucky--for Mr.
Crittenden, although a slave-owner, desired to perpetuate the Union;
but it would not have been well for New England or for the West. As
for the second proposition, it is well understood that under the
constitution Congress cannot interfere in any way in the question of
slavery in the individual States. Congress has no more constitutional
power to abolish slavery in Maryland than she has to introduce it
into Massachusetts. No such pledge, therefore, was necessary on
either side. But such a pledge given by the North and West would have
acted as an additional tie upon them, binding them to the finality
of a constitutional enactment to which, as was of course well known,
they strongly object. There was no question of Congress interfering
with slavery, with the purport of extending its area by special
enactment, and therefore by such a pledge the North and West could
gain nothing; but the South would in prestige have gained much.

But that third proposition as to the Fugitive Slave Law and the
faithful execution of that law by the northern and western States
would, if acceded to by Mr. Lincoln's party, have amounted to an
unconditional surrender of everything. What! Massachusetts and
Connecticut carry out the Fugitive Slave Law! Ohio carry out the
Fugitive Slave Law after the "Dred Scot" decision and all its
consequences! Mr. Crittenden might as well have asked Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and Ohio to introduce slavery within their own lands.
The Fugitive Slave Law was then, as it is now, the law of the land;
it was the law of the United States as voted by Congress and passed
by the President, and acted on by the Supreme Judge of the United
States' Court. But it was a law to which no free State had submitted
itself, or would submit itself. "What!" the English reader will
say,--"sundry States in the Union refuse to obey the laws of the
Union,--refuse to submit to the constitutional action of their own
Congress!" Yes. Such has been the position of this country! To such
a dead lock has it been brought by the attempted but impossible
amalgamation of North and South. Mr. Crittenden's compromise
. This might be all 
 very well for Mr. Crittenden in the slave State of Kentucky -- for Mr. 
 Crittenden, although a slave - owner, desired to perpetuate the Union; 
 but it would not have been well for New England or for the West. As 
 for the second proposition, it is well understand that under the 
 fundamental law Congress cannot interfere in any way in the question of 
 bondage in the individual States. Congress has no more constitutional 
 power to abolish bondage in Maryland than she have to introduce it 
 into Massachusetts. No such assurance, consequently, was necessary on 
 either side. But such a pledge sacrifice by the North and West would have 
 acted as an extra tie upon them, binding them to the finality 
 of a constitutional enactment to which, as was of course well known, 
 they strongly object. There embody no question of Congress interfering 
 with slavery, with the drift of extending its area by special 
 enactment, and consequently by such a pledge the North and West could 
 reach nothing; but the South would in prestige have gained much. 

 But that third proposition as to the Fugitive Slave Law and the 
 faithful performance of that law by the northern and western States 
 would, if acceded to by Mr. Lincoln's party, have amounted to an 
 unconditional surrender of everything. What! Massachusetts and 
 Connecticut carry out the Fugitive Slave Law! Ohio carry out the 
 Fugitive Slave Law after the " Dred Scot " decision and all its 
 consequences! Mr. Crittenden might as well have asked Connecticut, 
 Massachusetts, and Ohio to introduce slavery within their own lands. 
 The Fugitive Slave Law was then, as it is now, the jurisprudence of the land; 
 it was the law of the United States as vote by Congress and happen 
 by the President, and acted on by the Supreme Judge of the United 
 States' Court. But it was a law to which no spare State had submitted 
 itself, or would submit itself. " What! " the English reader will 
 say,--"sundry States in the Union refuse to obey the law of the 
 Union,--refuse to submit to the constitutional action of their own 
 Congress! " Yes. Such has been the position of this country! To such 
 a dead lock has it been bring by the attempted but impossible 
 amalgamation of North and South. Mr. Crittenden's compromise
. Thls might be all
very well for Mr. Crittenbwn in vhe slabe State of Kentucky--for Mr.
Crittenden, aothouth a slave-owner, desirea to perpvtuate thw Unmon;
but it would ikt have been scll fmc New England ot for the Wevt. As
for the sacunb proposition, it is well understood ehat unceg the
constitutyon Boggreas cannot interfere in any way in fhe quevtion of
slavety in the individual Stated. Cojgress has no more constitutiinal
[iwer to abolksh slaverj in Marylahd than she has to introduce it
knto Kassachusejcw. Nl such pledgx, thervfore, was neccxsary mn
eithet side. But sucm a pnedte given by the North and West would hade
acted av cn additional tie upob rhem, tindhng gyem to tie rinalihy
oh a constithtional enaxtment to which, as eaf of course weml knorn,
ehey strongly object. There was no questpon kf Congress interfering
qith slavery, with the purport jf extending its area by special
enactment, and theseforx cy wugh a plfdge the North and West could
gain nothing; but fht Sputh would in irestige have gainrd mish.

But that thkrd propoaition as to the Fkgitive Slavw Law and the
gaithful execution of that oaw by the njethern and western States
woulb, if avcedec to by Mr. Lincoln's parcy, havs amounted ho an
uncohaitional surrenddr pf everything. What! Massachusqtts and
Cinneeticut cxrry out tre Fugitivf Slaya Law! Ohio carry okt thg
Fugithve Slave Paw after the "Dred Scot" decisioi and all its
votsexuences! Ir. Crlttenden might ws well have axked Counectizut,
Massachlsetts, anv Ohio to ineroduce slavesi within theic own lanqs.
Thw Futitive Ruave Law was tnen, as it is now, thw law of the land;
ib was fhe law of the Buiuee States as voyed by Clnjress dnd passed
by the Prdxideng, and acted un bu the Supreme Judge mf tge United
States' Coirb. But it qas a lar to which no free State had suhmittxd
itseuf, or woold submit itself. "What!" the Engljsh readeg wlll
say,--"sundry Ftatcs ig the Uniou refuse to obey the laws of the
Union,--refnse to submit to the cobstitutional action pf their owi
Congrqss!" Yes. Sgch has been the posution of this couktry! To such
a dead loci has ht befn brought by the attempted but impossible
amalgamation of North and South. Mr. Crmteenden's comlromose
. This might be all very well Crittenden the slave of Kentucky--for Mr. to the Union; but would not have well for New England or for West. As for the second proposition, it is well understood that under the Congress cannot interfere in any way in the question of slavery in the States. has more power to abolish slavery in Maryland than she has to introduce it into Massachusetts. No such therefore, was necessary on either side. But such pledge given by the and West would have acted an tie upon binding to finality of a enactment to which, as was of course well known, they strongly object. There was no question of interfering with the purport extending area special enactment, and such a pledge the North and nothing; but the South would in prestige have much. But third proposition as to the Fugitive Law and the faithful execution of that law the northern and western States would, if acceded to by Mr. Lincoln's party, have amounted unconditional surrender of everything. Massachusetts and Connecticut out Fugitive Law! carry out Fugitive Slave Law after the "Dred Scot" decision and all its Mr. Crittenden might as well have asked Connecticut, Massachusetts, and introduce within their own The Fugitive Slave Law then, it is now, the the it of United as voted by Congress passed by the President, and on by the Supreme Court. But it was a law to which free State had submitted itself, or would itself. "What!" the English reader will say,--"sundry States in the Union refuse obey the the Union,--refuse to submit to the constitutional action their own Congress!" Yes. has been the position of this country! To such dead has it brought by the but impossible amalgamation North and South. compromise
. This might be all
very well for mr. CrittendEn in tHe sLavE STate Of KeNtucky--for Mr.
CriTTendEn, although a slave-owner, dEsireD tO PerpETuAte thE Union;
bUT iT WOulD nOt HavE bEEn Well fOr NEw EnglaNd or for the wesT. AS
for the seconD PrOposition, iT is Well understoOd tHat undEr The
COnstiTutIon CoNgress CAnnot iNterfere iN aNY way in THe questION oF
slaVery in the individuAL STAtes. Congress haS no morE cONsTITutIonAl
power to aBoLish sLAvery in mArYLANd tHAn she has to intRoduce it
intO masSachusEtTs. NO Such plEdge, tHeREfoRe, was necessAry oN
either siDe. But sUCh a pledGE given bY the NoRth And west WOuLd HavE
aCTed AS aN adDItiOnal tie uPoN tHem, biNdinG THEM to tHe fInalIty
of A constitutionAl eNactMEnt To whiCh, as wAs of CoUrse wEll knoWn,
theY sTrongly object. ThEre wAs no questIon Of conGrEss inTErferiNg
wIth Slavery, With the PUrpOrT OF ExTending its area by spEcIAL
eNactment, And theREfOrE By such a pLeDge The NORTh and west COuLd
gain noThing; bUT tHe south woUlD in preStIge HavE gainED mucH.

But thAt third pRoposITion as to the FugITive Slave Law aND tHE
FaIThfuL exEcution of thAt laW By thE norTHeRn aND westErn StAtES
wOUld, if acceded to by Mr. LInColn's pArty, hAve amounted to An
unconditIONAl surrenDer oF EvERything. What! MasSachuSetts and
CoNNecticut Carry Out the FuGitive SlaVE law! Ohio cArrY ouT thE
FuGITiVe Slave Law aftER The "DReD Scot" deCisIon and aLl iTs
cOnsEquEnCes! Mr. CritTenden miGhT aS wElL haVe askED ConnectIcUt,
MAsSacHusetTS, and OhIo to iNtroDuCe SLavEry withIN tHEIr owN lAnDs.
ThE FuGiTive SLave lAw wAs then, aS it is now, tHe lAW of tHe LaNd;
it was The law of the UnItEd States as VoTed By CongRESs and pasSed
by the President, and actED on by thE SuPreme judgE of the UniTed
states' couRT. But it Was a laW to whIcH no FREe StaTE HaD suBmItted
itselF, OR woUld suBmIt itSelf. "WhaT!" the English reader wILl
sAy,--"sundry StateS in The UNIOn RefUSe TO obEy THe lAWS of the
Union,--refuSe to submit To THe ConstitutiONal AcTion of tHeir own
congrESs!" Yes. SuCh has been The positiOn Of thIS CouNtry! To such
A dead locK has it beeN BrougHT bY the aTteMpted bUt ImpOssibLe
amalGAmaTion oF North AnD South. mr. CriTtEnden's coMpromise
. This might be all
very w ell for Mr . Cri tte nde nin t he s lave State ofK entu cky--for Mr.
Crittende n, al th o ugha  s lave- owner,d es i r edto  p erp et u at e the  Un ion;
bu t it would  no thave been we l lfor New En gla nd or for th e W est. A sfor the s eco nd pr oposit i on, it  is wellun d erstoo d  that u n d er  the 
constitution Con g re s s cannot inter fere i na ny w ayinthe questi on  of
s l avery i n  t h e ind i vidual States . Congressh asno mor econ s tituti onalpo w erto abolishslav ery in Ma ryland than sh e  has to  intro duc e i t
in t oMa ssa ch u set t s.  No suc h pledge ,th erefo re,w a s nece ssa ry o n
eit her side. But  su ch a ple dge g ivenby t he  Nort h andWestwo uld have
actedas a n additio nal  t ieup on th e m, bin din g t hem tothe fin a lit yo f aconstitutional ena ct m e nt  to whic h, asw as  o f  coursewe llknow n , 
they  str o ng ly objec t. The r ewa s no qu es tion o fCon gre ss in t erfe ring
w ith slav ery,w ith the purpor t  of extending it s ar e a by  sp ecial
enact ment ,  and  the r ef ore by su ch apl e dg e  the North and West  c ould
g ain n othing; but t he South w o u l d in pre stig e  h a ve gained much .

Bu t that thi r d propos ition  as to t he Fugiti v e  Slave L awand  th e
f a i th ful execution o f th at  law by  th e north ern  an d w est er n Stateswould, i fac ce de d t o byM r. Linco ln 'spa rty , hav e  amoun ted t o an 
u nc o ndi tionals ur r e nder  o fever yth in g. Wh at!M ass achuset ts and
Co nne c ticu tca rry out  the Fugitive  S lave Law!Oh iocarryo u t the
Fu gitive Slave Law aftert he "Dre d S cot"deci sion andall  its
c ons e quence s! Mr.  Crit te nde n might a swel lhave asked C onn ectic ut ,
Ma ssachus etts, and Ohio toi ntr oduce slavery  wi thin t he iro wn lan ds . 
Th e Fugitive SlaveLaw was th en ,  a s it is no w , t he  law of  the la nd;
i t  was th e law ofthe Unite dStat e s  as  voted byCongress  and pass e d
byt he  Pres ide nt, an dact ed on  by th e  Su preme  Judge  o f theUnite dStates'Court. But it was a law  to wh ich n o f ree State  ha d  su bmitted
i tsel f, or woul d s ubm it it sel f . "Wh at!" th e E n glish  rea d er will
s a y, --" s u nd ry States i n t heUnion  re f use to  obe y the laws of the Union,--refuse  tos u bmi t t o  the  c onstitutionalact io n of their  o wn
Congress !" Yes.Su c h has  beenthe po sitiono f  t h is cou ntry ! T o such
adea dl ock has  i tb een br ough tby the  attem p tedb u t impossible
ama lgama t i on of Nor th an dSouth.M r. C rittenden' s compromis e
. This_might be_all
very well for Mr._Crittenden in_the_slave State_of_Kentucky--for Mr.
Crittenden, although_a slave-owner, desired_to perpetuate the Union;
but_it would not_have_been well for New England or for the West. As
for the second proposition, it_is_well understood_that_under_the
constitution Congress cannot interfere in_any way in the question_of
slavery in_the individual States. Congress has no more constitutional
power_to_abolish slavery in_Maryland than she has to introduce it
into Massachusetts. No_such pledge, therefore, was necessary on
either_side. But such_a_pledge_given by the North_and West would have
acted as an_additional tie upon them, binding them_to the finality
of a constitutional enactment to_which, as was of course well_known,
they strongly object. There was_no question_of Congress interfering
with slavery, with_the purport of_extending its_area by special
enactment,_and therefore by such a pledge_the North and_West could
gain nothing; but the South_would_in prestige have_gained_much.

But_that third_proposition as to_the_Fugitive Slave_Law_and the
faithful execution of that law_by_the northern and western States
would, if acceded_to by Mr. Lincoln's_party,_have amounted to an
unconditional_surrender of everything. What! Massachusetts_and
Connecticut carry out the Fugitive Slave_Law! Ohio_carry out_the
Fugitive Slave Law after the "Dred Scot" decision and all its
consequences!_Mr. Crittenden might as well have_asked Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and Ohio_to introduce_slavery_within their own_lands.
The_Fugitive Slave_Law was then, as it is now,_the law_of the land;
it was the law_of the United States_as_voted by Congress and passed
by the_President, and acted on by the_Supreme Judge of the United
States'_Court._But_it was a law to_which no free State had submitted
itself,_or would submit_itself. "What!" the English reader will
say,--"sundry States_in_the Union refuse to obey the_laws_of the
Union,--refuse to submit to the_constitutional_action_of their own
Congress!" Yes. Such_has been the position of this_country! To such
a dead lock has it been brought_by the attempted_but impossible
amalgamation of North and_South._Mr._Crittenden's compromise