But I deny that the Constitution recognizes property in man.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I deem it established, then, that the Constitution does not recognize property in man, but leaves that question, as between the states, to the law of nature and of nations.
But you answer, that the Constitution recognizes property in slaves. It would be sufficient, then, to reply, that this constitutional recognition must be void, because it is repugnant to the law of nature and of nations.
Our constitution works. Our great republic is a government of laws, not of men.
I guess I have a strong constitution.
Property is intended to serve life, and no matter how much we surround it with rights and respect, it has no personal being. It is part of the earth man walks on. It is not man.
Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself.
I have a strong constitution.
I don't believe in altering the Constitution.
I submit, on the other hand, most respectfully, that the Constitution not merely does not affirm that principle, but, on the contrary, altogether excludes it.
As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.