"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"
About this Quote
Seward is trying to do something slippery and momentous at once: pry slavery loose from the nation’s founding document without pretending the country is ready to abolish it outright. The key verb is “deem.” He’s not merely interpreting; he’s staking out a political reality, attempting to make a contested reading sound like settled law. In the 1850s, when every comma in the Constitution had become battlefield terrain, that kind of confident framing was itself a weapon.
The phrase “property in man” is calibrated disgust. It refuses slavery’s own euphemisms and forces the listener to hear the moral obscenity embedded in the legal category. Yet Seward’s next move is tactical restraint: he argues the Constitution “does not recognize” that property claim, then immediately concedes the practical impasse by pushing the dispute “as between the states” onto a different plane. That’s not neutral federalism so much as a judo throw: if the Constitution is silent, pro-slavery absolutists lose their strongest national mandate.
His appeal to “the law of nature and of nations” is the subtextual flex. It imports higher-law thinking - the idea that moral principle and international norms can judge domestic statutes - without openly calling the South criminal. It’s also a way to speak to Northern moderates: you can oppose slavery’s expansion as constitutional and civilized, not merely sentimental.
Context matters: Seward is operating inside an America cracking under Fugitive Slave enforcement, the Kansas-Nebraska chaos, and Dred Scott’s looming logic. The quote is an argument for containment with a moral fuse attached: once you deny that the Constitution blesses human property, the national future starts tilting toward emancipation, whether the states like it or not.
The phrase “property in man” is calibrated disgust. It refuses slavery’s own euphemisms and forces the listener to hear the moral obscenity embedded in the legal category. Yet Seward’s next move is tactical restraint: he argues the Constitution “does not recognize” that property claim, then immediately concedes the practical impasse by pushing the dispute “as between the states” onto a different plane. That’s not neutral federalism so much as a judo throw: if the Constitution is silent, pro-slavery absolutists lose their strongest national mandate.
His appeal to “the law of nature and of nations” is the subtextual flex. It imports higher-law thinking - the idea that moral principle and international norms can judge domestic statutes - without openly calling the South criminal. It’s also a way to speak to Northern moderates: you can oppose slavery’s expansion as constitutional and civilized, not merely sentimental.
Context matters: Seward is operating inside an America cracking under Fugitive Slave enforcement, the Kansas-Nebraska chaos, and Dred Scott’s looming logic. The quote is an argument for containment with a moral fuse attached: once you deny that the Constitution blesses human property, the national future starts tilting toward emancipation, whether the states like it or not.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by William
Add to List
