he clause providing for direct
taxation, they are _enumerated_ as _persons_, not _valued_ as
_property_. The term 'person' is used more frequently in the
Constitution than any other, and it is applied expressly to slaves, and
to the whole people of the United States, including the President and
Vice President, who are designated therein as persons. This very
question, whether slaves are persons or property under the Constitution,
arose in the great case of _Groves_ vs. _Slaughter_, when, in 1841 (with
a single dissenting opinion, that of Judge Baldwin), after the fullest
argument on both sides, it was unanimously decided by the Supreme Court
of the United States that slaves, in the relation which they hold to the
National Government under the Federal Constitution, are _persons only_,
and not _property_. Were it otherwise, Massachusetts could not forbid
the introduction of slaves from the South for sale there as merchandise;
for Massachusetts could not prohibit the introduction of the cotton or
any property of the South for sale as merchandise within her limits, for
that would have been a prohibition of the _exports from State to State_,
which is forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My own elaborate
argument before the Court, as one of the counsel in that case, will be
found in the appendix to the first edition of the 15th volume of
Peters's Reports. As _persons_, the President has a right to call for
the aid of all residing in the United States, except aliens, to
suppress the rebellion. He has a right to call for the services of the
loyal or rebel masters for such a purpose, as well as for the service of
their slaves.

It cannot be denied, that the masters, whether rebel or loyal, may be
called and even forced by conscription into the army to suppress the
rebellion. Would it not then be strange if the master could exempt his
slaves from similar services? The only right of the master recognized by
the Constitution, is to the 'service or labor' of his slaves. But he has
a right equally strong to his own service or labor; yet both must yield
to the paramount right of the Government to the services of both or
either to suppress the rebellion. There is not a single word in the
Federal Constitution which, either by inference or express declaration,
exempts slaves, more than any other persons, from the call of the
Federal Government to aid in suppressing a rebellion. Such is the
construction given, by the South to the so-cal