Read it through once

In order that I may be clearly understood, I will reiterate tho foregoing argument. Before the adoption of the Federal constitution, the states were to a great extent sovereign and independent, and of course were in a condition to settle terms on which to form a more perfect union. The North and the South, otherwise, the slave-holding and the non-slaveholding states met in convention to settle those _terms_. The North in convention conceded to the South the right to hold slave property; and the sole right of making all laws necessary for the regulation of slavery. It was thus, we see, by a solemn contract or agreement, that the South acquired exclusive right to control domestic slavery within her borders. What right then, have the citizens of free states, to intermeddle with it? They have none, as long as the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The union of these states is based on that instrument, and whenever we cease faithfully to observe its provisions, the Union must necessarily cease to exist. All interference then on the part of the North, endangering the rights or injuriously affecting the interests of the South in slave property, is a violation of the supreme law of the nation. I need not say more; the argument must be clear to every one; and I think the duty of all concerned equally clear.