multiply these examples of Southern opinion and feeling. I have brought them forward because, while the cry of "Northern fanaticism" is incessantly ringing in our ears, I desire the country to judge whether a much larger share of fanaticism does not exist in the Southern States; and whether this sláveholding fanaticism is not infinitely less excusable than that which prevails in the North. Sir, I can respect the man who, under the impulse of philanthropy or patriotism, deals his ill-judged blows at an institution which is crushing the dearest rights of millions, and now seeks at all hazards to curse new regions with its presence; but it is difficult to respect the slaveholder, who, with his foot upon the neck of his brother, sits down with his Bible in one hand and his metaphysics in the other, to argue with me, that the truths of the Declaration of Independence are mere sophisms, and that the forcible stripping of three millions of human beings of all their rights, even their humanity itself, receives the sanction of the Almighty, and is a blessing to both tyrant and slave. This is a species of fanaticism above all others the most distasteful, the most preposterous, the most revolting. I will not undertake to combat these absurdities of its champions; for it has been said truly, that to argue with men who have renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by Scripture.

Mr. Chairman, we hear much of Northern and Southern aggression. Nothing is more current in Southern speeches and newspapers than the charge, that the people of the free States are aggressing upon the rights of the South; and this Union, it seems, is to be dissolved, unless these aggressions shall cease. On the other hand, the people of the free States charge the South with being the aggressor, and plead not guilty to the indictment of the slaveholders. Now, how stands the case? Who is the aggressor? This is the question to be solved, and the one I propose mainly to examine. I wish to do this fairly and dispassionately; for I am fully aware of the differences of opinion which prevail in regard to it, resulting, perhaps necessarily, from the different circumstances of the parties.

The charge of Northern aggression I certainly deny. It has no just foundation. Neither is the charge of Southern aggression, perhaps, fully and strictly true. The truth rather seems to be, that under the lead of Southern counsels, both sections of the Union have united in enlarging and aggrandizing the slave power. This proposition I shall endeavor to establish.

What are these Northern aggressions of which we have heard so much complaint? Of what hostile acts do they consist? Have the people of the free States attempted to interfere, by law, with slavery in the South? This charge, I am aware, is frequently brought against us. You can scarcely open a newspaper from that quarter in which it is not gravely made. It has been again and again denied by Northern men on this floor, but Southern gentlemen still continue to repeat it. Sometimes it is preferred against the people of the North generally, but more frequently against a comparatively small portion of them, as the Free Soil party. The charge is utterly unfounded in truth. The Whigs and Democrats of the North, as well as the Free Soil men, disclaim all right on the part of Congress to touch the institution of slavery where it exists. We all agree that the subject is beyond our control. As regards the naked question of constitutional power, Congress has no more right to abolish slavery in South Carolina, than it has to abolish free schools in Massachusetts, no more right to support slavery in one State than in the other. It is an institution dependent wholly upon State law, with which the General Government has no more concern than with slavery in Russia or Austria. It is true, that some of us in the North claim the right to assault slavery with moral weapons, even in the States. When the slaveholder says to us that on this subject we must keep our thoughts to ourselves, we shall obey him if it suits us. We have a right to employ those moral forces by which reforms of every kind are carried forward. We understand the power of opinion. We believe, in the language of Dr, Channing, that "opinion is stronger than kings, mobs, lynch-laws, or any other laws for the suppression of thought and speech;" and that, "whoever spreads through his circle, be that circle wide or narrow, just opinions and views respecting slavery, hastens its fall." Sir, it is not only our right, but our duty, to give utterance to our cherished moral convictions; and if slavery, rooted as it is in the institutions and opinions of the South, cannot brave the growing disapprobation of Christendom, let it perish. And it will perish. If by "reenacting the law of God," we can prevent its extension, the South will be constrained to adopt some plan of gradual emancipation. She will realize forcibly the important fact, which she now endeavors to overlook, that truth, justice, humanity, and the spirit of the age, are all leagued against her system. I will not harbor the impious. thought that an institution, so freighted with wretchedness and woe, is to be perpetuated under the providence of God. I cannot adopt

a principle that would dethrone the Almighty, and make Satan the governor of the moral world. It is "the fool" who "hath said in his heart there is no God." Nor do we mean to be silenced by the hackneyed argument that slavery is a civil institution, and therefore none of our business. We deny that the public laws of a community can sanctify oppression, or stifle the expression of our sympathy for the oppressed. Your slavery, when intrenched behind your institutions, is still slavery; and although your laws may uphold it, they cannot repeal that Christian law which teaches the universal brotherhood of our race. But while I thus frankly avow these sentiments, I repeat what I have already said, that the people of the North claim no right, through the action of the General Government, to interfere with slavery in the slaveholding States. We most emphatically disavow any such purpose. Are we, then, guilty of aggression upon the rights of the slaveholder?

We are charged with violating the clause in the Federal Constitution relative to fugitives from labor. This is among the gravest accusations preferred against us. Sir, this clause, and the act of Congress made in pursuance of it, have been elaborately argued and solemnly adjudicated in the highest court in the nation. Our duty in the free States has been made so plain that a child may understand it. I would not refer to this subject, which has been so often discussed on this floor, and repeat what has been so often said, were it not for the unending clamor of the South against us. We are driven to a repetition of the grounds of our defense. We say the slave-hunter may come upon our soil in pursuit of his fugitive, and take him if he is able, either with or without warrant, and we are not allowed to interfere in the race. "Hands off" is our covenant, and the whole of it. If the owner sees fit to sue out a warrant, he must go before a United States officer with his complaint. It is not the duty of our State magistrates to aid him, the execution of the clause in question depending exclusively upon federal authority. I think I state fairly the opinion of the Supreme Court in the case of Prigg vs. the State of Pennsylvania. Now, if Congress alone can provide for the execution of this clause through federal jurisdiction, and the State magistrates of the North are under no obligations to interfere, is it a violation of the constitutional rights of the South for us to pass laws prohibiting such interference? I would like to have Southern gentlemen answer this question; for I insist upon it, that if the Federal Constitution does not require us to assist in the recapture of fugitives, it cannot be an aggression upon Southern rights to withhold such

assistance, and thus maintain the position of neutrality, or nonaction, assigned us by the Constitution. Can it be that the Northern States have any other duties to perform than those which the Constitution itself imposes? Is slavery so endeared to us that we must volunteer in its support? Sir, in examining this question, the constitutional rights of the South, and the corresponding constitutional obligations of the North, are the only legitimate matters of consideration. No free State has as yet passed any laws discharging fugitives from the service they owe by the laws of other States, or preventing their recapture; and if this is not done, there can be no reasonable ground of complaint against the North. According to the decision alluded to, the fugitive may be recaptured without warrant, and, without any trial of his rights by jury or otherwise, carried into slavery. This manifestly exposes the colored people of the free States to the Southern kidnapper. They have the right, which belongs to all communities, to guard the liberties of their own citizens; and if, for this purpose, some of them have passed laws against the kidnapping of free persons as slaves, and providing a trial by jury to determine the question whether the party claimed is or is not a slave, is it an aggression upon Southern rights? When the free colored citizens of the North visit the ports of South Carolina, they are thrown into prison, and sometimes even sold into slavery. This, if I mistake not, is justified by the South on the ground of a necessary police regulation. Have not the Northern States a right to establish their police regulations, to secure the rights of their citizens? Are not police regulations in behalf of liberty as justifiable as police regulations in behalf of slavery?

As regards the enticement of slaves from their masters, the number of such cases is small. Neither the States, nor the mass of their citizens, are accountable, or have any connection whatever with such transactions. The great majority of escapes are prompted by other causes than Northern interference. The slave has the power of locomotion, and the instinct to be free; and it would indeed be wonderful did he not, of his own will and by his own efforts, struggle for the prize of which he has been robbed. That men will strive to better their condition is a law of nature. The flight of the bondman is a necessary consequence of the oppression under which he groans. Blame not the North for this, but blame your diabolical system, which impiously tramples under foot the God-given rights of men. Upbraid Nature, for she is always "agitating" the question of slavery, and persuading its victims to

flee. You hold three millions of your fellow-beings as chattels. You shut out from them the light of the Bible, and degrade and brutalize them to the extent of your power, for your system requires it. You trample under foot their marriage contracts, and spread licentiousness over half the States of the Union. You deny them that principle of eternal justice, a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. You sunder their dearest relations, separating at your will husbands and wives, parents and children. And do you suppose the poor slave, smarting under these wrongs, will not seek deliverance by flight? And when, through peril and starvation, he finds his way among us, panting for that liberty for which our fathers poured out their blood, do you imagine we shall drop our work and join in the chase with his Christless pursuers? Sir, there is no power on earth that can induce us thus to take sides with the oppressor. Such, I rejoice to believe, is the public sentiment of the North, that I care not what laws Congress may enact, the slave-hunter will find himself unaided. The free States will observe faithfully the compromises of the Constitution. They will give up their soil as a hunting-ground for the slaveholder, suspending their sovereignty that he may give free chase to his fugitive. They will pass no law to discharge him from the service he may legally owe to his claimant, or to hinder his recapture. But we will not actively coöperate against the unhappy victim of your tyranny. And if Southern gentlemen mean to insist upon such active coöperation on our part, as a condition of their continuing in the Union, they may as well, in my judgment, begin to look about them for some way of getting out of it on the best terms they can. Under no circumstances, I trust, will we yield to their demand.

Another intolerable aggression with which the North is charged is that of scattering incendiary publications in the South, designed to incite insurrections among the slaves. The Southern gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Ross] has paraded this charge in the most hideous colors. My friend from North Carolina has also been quite graphic in setting it forth, declaring that the free States "keep up and foster in their bosoms Abolition societies, whose main purpose is to scatter firebrands throughout the South, to incite servile insurrections, and, stimulate by licentious pictures our negroes to invade the persons of our white women." Sir, this is a serious accusation, and if true, the South unquestionably has a right to complain. I will not charge the gentleman with fabricating it, but I regret that he did not produce the evidence on which he felt