Those who insist upon preserving freedom in the Territories, have no desire to disturb the institution of slavery in the States. The Constitution confers upon them no such authority. They could not interfere with it if they would, and they would not if they could. They have ever heretofore been, and still are, ready strictly to fulfil the constitutional provisions upon this subject.
I shall aim to discuss this question with a proper regard for the most sensitive feelings of our brethren of the slave States, but also, sir, with a plainness commensurate with its profound importance. The legislatures of thirteen of the States of the Union, including Delaware, which still has two thousand slaves, have passed resolutions instructing their Senators and requesting their Representatives in Congress to oppose any further extension of slavery. There is but one sentiment upon this subject throughout the free States--it is that of eternal and _uncompromising_ hostility to the project. They will never consent that the free and virgin soil of the Territories shall be blighted and cursed by the tears of the slave, while they have a will to determine, or a muscle to resist.
The proposition to make this Government the instrument for planting slavery upon soil now free, is regarded by a few at the North as so improbable and monstrous, that they have refused to believe that it is seriously entertained. Startling as the proposal is, it is nevertheless true.
Another argument employed by these apologists is, that the 'Proviso,' or a law prohibiting slavery in these Territories, is unnecessary; that it is an abstraction--a 'firebrand' employed by demagogues and factionists to kindle strife in the Democratic party; that the Territories are now free, and that they will so continue, unless an act of Congress is passed establishing slavery. It is impossible to avoid asking ourselves why, if these gentlemen are sincere--if they truly believe that slavery can not and will not go there, and they do not desire that it should--why they so strenuously oppose the passage of such a prohibition? If their views are correct, then such a law would be a mere harmless superfluity. But, sir, this '_firebrand of freedom_' is a thing more exalted and noble than a mere abstraction. It is wielded by men of strong arms, adamantine will, and hearts animated by the divine impulses of patriotism and liberty. They have registered a vow in Heaven to employ every lawful and constitutional means to roll back the dark tide of slavery from the temple of Freedom, and vindicate the character of the Republic from the disgrace and reproach of establishing slavery in a free territory. We are no abstractionists. The Representatives in this Congress from the fifteen slaveholding States of the Union, without an exception, and without distinction of party, avow an intention to carry their slaves into these Territories, and there hold them in bondage. They assert, with passionate vehemence, that they have such a constitutional right. They have even told us, sir, that, regardless of the remonstrances of the people of the North--heedless of any prohibitory law of Congress upon the subject, they would invade the free soil of the Pacific, and take with them their slaves, and weapons of defence! Are these declarations abstractions? Do they make no appeal for immediate, energetic and prohibitory legislation?