South。　　Doubtless　there　are　individuals　on　both　sides　who　would
  not　hold　slaves　under　any　circumstances；　and　others　who　would
  gladly　introduce　slavery　anew　if　it　were　out　of　existence。　　We
  know　that　some　Southern　men　do　free　their　slaves；　go　North　and
  become　tip…top　abolitionists；　while　some　Northern　ones　go　South
  and　become　most　cruel　slave　masters。
  When　Southern　people　tell　us　that　they　are　no　more　responsible
  for　the　origin　of　slavery　than　we　are；　I　acknowledge　the　fact。
  When　it　is　said　that　the　institution　exists；　and　that　it　is　very
  difficult　to　get　rid　of　it　in　any　satisfactory　way；　I　can
  understand　and　appreciate　the　saying。　　I　surely　will　not　blame
  them　for　not　doing　what　I　should　not　know　how　to　do　myself。　　If
  all　earthly　power　were　given　me；　I　should　not　know　what　to　do　as
  to　the　existing　institution。　　My　first　impulse　would　be　to　free
  all　the　slaves；　and　send　them　to　Liberia；　to　their　own　native
  land。　　But　a　moment's　reflection　would　convince　me　that　whatever
  of　high　hope　（as　I　think　there　is）　there　may　be　in　this　in　the
  long　run；　its　sudden　execution　is　impossible。　　If　they　were　all
  landed　there　in　a　day；　they　would　all　perish　in　the　next　ten
  days；　and　there　are　not　surplus　shipping　and　surplus　money　enough
  to　carry　them　there　in　many　times　ten　days。　　What　then？　　Free
  them　all；　and　keep　them　among　us　as　underlings？　　Is　it　quite
  certain　that　this　betters　their　condition？　　I　think　I　would　not
  hold　one　in　slavery　at　any　rate；　yet　the　point　is　not　clear
  enough　for　me　to　denounce　people　upon。　　What　next？　　Free　them；
  and　make　them　politically　and　socially　our　equals？　　My　own
  feelings　will　not　admit　of　this；　and　if　mine　would；　we　well　know
  that　those　of　the　great　mass　of　whites　will　not。　　Whether　this
  feeling　accords　with　justice　and　sound　judgment　is　not　the　sole
  question；　if　indeed　it　is　any　part　of　it。　　A　universal　feeling；
  whether　well　or　ill　founded；　cannot　be　safely　disregarded。　　We
  cannot　then　make　them　equals。　　It　does　seem　to　me　that　systems　of
  gradual　emancipation　might　be　adopted；　but　for　their　tardiness　in
  this　I　will　not　undertake　to　judge　our　brethren　of　the　South。
  When　they　remind　us　of　their　constitutional　rights；　I　acknowledge
  themnot　grudgingly；　but　fully　and　fairly；　and　I　would　give　them
  any　legislation　for　the　reclaiming　of　their　fugitives　which
  should　not　in　its　stringency　be　more　likely　to　carry　a　free　man
  into　slavery　than　our　ordinary　criminal　laws　are　to　hang　an
  innocent　one。
  But　all　this；　to　my　judgment；　furnishes　no　more　excuse　for
  permitting　slavery　to　go　into　our　own　free　territory　than　it
  would　for　reviving　the　African　slave　trade　by　law。　　The　law　which
  forbids　the　bringing　of　slaves　from　Africa；　and　that　which　has　so
  long　forbidden　the　taking　of　them　into　Nebraska；　can　hardy　be
  distinguished　on　any　moral　principle；　and　the　repeal　of　the
  former　could　find　quite　as　plausible　excuses　as　that　of　the
  latter。
  The　arguments　by　which　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　is
  sought　to　be　justified　are　these：
  First。　　That　the　Nebraska　country　needed　a　territorial
  government。
  Second。　　That　in　various　ways　the　public　had　repudiated　that
  compromise　and　demanded　the　repeal；　and　therefore　should　not　now
  complain　of　it。
  And；　lastly；　That　the　repeal　establishes　a　principle　which　is
  intrinsically　right。
  I　will　attempt　an　answer　to　each　of　them　in　its　turn。
  First；　then：　If　that　country　was　in　need　of　a　territorial
  organization；　could　it　not　have　had　it　as　well　without　as　with　a
  repeal？　　Iowa　and　Minnesota；　to　both　of　which　the　Missouri
  restriction　applied；
  had；　without　its　repeal；　each　in　succession；　territorial
  organizations。　　And　even　the　year　before；　a　bill　for　Nebraska
  itself　was　within　an　ace　of　passing　without　the　repealing　clause；
  and　this　in　the　hands　of　the　same　men　who　are　now　the　champions
  of　repeal。　　Why　no　necessity　then　for　repeal？　　But　still　later；
  when　this　very　bill　was　first　brought　in；　it　contained　no　repeal。
  But；　say　they；　because　the　people　had　demanded；　or　rather
  commanded；　the　repeal；　the　repeal　was　to　accompany　the
  organization　whenever　that　should　occur。
  Now；　I　deny　that　the　public　ever　demanded　any　such　thingever
  repudiated　the　Missouri　Compromise；　ever　commanded　its　repeal。　　I
  deny　it；　and　call　for　the　proof。　　It　is　not　contended；　I　believe；
  that　any　such　command　has　ever　been　given　in　express　terms。　　It
  is　only　said　that　it　was　done　in　principle。　　The　support　of　the
  Wilmot　Proviso　is　the　first　fact　mentioned　to　prove　that　the
  Missouri　restriction　was　repudiated　in　principle；　and　the　second
  is　the　refusal　to　extend　the　Missouri　line　over　the　country
  acquired　from　Mexico。　　These　are　near　enough　alike　to　be　treated
  together。　　The　one　was　to　exclude　the　chances　of　slavery　from　the
  whole　new　acquisition　by　the　lump；　and　the　other　was　to　reject　a
  division　of　it；　by　which　one　half　was　to　be　given　up　to　those
  chances。　　Now；　whether　this　was　a　repudiation　of　the　Missouri
  line　in　principle　depends　upon　whether　the　Missouri　law　contained
  any　principle　requiring　the　line　to　be　extended　over　the　country
  acquired　from　Mexico。　　I　contend　it　did　not。　　I　insist　that　it
  contained　no　general　principle；　but　that　it　was；　in　every　sense；
  specific。　　That　its　terms　limit　it　to　the　country　purchased　from
  France　is　undenied　and　undeniable。　　It　could　have　no　principle
  beyond　the　intention　of　those　who　made　it。　　They　did　not　intend
  to　extend　the　line　to　country　which　they　did　not　own。　　If　they
  intended　to　extend　it　in　the　event　of　acquiring　additional
  territory；　why　did　they　not　say　so？　　It　was　just　as　easy　to　say
  that　〃in　all　the　country　west　of　the　Mississippi　which　we　now
  own；　or　may　hereafter　acquire；　there　shall　never　be　slavery；〃　as
  to　say　what　they　did　say；　and　they　would　have　said　it　if　they　had
  meant　it。　　An　intention　to　extend　the　law　is　not　only　not
  mentioned　in　the　law；　but　is　not　mentioned　in　any　contemporaneous
  history。　　Both　the　law　itself；　and　the　history　of　the　times；　are
  a　blank　as　to　any　principle　of　extension；　and　by　neither　the
  known　rules　of　construing　statutes　and　contracts；　nor　by　common
  sense；　can　any　such　principle　be　inferred。
  Another　fact　showing　the　specific　character　of　the　Missouri　law
  showing　that　it　intended　no　more　than　it　expressed；　showing　that
  the　line　was　not　intended　as　a　universal　dividing　line　between
  Free　and　Slave　territory；　present　and　prospective；　north　of　which
  slavery　could　never　gois　the　fact　that　by　that　very　law
  Missouri　came　in　as　a　slave　State；　north　of　the　line。　　If　that
  law　contained　any　prospective　principle；　the　whole　law　must　be
  looked　to　in　order　to　ascertain　what　the　principle　was。　　And　by
  this　rule　the　South　could　fairly　contend　that；　inasmuch　as　they
  got　one　slave　State　north　of　the　line　at　the　inception　of　the
  law；　they　have　the　right　to　have　another　given　them　north　of　it
  occasionally；　now　and　then；　in　the　indefinite　westward　extension
  of　the　line。　　This　demonstrates　the　absurdity　of　attempting　to
  deduce　a　prospective　principle　from　the　Missouri　Compromise　line。
  When　we　voted　for　the　Wilmot　Proviso　we　were　voting　to　keep
  slavery　out　of　the　whole　Mexican　acquisition；　and　little　did　we
  think　we　were　thereby　voting　to　let　it　into　Nebraska　lying
  several　hundred　miles　distant。　　When　we　voted　against　extending
  the　Missouri　line；　little　did　we　think　we　were　voting　to　destroy
  the　old　line；　then　of　near　thirty　years'　standing。
  To　argue　that　we　thus　repudiated　the　Missouri　Compromise　is　no
  less　absurd　than　it　would　be　to　argue　that　because　we　have　so　far
  forborne　to　acquire　Cuba；　we　have　thereby；　in　principle；
  repudiated　our　former　acquisitions　and　determined　to　throw　them
  out　of　the　Union。　　No　less　absurd　than　it　would　be　to　say　that
  because　I　may　have　refused　to　build　an　addition　to　my　house；　I
  thereby　have　decided　to　destroy　the　existing　house！　And　if　I
  catch　you　setting　fire　to　my　house；　you　will　turn　upon　me　and　say
  I　instructed　you　to　do　it！
  The　most　conclusive　argument；　however；　that　while　for　the　Wilmot
  Proviso；　and　while　voting　against　the　extension　of　the　Missouri
  line；　we　never　thought　of　disturbing　the　original　Missouri
  Compromise；　is　found　in　the　fact　that　there　was　then；　and　still
  is；　an　unorganized　tract　of　fine　country；　nearly　as　large　as　the
  State　of　Missouri；　lying　immediately　west　of　Arkansas　and　south
  of　the　Missouri　Compromise　line；　and　that　we　never　attempted　to
  prohibit　slavery　as　to　it。　　I　wish　particular　attention　to　this。
  It　adjoins　the　original　Missouri　Compromise　line　by　its　northern
  boundary；　and　consequently　is　part　of　the　country　into　which　by
  implication　slavery　was　permitted　to　go　by　that　compromise。
  There　it　has　lain　open　ever　s；　and　there　it　still　lies；　and　yet
  no　effort　has　been　made　at　any　time　to　wrest　it　from　the　South。
  In　all　our　struggles　to　prohibit　slavery　within　our　Mexican
  acquisitions；　we　never　so　much　as　lifted　a　finger　to　prohibit　it