Page:California Digital Library (IA historyofkansas00hollrich).pdf/57

 halls of Congress, of forensic skill and impassioned eloquence. It was a sublime occasion for the orator. The excited nation were the anxious spectators; the Legislatures of the different States the abettors. The subject was one calculated to call forth no buncombe speech-making; but earnest, heart-warmed sentiments. It was legislating, not for a day, nor a year, upon one section of the country and a few people; but for centuries, over one-fourth of the domain of the United States. In it humanity plead her claim, and the country asked for deliverance from a curse. On the other hand, the rights of a free people were invaded, and Oppression frowned upon them, ready to trample them beneath her iron heel. The beams of sovereignty in a State were to be blotted out, and its greatness and glory abased. Many of the speakers rose to the sublimity of the occasion, and even their opponents melted to tears before their persuasive pleadings. Others descended as far below it, and their speeches are marked by sectional prejudice, vanity and animosity. Both parties were about equally matched in argument, skill and eloquence.

On the part of the Restrictionists it was contended that the founders of our Republic lamented the existence of slavery, as a “great evil,” which they could not remove, but hoped, by a wise legislation, that it would ultimately disappear; that they had themselves set the example by the famous ordinance of 1787, which was intended to cover all the territory of the United States, and now, at least, its precedent should have weight; to all of which the Anti-restrictionists fully conceded, but denied that the precedent spoken of should have any weight, as that was done under the Confederacy; and, furthermore, it was unconstitutional, because done after the cession made by Virginia, which declared that the States formed from that territory should be admitted into Union on the footing of the original thirteen States. For constitutional right the Restrictionists point to