Page:California Digital Library (IA historyofkansas00hollrich).pdf/60

 “We are asked why has Virginia changed her policy relative to slavery? That the sentiments of our most distinguished men thirty years past entirely correspond with the course which the friends of restriction now advocate; that Mr. Jefferson has delineated a gloomy picture of the baneful effects of slavery; that the Virginia delegation, one of whom was the late President of the United States, voted for the restriction on the north-western territory.—When it is recollected that the notes of Mr. Jefferson were written during the progress of the Revolution, the mind operated upon its incidents as novel as stupendous, it is no matter of surprise, that the writer who was performing so distinguished a part, should have imbibed a large share of that enthusiasm which such an occasion was so well calculated to produce. With the eye of benevolence surveying the condition of mankind, and a holy zeal for the amelioration of their condition, he gave vent to his feelings in the effusion to which our minds have been called. It is palpable these are the illusions of fancy.”

Mr. Scott closed his remarks by warning gentlemen from the North that “they were sowing the seeds of discord in the Union;” that “they were signing, sealing and delivering their own death-warrant;” that “the weapon they were unjustly wielding was a two-edged sword;” that “he considered the question big with the fate of Caesar, and of Rome.” Mr. Walker, of Georgia, said that “he must be badly acquainted with the signs of the times who does not perceive a storm portending, and callous to all the better feelings of our nature who does not dread the bursting of that storm.” Mr. Cobb, of the same State, declares that “if they (Restrictionists) persist the Union will be dissolved;” that “they were kindling a fire which all the waters of the ocean cannot put out, which seas of blood can only extinguish.” Mr. Colston, of Virginia, accuses Mr. Livermore, of New Hampshire, “of speaking to the galleries, and by his language, endeavoring to excite a servile war,” and ended by saying that “he was no better than Arbuthnot, or Ambrister, and deserved no better fate.” Mr. Jones rings in the chorus, “although Missouri