No, Sir, you stand there to-day an infamous, perjured villain.

Yes, he is a perjured villain; and he perjures himself every hour he occupies a seat on this floor.

And if you come among us, we will do with you as we did with John Brown,--hang you up as high as Haman.

While exhibiting the Character of Slave-Masters, these numerous instances--and they might be multiplied indefinitely--attest the weakness of their cause.

It requires no special talent to estimate the insignificance of an argument that can be supported only by violence.

Truth, like the sunbeam, cannot be soiled by outward touch, while the best testimony to its might is found in the active passions it provokes.

That Senators should seriously declare Slavery “ennobling,” at least to the master, and “the black marble keystone of our national arch,” would excite wonder, if it were not explained by examples of history.

There are men who, in the spirit of paradox, make themselves partisans of a bad cause, as Jerome Cardan wrote an Encomium on Nero.

But where there is no disposition to paradox, it is natural that a cherished practice should blind those under its influence; nor is there any end to these exaggerations.

Kidnapping, too, a kindred indulgence, was openly avowed, and I doubt not held to be “ennobling.” Next to the unconsciousness of childhood is the unconsciousness of Barbarism.

The real Barbarian is unconscious as an infant; and the Slave-Master shows much of the same character.

No New-Zealander exults in his tattoo, no savage of the Northwest Coast exults in his flat head, more than the Slave-Master of these latter days--always, of course, with honorable exceptions--exults in his unfortunate condition.

The Slave-Master hugs his disgusting practice as the Carib of the Gulf hugged Cannibalism, and as Brigham Young now hugs Polygamy.

With knowledge comes distrust and the modest consciousness of imperfection; but the pride of Barbarism has no such limitation.

Do not, Sir, call him Slave-Master, who entered into the presence of his Maker only as Emancipator of his slaves.

The difference between such men and the Slave-Masters whom I expose to-day is so precise that it cannot be mistaken.

The first, recognizing its wrong, were at once liberated from its insidious influence; while the latter, upholding it as right and “ennobling,” must naturally draw from it motives of conduct.

But if Slavery degrades the slave, it degrades the master more.

What control can the moral and religious sentiments have over a person who sees himself invested with a power so eminently contrary to morality and religion?

The continual exercise of an unjust claim, even when moderated, ends in corrupting the character of the man, and perverting his judgment.… The possession of a slave being the result of injustice, the relations of the master with the slave…

Who can remain always pure, when, induced by disposition, excited by temper, influenced by caprice, he may with impunity oppress, insult, humiliate his fellow-men?

The enlightened man, the civilized man, is nevertheless a man; that he may not oppress, it is necessary that it should be impossible for him to oppress.

If the African race be inferior, as is alleged, then unquestionably a Christian Civilization must lift it from degradation, not by the lash and the chain, not by this barbarous pretension of ownership, but by a generous charity, which…

Surely, when the Senator quoted Scripture to enforce the claim of Slave-Masters, he did not intend a jest.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.