Had Congress at that time firmly insisted that Missouri should enter the Union as a Free State, the vast appropriation now proposed would have been saved, and, better still, this vaster civil war would have been prevented.

Alas, that men should forget that God is bound by no compromise, and that, sooner or later, He will insist that justice shall be done!

There is not a dollar spent, and not a life sacrificed, in this calamitous war, which does not plead against any repetition of that wicked folly.

Palsied be the tongue that speaks of compromise with Slavery!

In each of these cases there was concession to Slavery which history records with shame, and it was by this that your wicked slaveholding conspiracy waxed confident and strong, till at last it became ripe for war.

And now it is proposed, as an agency in the suppression of the Rebellion, to make an end of Slavery.

Gradualism is delay, and delay is the betrayal of victory.

If you would be triumphant, strike quickly, let your blows be felt at once, without notice or premonition, and especially without time for resistance or debate.

Strike promptly, and time becomes your invaluable ally; strike slowly, gradually, prospectively, and time goes over to the enemy.

There is but one way to put down the Rebellion, and that is instant action; and all that is done, whether in the field, in the Cabinet, or in Congress, must partake of this character.

Whatever is postponed for twenty years, or ten years, may seem abstractly politic or wise; but it is in no sense a war measure, nor can it contribute essentially to the suppression of the Rebellion.

I think I may assume, without contradiction, that the tender of money to Missouri for the sake of Emancipation is a war measure, to be vindicated as such under the Constitution of the United States.

It is also an act of justice to an oppressed race.

Except as a war measure to aid in putting down the Rebellion, this proposition could expect little hospitality here.

Senators are ready to vote money--as the British Parliament voted subsidies--to supply the place of soldiers, or to remove a stronghold of the Rebellion, all of which is done by Emancipation.

Slavery is a stronghold, which through Emancipation will be removed, while every slave, if not every slave-master, becomes an ally of the Government.

Therefore Emancipation is a war measure, and constitutional as the raising of armies or the occupation of hostile territory.

In vindicating Emancipation as a war measure, we must see that it is made under such conditions as to exercise a present, instant influence.

Abstractly Senators may prefer that Emancipation should be prospective rather than immediate; but this is not the time for the exercise of any abstract preference.

Whatever is done as a war measure must be immediate, or it will cease to have this character, whatever you call it.

If I am correct in this statement,--and I do not see how it can be questioned,--then is the appropriation for Immediate Emancipation just and proper under the Constitution, while that for Prospective Emancipation is without sanction…

Whatever is given for Immediate Emancipation is given for the national defence, and for the safety and honor of the Republic.

Whatever is given for Prospective Emancipation will be a gratuity to slaveholders and a tribute to Slavery.

Pardon me, if I repeat what I have already said on this question: “Millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute”; millions for defence against peril, from whatever quarter it may come, but not a cent for tribute in any…

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