The simple elementary truths of Christianity, the immortality of the soul and a future accountability, are generally received and believed by this portion of our population.

But if slaves generally have a sufficient amount of religious belief to supply the sanction of an oath, it is clear that they are not so degraded as to justify their exclusion as sworn witnesses.

And the Slave States, while excluding them, have practically recognized their fitness.

The barbarism of the punishment testifies also against Slavery.

It is vain to say that a slave is incompetent, when, in certain cases, he is already accepted as witness, and visited with fiendish punishment, if he violates his oath.

Such is the absurd inconsistency in the application of this rule.

Although the rule may be properly traced to Slavery, of which it is an important ally, yet, from considerations already presented, it seems to follow that it is founded on a reason broader than Slavery, suggested, however, by Slavery.

It needs no argument to establish the unreasonableness of a disqualification which, according to the confession of its advocates, attaches to the shading of the human skin, especially in view of the fearful cruelty that is its natural…

Assuming, then, that the disqualification is traced not merely to the shading of the skin, but to the fact of Slavery, it is none the less to be rejected, not only as part of Slavery, but as essentially irrational and inhuman.

The slave feels the sanction of an oath hardly less than many white persons of inferior condition.

But the slave is exposed to such corrupting power less than a white person.

He can have no pecuniary interest, since he has no right of property.

And, except where his master is a party or otherwise interested, he must be alike without hope of gain or fear of punishment to make him swerve from the truth.

I need not remind you that our candidate has never uttered a word of duplicity, and that his speeches and letters can be interpreted only in one way.

Fellow-citizens, such is the issue of principle, such are the platforms and candidates.

And now, I ask frankly, Are you for Slavery, or are you for Liberty?

Accordingly, in all cases where his master stands indifferent, the reason for excluding the slave is not so strong as for excluding white persons of inferior condition, since the slave may feel the sanction of an oath as much as they…

The dependence of the slave upon his master must naturally subject him peculiarly to his influence, whether from hope of reward or fear of punishment; so that his testimony in favor of his master would always be viewed with suspicion.

If, contrary to this active interest, the slave testifies against his master, his testimony would seem to be worthy of peculiar consideration.

But even where he testifies for his master, there can be no more reason for excluding his testimony than for excluding that of a child for a father or a mother, or of excluding that of a father or a mother for a child.

Unquestionably, in each of these cases the bias is stronger than any that can exist on the part of a slave, as love is stronger than fear.

Therefore there is no valid reason why a slave should not be permitted to testify for or against his master.

Or, changing the form of the question, Are you for the Rebellion, or are you for your country?

The same considerations which determine the value of other testimony will suffice with regard to him; and thus, in every respect, the rule of exclusion becomes irrational and arbitrary.

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