He now makes a kindred effort, seeking to introduce into the Union a State which defies the first principle of Human Rights.

He who has so often raised his voice for Human Rights now treats the question as trivial: it is a technicality only; that is all.

Can a constitution which undertakes to disfranchise a whole race be treated in that effort as only a technicality?

The constitution of Louisiana was odious; it should not have been presented to the Senate; and I doubt if there is any Senator on the right side who does not now rejoice that it was defeated.

The people of the Territory of Nebraska are loyal men; the people of the late rebellious States are not loyal; and when he compares the one with the other, I think he does injustice to himself and to the people of that Territory.

Does he call the constitution of Iowa odious and offensive?… The people of Iowa are as loyal as the people of Massachusetts are.

I say it contains an odious and offensive principle; and I doubt if the Senator from Iowa would undertake to say that an exclusion from rights on account of color would be properly characterized otherwise than as odious and offensive.

I did not know that the constitution of Iowa was open to that objection, or at least it was not in my mind, when I spoke; but I do know that the constitution of Nebraska is open to that objection, and therefore I pronounce it odious and…

Such a constitution at this moment from a new State does not deserve any quarter.

Such a constitution ought to be a hissing and a by-word; and I am at a loss to understand how any Senator, at this time, not entirely insensible to our great responsibilities with regard to the States lately in rebellion, can look upon a…

I use that language purposely, and I stand by it, even at the expense of the criticism of the Senator from Iowa.

It passes my comprehension how we can require Equal Rights in the Rebel States, when we deliberately sanction the denial of Equal Rights in a new State, completely within our jurisdiction and about to be fashioned by our hands.

It seems as if Providence presented this occasion in order to give you an easy opportunity of asserting a principle infinitely valuable to the whole country.

Only a few persons are directly interested; but the decision of Congress now will determine a governing rule for millions.

In an evil hour it adopted a constitution bad in itself and worse still as an example.

But neither the tie of blood nor the fellowship of party should be permitted to save it from judgment.

At this moment Congress cannot afford to sanction such wrong.

Congress must elevate itself, if it would elevate the country.

It must itself be the example of justice, if it would make justice the universal rule.

With pain I differ from valued friends around me, and see a line of duty which they do not see.

But when the question is so plain and duty so imperative, I have no alternative.

Let me add, that, in taking the course I do, I have nothing but friendly feelings for the Territory of Nebraska, or for the men she has sent to represent her in the Senate.

I wish to see Nebraska populous and flourishing, and the home of Human Rights secured by irrevocable law; and as for her Senators, I know them now so well that I shall have peculiar pleasure in welcoming them on this floor.

I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which this can be done, unless, in anxiety to gratify the desires of a few persons and to welcome the excellent gentlemen from Nebraska, you are willing to set aside great principles of duty at a…

It is pleasant to be “amiable”; but you have no right to be amiable at the expense of Human Rights.