John Sherman

But when it is proposed to change it, to secure new guarantees to slavery, to extend and protect it, you invoke and arouse the anti- slavery feeling of the north to war against slavery everywhere.

I assure you, whatever may be the consequence, they will not yield their moral convictions by strengthening the influence of slavery in this country.

If the love of peace and ease, and office, should tempt politicians and merchants to do it, the people will rebel.

Shall we introduce these words when a majority of the states are free, and when the progress of civilization has arrayed the world against slavery?

Our fathers would not allow the word 'slave' or 'slavery' in the constitution, when all the states but one were slaveholding.

This minority demand that slavery be protected by the constitution.

Should the great majority yield to a meagre minority, especially under threats of disunion?

Nothing less than the protection of slavery in the territories.

We must forego, for the present, new conquests, unless the love of acquisition is stronger than the love of domestic peace.

We know that if Mexico is acquired the south will demand it for slavery, and the north for free institutions.

Why attempt it, unless to invite new contests, to again arouse sectional animosities?

It is not at all probable that two- thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states can agree to any amendments.

It is well worthy the consideration of the old states, whether it is not better to dispense with all territorial organizations--always expensive and turbulent--and, at once, to carve the whole into states of convenient size, for admission.

Dakota, Washington, Nevada, and Jefferson are destined soon to be as familiar to us as Kansas and Nebraska.

Why not, by terminating their territorial condition, determine this controversy?

We insist that Congress may prohibit it, and that the people have an undisputed right to exclude slaves.

Let Congress admit her as a state, and then she has the acknowledged right to form, regulate, change, or modify her domestic institutions.

Without surrendering our convictions in the least, we may now dispose of the whole territorial controversy by the exercise of unquestioned congressional power.

We have done no wrong; we have no apologies to make, and no concessions to offer.

But our political opponents, who have dishonored the word compromise, who trampled, without a moment's hesitation, upon a compromise, when they expected to gain by it, now ask us to again compromise, by securing slavery south of a…

We have been struggling, against all the powers of the government, for six years, to secure practically what was expressly granted by a compromise.

But some of you may say, all this is very well, but what will you do to save the Union?

So wild is their apprehension, that even such statesmen as Stephens, Johnson, Hill, Botts and Pettigrew, when they say, 'wait, wait, till we see what this Republican party will attempt,' are denounced as Abolitionists--Submissionists.

It is not claimed that, as yet, their rights have been invaded, but upon an apprehension of evil, they will break up the most prosperous government the providence of God ever allowed to man.

What pretext is given for this alarming condition of affairs?-- for every treasonable act has its pretext.