institution when they came to form a constitution. But into the adjoining
Missouri country, where there was no Ordinance of '87,--was no
restriction,--they were carried ten times, nay, a hundred times, as fast,
and actually made a slave State. This is fact-naked fact.

Another lullaby argument is that taking slaves to new countries does not
increase their number, does not make any one slave who would otherwise be
free. There is some truth in this, and I am glad of it; but it is not
wholly true. The African slave trade is not yet effectually suppressed;
and, if we make a reasonable deduction for the white people among us who
are foreigners and the descendants of foreigners arriving here since
1808, we shall find the increase of the black population outrunning that
of the white to an extent unaccountable, except by supposing that some of
them, too, have been coming from Africa. If this be so, the opening of
new countries to the institution increases the demand for and augments
the price of slaves, and so does, in fact, make slaves of freemen, by
causing them to be brought from Africa and sold into bondage.

But however this may be, we know the opening of new countries to slavery
tends to the perpetuation of the institution, and so does keep men in
slavery who would otherwise be free. This result we do not feel like
favoring, and we are under no legal obligation to suppress our feelings
in this respect.

Equal justice to the South, it is said, requires us to consent to the
extension of slavery to new countries. That is to say, inasmuch as you do
not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska, therefore I must not object
to your taking your slave. Now, I admit that this is perfectly logical if
there is no difference between hogs and negroes. But while you thus
require me to deny the humanity of the negro, I wish to ask whether you