become the predominant interest and giant power of the nation.  We forget, that our whole country was, at that time, smitten with love for the holy cause of impartial and universal liberty.  To judge correctly of the view, which our Revolutionary fathers took of oppression, we must go back and stand by their side, in their struggles against it,—­we must survey them through the medium of the anti-slavery sentiment of their own times, and not impute to them the pro-slavery spirit so rampant in ours.

[Footnote A:  There is a proviso in the Act of Virginia.  It was on this, that three years ago, in the Senate of the United States, Benjamin Watkins Leigh built his argument against the constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.  I well remember that you then denied the soundness of his argument.  This superfluous proviso virtually forbids Congress to pass laws, which shall “affect the rights of individuals” in the ceded territory.  Amongst the inviolable “rights” was that of holding slaves, as Mr. Leigh contended.  I regret, that, in replying to him, you did not make use of the fact, that all the members of Congress from Virginia voted in favor of the Ordinance, which abolished slavery in the North-West Territory; and this too, notwithstanding, that, in the Act of 1784, by which she ceded the North-West Territory to the Confederacy, she provided, that the “citizens of Virginia” in the said Territory, many of whom held slaves, should “be protected in the enjoyment of their rights.”  This fact furnishes striking evidence that at, or about, the time of the cession by Virginia of her portion of the District of Columbia, her statesmen believed, that the right to hold slaves in those portions of our country under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, was not beyond the reach of the controlling power of Congress.]

I will, however, suppose it true, that Virginia and Maryland would not have made the cessions in question, had they foreseen, that Congress would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia:—­and yet, I affirm, that it would be the duty of Congress to abolish it.  Had there been State Prisons in the territory, at the time Congress acquired jurisdiction over it, and had Congress immediately opened their doors, and turned loose hundreds of depraved and bloody criminals, there would indeed have been abundant occasion for complaint.  But, had the exercise of its power in the premises extended no farther than to the liberation of such convicts, as, on a re-examination of their cases, were found to be clearly guiltless of the crimes charged upon them; the sternest justice could not have objected to such an occasion for the rejoicing of mercy.  And are not the thousands in the District, for whose liberation Congress is besought, unjustly deprived of their liberty?  Not only are they guiltless, but they are even unaccused of such crimes, as in the judgment of any, justly work a forfeiture of liberty.  And what do Virginia and Maryland