The gentleman admits that, at the formation of our Government, it was feared that slavery might eventually divide or distract our country; and, as the BALLOT BOX seems continually to haunt his imagination, he says there is real danger of dissolution of the Union if abolitionists, as is evident they do, will carry their principles into the BALLOT BOX.  If not disunion in fact, at least in feeling, in the country, which is always the precursor to the clash of arms.  And the gentleman further says we are taught by holy writ, “that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong.”  The moral of the gentleman’s argument is, that truth and righteousness will prevail, though opposed by power and influence; that abolitionists, though few in number, are greatly to be feared; one, as I have said, may chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight; and, as their weapons of warfare are not “carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strong holds,” even slavery itself; and as the ballot box is the great moral lever in political action, the gentleman would exclude abolitionists entirely from its use, and for opinion’s sake, deny them this high privilege of every American citizen.  Permit me, sir, to remind the gentleman of another text of holy writ.  “The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.”  The Senator says that those who have slaves, are sometimes supposed to be under too much alarm.  Does this prove the application of the text I have just quoted:  “Conscience sometimes makes cowards of us all.”  The Senator appeals to abolitionists, and beseeches them to cease their efforts on the subject of slavery, if they wish, says he, “to exercise their benevolence.”  What!  Abolitionists benevolent!  He hopes they will select some object not so terrible.  Oh, sir, he is willing they should pay tithes of “mint and rue,” but the weighter matters of the law, judgment and mercy, he would have them entirely overlook.  I ought to thank the Senator for introducing holy writ into this debate, and inform him his arguments are not the sentiments of Him, who, when on earth, went about doing good.

The Senator further entreats the clergy to desist from their efforts in behalf of abolitionism.  Who authorized the Senator, as a politician, to use his influence to point out to the clergy what they should preach, or for what they should pray?  Would the Senator dare exert his power here to bind the consciences of men?  By what rule of ethics, then, does he undertake to use his influence, from this high place of power, in order to gain the same object, I am at a loss to determine.  Sir, this movement of the Senator is far more censurable and dangerous, as an attempt to unite Church and State, than were the petitions against Sunday mails, the report in opposition to which gained for you, Mr. President, so much applause in the country.  I, sir, also appeal to the clergy to maintain their rights of conscience; and if they believe slavery to be a sin, we ought to honor and respect them for their open denunciation of it, rather than call on them to desist, for between their conscience and their God, we have no power to interfere; we do not wish to make them political agents for any purpose.