Some of the points established by the testimony are—­The universal expectation that the moral influence of Congress, of state legislatures, of seminaries of learning, of churches, of the ministers of religion, and of public sentiment widely embodied in abolition societies, would be exerted against slavery, calling forth by argument and appeal the moral sense of the nation, and creating a power of opinion that would abolish the system throughout the union.  In a word, that free speech and a free press would be wielded against slavery without ceasing and without restriction.  Full well did the south know, not only that the national government would probably legislate against slavery wherever the constitution placed it within its reach, but she knew also that Congress had already marked out the line of national policy to be pursued on the subject—­had committed itself before the world to a course of action against slavery, wherever she could move upon it without encountering a conflicting jurisdiction—­that the nation had established by solemn ordinance memorable precedent for subsequent action, by abolishing slavery in the northwest territory, and by declaring that it should never thenceforward exist there; and this too, as soon as by cession of Virginia and other states, the territory came under Congressional control.  The south knew also that the sixth article in the ordinance prohibiting slavery was first proposed by the largest slaveholding state in the confederacy—­that the chairman of the committee that reported the ordinance was a slaveholder—­that the ordinance was enacted by Congress during the session of the convention that formed the United States Constitution—­that the provisions of the ordinance were, both while in prospect, and when under discussion, matters of universal notoriety and approval with all parties, and when finally passed, received the vote of every member of Congress from each of the slaveholding states.  The south also had every reason for believing that the first Congress under the constitution would ratify that ordinance—­as it did unanimously.

A crowd of reflections, suggested by the preceding testimony, press for utterance.  The right of petition ravished and trampled by its constitutional guardians, and insult and defiance hurled in the faces of the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE while calmly remonstrating with their SERVANTS for violence committed on the nation’s charter and their own dearest rights!  Add to this “the right of peaceably assembling” violently wrested—­the rights of minorities, rights no longer—­free speech struck dumb—­free men outlawed and murdered—­free presses cast into the streets and their fragments strewed with shoutings, or flourished in triumph before the gaze of approving crowds as proud members of prostrate law!

The spirit and power of our fathers, where are they?  Their deep homage always and every where rendered to FREE THOUGHT, with its inseparable signs—­free speech and a free press—­their reverence for justice, liberty, rights and all-pervading law, where are they?