are right. I am not going to predict the course of the free Stales. I claim no authority to speak for them, and still less to say what they will do. But I may venture to say, that if they shall not repeal this law it, will not be because they are not strong enough to do it. They have power in the house of representatives greater than that of the slave states, and, when they choose to exercise it, a power greater even here in the senate. The free States are not dull scholars, even in practical political strategy. When you shall have taught them that a compromise law establishing freedom can be abrogated, and the Union nevertheless stand, you will have let them into another secret, namely: that a law permitting or establishing slavery can be repealed, and the Union nevertheless remain firm. If you inquire why they do not stand by their rights and their interests more firmly, I will tell you to the best of my ability. It is because they are conscious of their strength, and, therefore, unsuspecting and slow to apprehend danger. The reason why you prevail in so many contests, is because you are in perpetual fear. There cannot be a convocation of abolitionists, however impracticable, in Faneuil Hall or the Tabernacle, though it consists of men and women who have separated themselves from all effective political parties, and who have renounced all political agencies, even though they resolve that they will vote for nobody, not even for themselves, to carry out their purposes, and though they practice on that resolution, but you take alarm, and your agitation renders necessary such compromises as those of 1820 and of 1850. We are young in the arts of politics; you are old. We are strong; you are weak. We are, therefore, over-confident, careless, and indifferent; you are vigilant and active. These are traits that redound to your praise. They are mentioned not in your disparagement. I say only that there may be an extent of intervention, of aggression on your side, which may induce the north, at some time, either in this or some future generation, to adopt your tactics and follow your example. Remember now, that by unanimous consent, this new law will be a repealable statute, exposed to all the chances of the Missouri compromise. It stands an infinitely worse chance of endurance than that compromise did. The Missouri compromise was a transaction which wise, learned, patriotic statesmen agreed to surround and fortify with the principles of a compact for mutual considerations, passed and executed, and therefore, although not irrepealable in fact, yet irrepealable in honor and conscience, and down at least until this very session of the congress of the United States, it has had the force and authority not merely of an act of congress, but of a covenant between the free states and slave states, scarcely less sacred than the constitution itself. Now, then, who are your contracting parties in the law establishing governments in Kansas and Nebraska, and abrogating the Missouri compromise? What are the equivalents in this law? What has the north given, and what has the south got back, that makes this a contract? Who pretends that it is anything more than an ordinary act of ordinary legislation? If, then, a law which has all the forms and solemnities recognized by common consent as a compact, and is covered with traditions, cannot stand amid this
