Mr. Kaufman, but prove that I
advocated in the strongest language the doctrine of non-resistance on
the part of the slaves. These letters, however, never appeared in the
columns of the papers which brought the charge and defied me to the
proof of my innocence.

It may be well to give some idea of the conversation out of which the
charge grew. Mr. Kaufman complained of the harsh language of the
abolitionists, and challenged me to quote a passage of scripture
justifying our conduct in that respect. I quoted the passage "Whoso
stealeth a man and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he
shall surely be put to death;" and observed, that in this text we had
a proof of the awful demerit of the slaveholder; that he was
considered worthy of death; and that the modern slaveholder, under the
Christian dispensation, was not less guilty than the slaveholder under
the Jewish law. I then reminded him of the political principles of the
Americans, and cited the words of the declaration of Independence,
"RESISTANCE _to tyrants is obedience to God_." I then contrasted the
injuries inflicted on the slave with the grievances complained of in
the Declaration of Independence, and argued, that, if the Americans
deemed themselves justified in resisting to blood the payment of a
threepenny tea tax and a stamp duty, how much more, upon the same
principles, would the slave be justified in cutting his masters'
throat, to obtain deliverance from personal thraldom. Nay more, that
every American, true to the principles of the revolution, ought to
teach the slaves to cut their master's throats--but that while these
were fair deductions from their own revolutionary principles, I held
the doctrine that it was invariably wrong to do evil that good might
come, and that I dared not purchase the freedom of the slaves by
consenting to the death of one master.

He (Mr. T.) had thus disposed of one of the most tangible portions of
his opponent's speech. He regretted there had not been more of
matter-of-fact statement in the speech of one hour in length, to which
they had just listened; a speech, which, however creditable to the
intellect of his opponent on account of its ingenuity, was by no means
creditable to his heart. Instead of dealing fairly with the documents
he (Mr. T.) had produced, and which contained a true and ample
statement of the views, feelings, principles, purposes and plans of
the abolitionists, Mr. Breckinridge had manufactured a seri