he population in America doubled itself in twenty-four years, he was
warranted in saying that there was no great discrepancy. But the
question with him did not depend upon any particular number or any
particular date. It would have been quite the same for his argument,
he contended, whether he had taken six hundred and sixty-five thousand
in 1790, or three hundred thousand in 1776. All that he had wished to
show, was the rapid increase of the slave population, and
consequently, of the vice and misery inherent in that system, even
while the American people professed themselves to be so anxious to put
an end to it altogether. Had he wished to dwell on this part of the
argument, he could also have shown, that the increase of the slave
population during the first twenty years of the Union, had gone on
more rapidly even during that time, the trade in slaves having been
formally recognised by the Constitution during that period, and a duty
of $10 imposed on every slave imported into the United States. The
following was the clause from the Constitution:

Sec. IX. The migration or importation of such persons as any
of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall
not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty
may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10 for
each person.

To sum up Mr. Breckinridge's last address, what, he would ask,
had been its whole aim? Clearly, that they should consider the
abolitionists as the chief promoters of all the riots that had taken
place in America on this question, by making inflammatory appeals to
the passions of the people. He would call upon Mr. Breckinridge
again, to lay his hand on a single proof of this. He would call upon
him to point out a single instance where language had been used which
was in any degree calculated to call up the blood-thirsty passions of
the mob as had been represented. If the planters of the South were
roused into fury by the declaration of anti-slavery sentiments--if
they were unable to hear the everlasting truths which it promulgated,
was that a sufficient reason for those to keep silent who felt it to
be their duty, at all hazards, to make known these truths. Or were
they to be charged with raising mobs, because the people were enraged
to hear these truths. As well might Paul of Tarsus have been charged
with the mobs which rose against his life, and that of his
fellow-apostles. As well might Galileo be charg