Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery?
Is that a question for republicans ?{352} Is it to be settled by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of the principle of justice, hard to be understood?
How should I look to-day in the presence of Americans, dividing and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural right to freedom, speaking of it relatively and positively, negatively and affirmatively?
To do so, would be to make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your understanding.

There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven that does not know that slavery is wrong for _him_.
What! am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow-men, to beat them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience and submission to their masters?
Must I argue that a system, thus marked with blood and stained with pollution, is wrong?
No; I will not.

I have better employment for my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then, remains to be argued?
Is it that slavery is not divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of divinity are mistaken?
There is blasphemy in the thought.

That which is inhuman cannot be divine.

Who can reason on such a proposition! They that can, may! I cannot.