ates, and not applicable to new states which Congress might be
willing to admit into the Union.

The equality of rights, which includes an equality of burdens, is a
vital principle in our theory of government. The effect of the
constitution has been obvious in the preponderance it has given to the
slave-holding states over the other states. But the extension of this
disproportionate power to the new states would be unjust and odious. The
states whose power would be abridged and whose burdens would be
increased by the measure would not be expected to consent to it. The
existence of slavery impairs the industry and power of a nation. In a
country where manual labor is performed by slaves, that of freemen is
dishonored. In case of foreign war, or domestic insurrection, slaves not
only do not add to, but diminish the faculty of self-defence.

If Missouri, and the states formed to the west of the River Mississippi,
are permitted to introduce and establish slavery, the repose, if not the
security, of the Union, may be endangered. All the states south of the
River Ohio, and west of Pennsylvania and Delaware, will be peopled with
slaves; and the establishment of new states west of the River
Mississippi will serve to extend slavery, instead of freedom, over that
boundless region. But, if slavery be excluded from Missouri and the
other new states which may be formed in that quarter, not only will the
slave-markets be broken up, and the principles of freedom be extended
and strengthened, but an exposed and important frontier will present a
barrier which will check and keep back foreign assailants, who may be as
brave, and, as we hope, as free as ourselves. Surrounded in this manner
by connected bodies of freemen, the states where slavery is allowed will
be made more secure against domestic insurrection, and less liable to be
affected by what may take place in the neighboring colonies.

At the delivery of these speeches Mr. Adams was present, and thus
expressed his opinion in writing: "I heard Mr. King on what is called
the Missouri question. His manner was dignified, grave, earnest, but not
rapid or vehement. There was nothing new in his argument, but he
unravelled with ingenious and subtle analysis many of the sophistical
tissues of slaveholders. He laid down the position of the natural
liberty of man, and its incompatibility with slavery in any shape; he
also questioned the constitutional right of the President and Senate to
m