enough to concede that, according to his own proposition in his New Orleans speech, slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the Federal Constitution? He will neither be bold enough to do the first, nor honest enough to do the second; he will be just bold and honest enough to do neither. [Applause.] He is in the position of that Democratic candidate for Congress in the West, who, when asked, “Are you a Buchanan or Douglas man?” answered, “I am.” [Great laughter and cheers.] If you ask Mr. Douglas: “Do you hold that slavery is the creature of local law, or that a slaveholder has the right to introduce his slave property where there is no local law?” he will answer, “I do.” [Continued laughter and applause.]
Such is Mr. Douglas's doctrine of popular sovereignty. But after having given you Mr. Douglas's own definitions in his own words, I see you are puzzled all the more, and you ask me again: “What is it?” I will tell you what judgment will be passed upon it by future historians, who may find it worth while to describe this impotent attempt to dally and trifle with the logic of things. They will say: “It was the dodge of a man who was well aware that, in order to be elected President of the United States, the vote of a few Northern States must be added to the united vote of the South. Knowing by experience that the Democratic road to the White House leads through the slaveholding States, he broke down the last geographical barrier to the extension of slavery. So he meant to secure the South. But in conceding undisputed sway to the slaveholding interests, he saw that he was losing his foothold in the Northern States necessary to his election; he availed himself of the irresistible pressure of the free-State movement in Kansas, and opposed the Lecompton Constitution. So he saved his Senatorship in Illinois, as the ‘champion of free labor.’ But the South frowned, and immediately after his vic-
