And it is on these double acts, at the first organization of the Government, and the recorded sentiments of the founders, that I take my stand, and challenge all question.

The Antislavery sentiment was thoroughly national, broad and general, pervading alike all parts of the Union, and uprising from the common heart of the entire people.

Compendiously expressed, it was non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States, and its prohibition in all the national domain.

Thus in each of the three great departments of State, Executive, Judicial, and Legislative, is Popular Sovereignty disowned.

How can they administer a government that is in amity with a nation of insurgent negro slaves?

After the words of alleged Popular Sovereignty in the bill, he moved to add, “under which the people of the Territory, through their appropriate representatives, may, if they see fit, prohibit the existence of Slavery therein.” Here was a…

It is clear that such an open and unequivocal declaration was not congenial with the game to be played.

Lovers of Freedom from the North were encountered by partisans of Slavery from the South, organized by Blue Lodges in Missouri, and incited from every part of the Land of Slavery.

The officials of a government established under pretended safeguards of Popular Sovereignty all ranged themselves on the side of Slavery; or, if their allegiance became doubtful,--as in the case of Governor Reeder,--they were dismissed…

It is clear that all Territorial legislation against Slavery must be invalid.

And then again, in another place, by roundabout language, he admits, that, according to the Dred Scott decision, which he declares that he “approves,” the people of a Territory cannot, by any legislation, confiscate slave property, or…

With this limitation, pray, where, again, is Popular Sovereignty?

Douglas, “If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether Slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should.

The tree is known by its fruits, and if anything further were needed to expose this cheat of Popular Sovereignty, it might be found in its fruits as boasted by Mr.

A slave code most revolting in character had been adopted by the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico, not only establishing Slavery there, including the serfdom of whites, but prohibiting Emancipation.

It is part of the history of the country, that, under this doctrine of Non-Intervention, this doctrine that you delight to call Squatter Sovereignty, the people of New Mexico have introduced and protected Slavery in the whole of that…

Under this doctrine, they have converted a tract of Free Territory into Slave Territory more than five times the size of the State of New York.

As the tree is known by its fruits, so also is the man known by the company he keeps.

Never in history has any public man insulted human nature so boldly.

The pretension is preposterous, aggravated by knowledge on his part that under his device the settlers could only vote Slavery up, and that they were not allowed to vote it down.

But this speech attests a brazen insensibility to Human Rights.

Not so spoke the Fathers of the Republic, who would not let us miss an opportunity to vote Slavery down.

Not so spoke Washington, who declared that to the abolition of Slavery “his suffrage should never be wanting.” Such is the whole political philosophy of this Presidential candidate.

A man thus indifferent to the rights of a whole race is naturally indifferent to other things which make for justice and peace.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.