There can be no such thing as “lenity” where Human Rights are in question.

Plainly there has been no compliance with the Enabling Act, so far as it prescribes the proceedings for the formation of a constitution.

Instead of a Convention at the date prescribed, we have the Legislature acting at a different date; so that there is an open non-compliance with the prescribed conditions.

But the failure in substance is graver still.

By the Enabling Act it is further provided “that the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Here are essential…

The constitution must be “republican.” Now I insist always that a constitution which denies Equality of Rights cannot be republican.

It may be republican according to the imperfect notions of an earlier period, or even according to the standard of Montesquieu; but it cannot be republican in a country which began its national life in disregard of received notions and the…

In fixing for the first time an authoritative definition of this requirement, you cannot forget the new vows to Human Rights uttered by our fathers, nor can you forget that our republic is an example to mankind.

Therefore, I say confidently, it is not according to “the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Is this doubted?

You must raze living words, you must kill undying truths, before you can announce any such conformity.

As long as those words exist, as long as those truths shine forth in that Declaration, you must condemn this new constitution.

The Enabling Act has not been complied with in any respect, whether of form or substance.

In form it has been openly disregarded; in substance it has been insulted.

The failure in form may be pardoned; the failure in substance must be fatal, unless in some way corrected by Congress.

That no inhabitant shall be molested in person or property on account of religious worship.

The constitution must be “not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.” But surely any constitution which contains a discrimination of rights on account of color must be “repugnant” to the Constitution of the United States…

The text of the National Constitution is blameless; but the text of this new constitution is offensive.

But is it not an insult to the understanding, when you offer a constitution which contains a discrimination of rights on account of color?

At this moment there is one vast question in our country, on which all others pivot.

Therefore, as a servant of truth and a lover of my country, I cannot allow this cause to be sacrificed or discredited by my vote.

That this act shall take effect with the fundamental and perpetual condition that within said State of Nebraska there shall be no abridgment or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason…

Thus the protracted struggle for Equal Rights in Nebraska, establishing a fundamental condition, was crowned with success, preparing the way for similar requirement in the Rebel States.

And yet I could not pardon myself, if I did not undertake, even at this time, to present a plain and simple account of the great change which is now proposed.

There is something captivating in the idea of weights and measures common to all the civilized world, so that, in this at least, the confusion of Babel may be overcome.

Kindred is that other idea of one money; and both are forerunners, perhaps, of the grander idea of one language for all the civilized world.