At once the south rejected the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and demanded, as a constitutional right, that slaves moved into a territory must be protected like other property, whether the people of the territory wish it or not.

On the question of submitting the constitution to the bona fide resident settlers of Kansas, I am willing to stand or fall.

It is the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the principle of popular sovereignty, and the principle at the foundation of all popular government.

The imperative issue, as pithily stated by Lincoln, was, all slave or all free states.

No opportunity was offered to the people to vote against the constitution.

Any attempt by Congress to force this constitution upon the people of Kansas will be an effort to substitute the will of a small minority for that of an overwhelming majority of the people.

In such a contest, her hasty and impetuous violence may succeed for a time, but the victory will be short-lived and transient, and leave nothing but bitterness behind.

Let us not war with each other; but with the grasp of fellowship and friendship, regarding to the full each other's rights, and kind to each other's faults, let us go hand in hand in securing to every portion of our people their…

Kansas is therefore at this moment as much a slave state as Georgia or South Carolina.

This memorable result was the turning point of the slavery controversy.

I have given much space to this Kansas controversy, for I wish to impress upon the readers of this volume that the war was not caused by agitation for the abolition of slavery, but by aggressive measures for the extension of slavery over…

And yet, sir, for this alarming condition of the public finances, the administration has no measures of relief except loan bills and paper money in the form of treasury notes.

No provision is made for their payment; no measure of retrenchment and reform; but these accumulated difficulties are thrust upon the future, with the improvidence of a young spendthrift.

I cited the abuses and usurpations of the executive departments in diverting specific appropriations to purposes not authorized by law.

I said: "The theory of our government is, that a specific sum shall be appropriated by a law originating in this House, for a specific purpose, and within a given fiscal year.

It is the duty of the executive to use that sum, and no more, especially for that purpose, and no other, and within the time fixed.

I pointed out cases where the departments assumed the power to transfer appropriations made for one purpose, to other purposes in the same department.

Another abuse by the executive departments was the habit of making contracts in advance of appropriations, thus, without law, compelling Congress to sanction them or violate the public faith.

It was generally agreed that the views expressed by me on the 27th of May were sound in principle, but the strong partisan feeling that ran through the speech weakened its effect.

I believe that the House of Representatives should be in opposition to the President.

We know that with a party House, a House a majority of whose Members are friends of the President, it is impossible to bring about a reform.

It is only by a firm, able, and determined opposition-- not yielding to every friendly request, not yielding to every urgent demand, not yielding to every appeal--that we can expect to reform the abuse in the administration of the…

We can only look now to the virtue and intelligence of the people, whose potent will can overthrow Presidents, Senators, and majorities.

I have an abiding hope that the next House of Representatives will do what this should have done, and become, like its great prototype, the guardian of the rights and liberties of the people.

I worked hard that winter, for hard work, I thought, was the way to fortune.