So wild is their apprehension, that even such statesmen as Stephens, Johnson, Hill, Botts and Pettigrew, when they say, 'wait, wait, till we see what this Republican party will attempt,' are denounced as Abolitionists--Submissionists.

We have been struggling, against all the powers of the government, for six years, to secure practically what was expressly granted by a compromise.

But our political opponents, who have dishonored the word compromise, who trampled, without a moment's hesitation, upon a compromise, when they expected to gain by it, now ask us to again compromise, by securing slavery south of a…

Without surrendering our convictions in the least, we may now dispose of the whole territorial controversy by the exercise of unquestioned congressional power.

Let Congress admit her as a state, and then she has the acknowledged right to form, regulate, change, or modify her domestic institutions.

We insist that Congress may prohibit it, and that the people have an undisputed right to exclude slaves.

Why not, by terminating their territorial condition, determine this controversy?

Dakota, Washington, Nevada, and Jefferson are destined soon to be as familiar to us as Kansas and Nebraska.

It is well worthy the consideration of the old states, whether it is not better to dispense with all territorial organizations--always expensive and turbulent--and, at once, to carve the whole into states of convenient size, for admission.

It is not at all probable that two- thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the states can agree to any amendments.

Why attempt it, unless to invite new contests, to again arouse sectional animosities?

We know that if Mexico is acquired the south will demand it for slavery, and the north for free institutions.

We must forego, for the present, new conquests, unless the love of acquisition is stronger than the love of domestic peace.

Nothing less than the protection of slavery in the territories.

Should the great majority yield to a meagre minority, especially under threats of disunion?

This minority demand that slavery be protected by the constitution.

Our fathers would not allow the word 'slave' or 'slavery' in the constitution, when all the states but one were slaveholding.

Shall we introduce these words when a majority of the states are free, and when the progress of civilization has arrayed the world against slavery?

If the love of peace and ease, and office, should tempt politicians and merchants to do it, the people will rebel.

I assure you, whatever may be the consequence, they will not yield their moral convictions by strengthening the influence of slavery in this country.

But when it is proposed to change it, to secure new guarantees to slavery, to extend and protect it, you invoke and arouse the anti- slavery feeling of the north to war against slavery everywhere.

I am, therefore, opposed to any change in the constitution, and to any compromise that will surrender any of the principles sanctioned by the people in the recent contest.

It is always right and proper for each state to apply to state laws the test of the constitution.

So far as they infringe upon the constitution, or impair, in the least, a constitutional right, they are void and ought to be repealed.

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