In　all　our　struggles　to　prohibit　slavery　within　our　Mexican
  acquisitions；　we　never　so　much　as　lifted　a　finger　to　prohibit　it
  as　to　this　tract。　　Is　not　this　entirely　conclusive　that　at　all
  times　we　have　held　the　Missouri　Compromise　as　a　sacred　thing；
  even　when　against　ourselves　as　well　as　when　for　us？
  Senator　Douglas　sometimes　says　the　Missouri　line　itself　was　in
  principle　only　an　extension　of　the　line　of　the　Ordinance　of　'87
  that　is　to　say；　an　extension　of　the　Ohio　River。　　I　think　this　is
  weak　enough　on　its　face。　　I　will　remark；　however；　that；　as　a
  glance　at　the　map　will　show；　the　Missouri　line　is　a　long　way
  farther　south　than　the　Ohio；　and　that　if　our　Senator　in　proposing
  his　extension　had　stuck　to　the　principle　of　jogging　southward；
  perhaps　it　might　not　have　been　voted　down　so　readily。
  But　next　it　is　said　that　the　compromises　of　'50；　and　the
  ratification　of　them　by　both　political　parties　in　'52；
  established　a　new　principle　which　required　the　repeal　of　the
  Missouri　Compromise。　　This　again　I　deny。　　I　deny　it；　and　demand
  the　proof。　　I　have　already　stated　fully　what　the　compromises　of
  '50　are。　　That　particular　part　of　those　measures　from　which　the
  virtual　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　is　sought　to　be
  inferred　（for　it　is　admitted　they　contain　nothing　about　it　in
  express　terms）　is　the　provision　in　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws
  which　permits　them　when　they　seek　admission　into　the　Union　as
  States　to　come　in　with　or　without　slavery；　as　they　shall　then　see
  fit。　　Now　I　insist　this　provision　was　made　for　Utah　and　New
  Mexico；　and　for　no　other　place　whatever。　　It　had　no　more　direct
  reference　to　Nebraska　than　it　had　to　the　territories　of　the　moon。
  But；　say　they；　it　had　reference　to　Nebraska　in　principle。　　Let　us
  see。　　The　North　consented　to　this　provision；　not　because　they
  considered　it　right　in　itself；　but　because　they　were　compensated…
  …paid　for　it。
  They　at　the　same　time　got　California　into　the　Union　as　a　free
  State。　　This　was　far　the　best　part　of　all　they　had　struggled　for
  by　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　They　also　got　the　area　of　slavery
  somewhat　narrowed　in　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas。
  Also　they　got　the　slave　trade　abolished　in　the　District　of
  Columbia。
  For　all　these　desirable　objects　the　North　could　afford　to　yield
  something；　and　they　did　yield　to　the　South　the　Utah　and　New
  Mexico　provision。　　I　do　not　mean　that　the　whole　North；　or　even　a
  majority；　yielded；　when　the　law　passed；　but　enough　yieldedwhen
  added　to　the　vote　of　the　South；　to　carry　the　measure。　　Nor　can　it
  be　pretended　that　the　principle　of　this　arrangement　requires　us
  to　permit　the　same　provision　to　be　applied　to　Nebraska；　without
  any　equivalent　at　all。　　Give　us　another　free　State；　press　the
  boundary　of　Texas　still　farther　back；　give　us　another　step　toward
  the　destruction　of　slavery　in　the　District；　and　you　present　us　a
  similar　case。　　But　ask　us　not　to　repeat；　for　nothing；　what　you
  paid　for　in　the　first　instance。　　If　you　wish　the　thing　again；　pay
  again。　　That　is　the　principle　of　the　compromises　of　'50；　if；
  indeed；　they　had　any　principles　beyond　their　specific　termsit
  was　the　system　of　equivalents。
  Again；　if　Congress；　at　that　time；　intended　that　all　future
  Territories　should；　when　admitted　as　States；　come　in　with　or
  without　slavery　at　their　own　option；　why　did　it　not　say　so？
  With　such　a　universal　provision；　all　know　the　bills　could　not
  have　passed。　　Did　they；　thencould　they…establish　a　principle
  contrary　to　their　own　intention？　　Still　further；　if　they　intended
  to　establish　the　principle　that；　whenever　Congress　had　control；
  it　should　be　left　to　the　people　to　do　as　they　thought　fit　with
  slavery；　why　did　they　not　authorize　the　people　of　the　District　of
  Columbia；　at　their　option；　to　abolish　slavery　within　their
  limits？
  I　personally　know　that　this　has　not　been　left　undone　because　it
  was　unthought　of。　　It　was　frequently　spoken　of　by　members　of
  Congress；　and　by　citizens　of　Washington；　six　years　ago；　and　I
  heard　no　one　express　a　doubt　that　a　system　of　gradual
  emancipation；　with　compensation　to　owners；　would　meet　the
  approbation　of　a　large　majority　of　the　white　people　of　the
  District。　　But　without　the　action　of　Congress　they　could　say
  nothing；　and　Congress　said　〃No。〃　In　the　measures　of　1850；
  Congress　had　the　subject　of　slavery　in　the　District　expressly　on
  hand。　　If　they　were　then　establishing　the　principle　of　allowing
  the　people　to　do　as　they　please　with　slavery；　why　did　they　not
  apply　the　principle　to　that　people？
  Again　it　is　claimed　that　by　the　resolutions　of　the　Illinois
  Legislature；　passed　in　1851；　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri
  Compromise　was　demanded。　　This　I　deny　also。　　Whatever　may　be
  worked　out　by　a　criticism　of　the　language　of　those　resolutions；
  the　people　have　never　understood　them　as　being　any　more　than　an
  indorsement　of　the　compromises　of　1850；　and　a　release　of　our
  senators　from　voting　for　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　The　whole　people
  are　living　witnesses　that　this　only　was　their　view。　　Finally；　it
  is　asked；　〃If　we　did　not　mean　to　apply　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico
  provision　to　all　future　territories；　what　did　we　mean　when　we；　in
  1852；　indorsed　the　compromises　of　1850？〃
  For　myself　I　can　answer　this　question　most　easily。　　I　meant　not
  to　ask　a　repeal　or　modification　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　I
  meant　not　to　ask　for　the　abolition　of　slavery　in　the　District　of
  Columbia。　　I　meant　not　to　resist　the　admission　of　Utah　and　New
  Mexico；　even　should　they　ask　to　come　in　as　slave　States。　　I　meant
  nothing　about　additional　Territories；　because；　as　I　understood；
  we　then　had　no　Territory　whose　character　as　to　slavery　was　not
  already　settled。　　As　to　Nebraska；　I　regarded　its　character　as
  being　fixed　by　the　Missouri　Compromise　for　thirty　yearsas
  unalterably　fixed　as　that　of　my　own　home　in　Illinois。　　As　to　new
  acquisitions；　I　said；　〃Sufficient　unto　the　day　is　the　evil
  thereof。〃　When　we　make　new　acquisitions；　we　will；　as　heretofore；
  try　to　manage　them　somehow。　　That　is　my　answer；　that　is　what　I
  meant　and　said；　and　I　appeal　to　the　people　to　say　each　for
  himself　whether　that　is　not　also　the　universal　meaning　of　the
  free　States。
  And　now；　in　turn；　let　me　ask　a　few　questions。　　If；　by　any　or　all
  these　matters；　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　was
  commanded；　why　was　not　the　command　sooner　obeyed？　　Why　was　the
  repeal　omitted　in　the　Nebraska　Bill　of　1853？　　Why　was　it　omitted
  in　the　original　bill　of　1854？　　Why　in　the　accompanying　report　was
  such　a　repeal　characterized　as　a　departure　from　the　course
  pursued　in　1850　and　its　continued　omission　recommended？
  I　am　aware　Judge　Douglas　now　argues　that　the　subsequent　express
  repeal　is　no　substantial　alteration　of　the　bill。　　This　argument
  seems　wonderful　to　me。　　It　is　as　if　one　should　argue　that　white
  and　black　are　not　different。　　He　admits；　however；　that　there　is　a
  literal　change　in　the　bill；　and　that　he　made　the　change　in
  deference　to　other　senators　who　would　not　support　the　bill
  without。　　This　proves　that　those　other　senators　thought　the
  change　a　substantial　one；　and　that　the　Judge　thought　their
  opinions　worth　deferring　to。　　His　own　opinions；　therefore；　seem
  not　to　rest　on　a　very　firm　basis；　even　in　his　own　mind；　and　I
  suppose　the　world　believes；　and　will　continue　to　believe；　that
  precisely　on　the　substance　of　that　change　this　whole　agitation
  has　arisen。
  I　conclude；　then；　that　the　public　never　demanded　the　repeal　of
  the　Missouri　Compromise
  I　now　come　to　consider　whether　the　appeal　with　its　avowed
  principles；　is　intrinsically　right。　　I　insist　that　it　is　not。
  Take　the　particular　case。　　A　controversy　had　arisen　between　the
  advocates　and　opponents　of　slavery；　in　relation　to　its
  establishment　within　the　country　we　had　purchased　of　France。　　The
  southern；　and　then　best；　part　of　the　purchase　was　already　in　as　a
  slave　State。　　The　controversy　was　settled　by　also　letting
  Missouri　in　as　a　slave　State；　but　with　the　agreement　that　within
  all　the　remaining　part　of　the　purchase；　north　of　a　certain　line；
  there　should　never　be　slavery。　　As　to　what　was　to　be　done　with
  the　remaining　part；　south　of　the　line；　nothing　was　said；　but
  perhaps　the　fair　implication　was；　it　should　come　in　with　slavery
  if　it　should　so　choose。　　The　southern　part；　except　a　portion
  heretofore　mentioned；　afterward　did　come　in　with　slavery；　as　the
  State　of　Arkansas。　　All　these　many　years；　since　1820；　the
  northern　part　had　remained　a　wilderness。　　At　length　settlements
  began　in　it　also。　　In　due　course　Iowa　came　in　as　a　free　State；
  and　Minnesota　was　given　a　territorial　government；　without
  removing　the　slavery　restriction。　　Finally；　the　sole　remaining
  part　north　of　the　lineKansas　and　Nebraskawas　to　be　organized；
  and　it　is　proposed；　and　carried；　to　blot　out　the　old　dividing
  line　of　thirty…four　years'　standing；　and　to　open　the　whole　of
  that　country　to　the　introduction　of　slavery。　　Now　this；　to　my
  mind；　is　manifestly　unjust。　　After　an　angry　and　dangerous