the　same　way　as　pine　trees　or　maize。
  But　it　was　clear　to　his　keen　eye　that　these　feats　of　ingenuity　were　taken　at　their　real　worth。　　While　the　people　treated　him　with　gracious　courtesy；　they　prudently　reserved　their　judgement。　　They　paid　generous　honor　to　the　great　leader　whom　they　would　gladly　use　but　dared　not　trust。　　He　had　chosen　to　hold　Illinois　and　had　lost　the　South。
  While　he　was　vainly　trying　to　woo　back　the　alienated　South；　a　significant　event　occurred　in　Washington。　　When　the　Senate　was　organized　during　his　absence；　he　was　removed　from　the　chairmanship　of　the　Committee　on　Territories；　which　he　had　held　since　his　first　election。　　This　was　done　by　the　Democratic　caucus　and　indicated　a　deeper　resentment　than　he　had　suspected。　　The　Puritans　of　Illinois　had　once　risen　in　insurrection　against　him。　　The　Cavaliers　of　the　South　were　now　sternly　protesting　against　his　easy　political　morals。
  For　six　weeks　he　preserved　almost　complete　silence。　　His　situation　was　anomalous。　　The　quarrel　with　the　Administration　was　implacable。　A　few　months　before；　the　Republicans　were　inclined　to　court　him；　but　the　desperate　battle　with　Lincoln　had　made　it　clear　that　his　quarrel　with　them　was　on　perennial　questions　of　principle。　　Solitary　and　out　of　touch　with　all　parties；　he　was　yet　recognized　as　the　chief　of　the　Northern　Democrats　and　a　formidable　candidate　for　the　Presidency。
  While　diplomatically　awaiting　developments；　he　was　suddenly　drawn　into　an　important　debate。　　On　February　23rd　Senator　Brown　of　Mississippi　discussed　with　great　plainness　his　attitude　on　the　slavery　question。　With　ill　concealed　contempt　for　men　whose　opinions　shaped　themselves　to　suit　the　demands　of　political　strategy　he　said：
  〃I　at　least　am　no　spoilsman。　　I　would　rather　settle　one　sound　principle　in　a　presidential　contest　than　secure　all　the　patronage　of　all　the　Presidents　who　have　ever　been　elected　to　or　retired　from　the　office。　　*　*　*　The　Constitution　never　gave　us　rights　and　denied　us　the　means　of　protecting　and　defending　those　rights。　　The　Supreme　Court　has　decided　that　we　have　a　right　to　carry　our　slaves　into　the　Territories　and；　necessarily；　to　have　them　protected　after　we　get　there。　　*　*　*　I　neither　want　to　cheat　nor　to　be　cheated　in　the　great　contest　that　is　to　come　off　in　1860。　　*　*　*　I　think　I　understand　the　position　of　the　Senator　from　Illinois　and　I　dissent　from　it。　　*　*　*　He　thinks　that　a　territorial　legislature　may；　by　non…action　or　unfriendly　action；　rightfully　exclude　slavery。　　I　do　not　think　so。　　*　*　*　*　The　Senator　from　Illinois　thinks　the　territorial　legislature　has　the　right；　by　non…action　or　by　unfriendly　action　to　exclude　us　with　our　slaves。　　*　*　*　We　have　a　right　of　protection　for　our　slave　property　in　the　Territories。　　The　Constitution　as　expounded　by　the　Supreme　Court　awards　it。　　We　demand　it；　and　we　mean　to　have　it。〃
  Douglas　at　once　answered。　　He　said　that　his　obnoxious　doctrine　only　meant　that　the　territorial　legislature　by　the　exercise　of　the　taxing　power　and　other　functions　within　the　limits　of　the　Constitution　could　adopt　unfriendly　legislation　which　would　practically　drive　slavery　out。　　The　real　demand　of　the　South　was　for　a　congressional　slave　code　for　the　Territories。　　But　no　Northern　man；　whether　Democrat　or　Republican；　would　ever　vote　for　such　a　code。　　The　inhabitants　would　protect　slavery　if　they　wanted　it；　if　the　climate　were　such　that　they　could　not　cultivate　the　soil　without　it。　　It　was　a　question　of　climate；　of　production；　of　self…interest；　and　not　of　constitutional　law。　　The　slave　owner　had　no　higher　rights　than　the　owner　of　liquor　or　inferior　cattle；　which　the　territorial　legislature　could　exclude。　　Under　the　doctrine　of　the　Kansas…Nebraska　act　the　Territories　had　the　right　to　pass　such　laws　as　they　pleased；　subject　only　to　the　Constitution。
  If　their　laws　conflicted　with　that　it　was　the　business；　not　of　Congress；　but　of　the　Courts　to　decide　their　nullity。　　When　Buchanan　accepted　the　nomination　in　　1856；　he　declared　that　the　people　of　a　Territory；　like　those　of　a　State；　should　decide　for　themselves　whether　slavery　should　exist　within　its　limits。　　He　could　not　have　carried　half　the　Democratic　vote　in　any　free　State　if　the　people　had　not　so　understood　him。　　〃I　intend　to　use　language；〃　he　continued；　〃which　can　be　repeated　in　Chicago　as　well　as　in　New　Orleans；　in　Charleston　as　well　as　in　Boston。　　*　*　*　No　political　creed　is　sound　or　safe　which　cannot　be　proclaimed　in　the　same　sense　wherever　the　American　Flag　waves　over　American　soil。　　If　the　North　and　the　South　cannot　come　to　a　common　ground　on　the　slavery　question　the　sooner　we　know　it　the　better。　　*　*　*　I　tell　you；　gentlemen　of　the　South；　in　all　candor；　I　do　not　believe　a　Democratic　candidate　can　ever　carry　one　Democratic　State　of　the　North　on　the　platform　that　it　is　the　duty　of　the　Federal　Government　to　force　the　people　of　a　Territory　to　have　slavery　when　they　do　not　want　it。〃
  Davis；　the　leader　of　the　Southern　Democracy；　answered　him。　　He　reminded　the　Senate　that　Congress　had　no　power　to　exclude　slavery　from　a　Territory　and　the　legislature　had　no　power　except　that　given　it　by　Congress。　　Hence　it　could　not　possibly　have　the　power　to　exclude　it。　　Douglas　could　not　claim　more　than　this　unless　he　could　illustrate　the　philosophical　problem　of　getting　more　out　of　a　tub　than　it　contained。　　Congress；　having　no　power　to　prohibit　slavery；　was　bound　to　see　that　it　was　fully　enjoyed。
  〃I　agree　with　my　colleague；〃　he　continued；　〃that　we　are　not；　with　our　eyes　open；　to　be　cheated；　and　that　we　have　no　more　respect　for　that　man　who　seeks　to　evade　the　performance　of　a　constitutional　duty　than　for　one　who　openly　wars　upon　constitutional　rights。〃
  Mason；　of　Virginia；　insisted　that　the　Constitution　construed　by　the　Supreme　Court　denied　Congress　the　power　to　exclude　slavery　form　a　Territory。　　Douglas　admitted　that　the　legislature　derived　all　its　power　from　Congress。　　Hence；　he　must　admit　that　it　had　no　power　to　interfere　with　slavery。
  Green；　of　Missouri；　the　new　chairman　of　the　Committee　on　Territories；　next　attacked　him。　　Slaves；　he　declared；　were　property；　as　decided　by　the　Supreme　Court。　　The　Territories　of　Kansas　and　Nebraska　could　not；　by　either　direct　or　indirect　legislation；　prohibit　or　abolish　slavery；　and　if　they　should　undertake　to　do　either　it　would　be　the　duty　of　Congress　to　interpose。　　The　legislature　had　no　more　power；　by　direct　or　indirect　means　to　prohibit　the　introduction　of　slaves　than　the　introduction　of　horses　or　mules；　and　it　was　a　dishonest　subterfuge　to　say　that　it　could　be　done。
  〃What　is　meant　by　unfriendly　legislation？　　I　had　thought　that　rights　of　person　and　property　were　beyond　the　power　of　legislation。　　*　*　*　There　never　was　a　legislative　body　in　existence　on　the　face　of　the　globe　that　could　justly　take　any　right　of　person　or　property　from　a　citizen　without　rendering　a　just　compensation。〃　　He　reminded　the　Senators　that　in　1857　Douglas　had　urged　the　interposition　of　Congress　in　Utah　affairs；　even　to　the　extent　of　repealing　the　organic　act；　thus　recognizing　that　Territories　were　mere　dependencies　of　the　Federal　Government。　　Why　this　tenderness　about　Kansas？　　A　Territory　had　no　power　except　what　was　conferred　by　Congress。　Douglas　said　that　all　legislative　power　not　inconsistent　with　the　Constitution；　was　conferred。　　But　if　the　power　to　destroy　any　kind　of　property　was　conferred；　it　would　be　consistent　with　the　Constitution　and　the　grant　would　be　void。　　If　all　power　not　inconsistent　with　the　Constitution　was　conferred　by　the　organic　act；　then　the　power　to　call　the　Lecompton　Convention　and　draft　a　Constitution　was　conferred。　〃All　the　power　the　Territory　has　is　derived　from　Congress　and　can　be　resumed　at　pleasure。　　The　creature　can　never　be　equal　to　its　creator。〃
  Douglas　said；　that　if　the　people　of　a　Territory　wanted　slavery　they　would　protect　it。　　But　suppose　the　majority　did　not　want　it？　　The　Constitution　still　declared　slaves　to　be　property　and　forbade　the　majority　to　take　away　the　property　in　a　slave　from　a　single　individual。　　If　they　had　no　right　to　take　it　away；　what　right　had　they　by　unfriendly　legislation　to　render　it　valueless？　　If　a　Territory　persistently　attempted　to　destroy　a　species　of　property　protected　by　the　Constitution；　ought　not　Congress　to　intervene　for　the　protection　of　the　citizens？
  Douglas　replied　to　these　deadly　attacks。　　He　reminded　them　that　when　they　repealed　the　Missouri　Compromise　they　had　agreed　to　leave　all　these　questions　to　the　people　of　the　Territories　and　the　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court。　　This　was　the　true　Democratic　doctrine。　　Davis　and　Mason　had　both　said　that　no　man　holding　his　views　could　receive　the　support　of　the　South　for　the　Presidency。　　Yet　this　was　the　doctrine　of　Cass　when　candidate　for　President；　but　the　whole　South　gave　him　their　votes。　　When　did　this　change　of　creed　occur？
  Davis　answered　briefly；　regretting　that　Douglas　had　not　denied　or　explained　any　of　his　Illinois　speeches；　and　said　he　was　now　satisfied　that　he　was　as　full　of　heresy　as　he　once　was　of　the　true　theory　of　popular　sovereignty。　　He　declared　that　this　doctrine　was　〃offensive　to　every　idea　of　conservatism　and　sound　government；　a　thing　offensive　to　every　idea　of　the　supremacy　of　the　laws　of　the　United　States；〃　and　announced　plainly　that　the