to…day　that　the　people　of　a　Territory　have　no　right　to　exclude
  slavery　from　a　Territory；　that　if　any　one　man　chooses　to　take
  slaves　into　a　Territory；　all　the　rest　of　the　people　have　no　right
  to　keep　them　out。　　This　being　so；　and　this　decision　being　made
  one　of　the　points　that　the　Judge　approved；　and　one　in　the
  approval　of　which　he　says　he　means　to　keep　me　down；put　me　down
  I　should　not　say；　for　I　have　never　been　up；he　says　he　is　in
  favor　of　it；　and　sticks　to　it；　and　expects　to　win　his　battle　on
  that　decision；　which　says　that　there　is　no　such　thing　as　squatter
  sovereignty；　but　that　any　one　man　may　take　slaves　into　a
  Territory；　and　all　the　other　men　in　the　Territory　may　be　opposed
  to　it；　and　yet　by　reason　of　the　Constitution　they　cannot　prohibit
  it。　　When　that　is　so；　how　much　is　left　of　this　vast　matter　of
  squatter　sovereignty；　I　should　like　to　know？
  When　we　get　back；　we　get　to　the　point　of　the　right　of　the　people
  to　make　a　constitution。　　Kansas　was　settled；　for　example；　in
  1854。　　It　was　a　Territory　yet；　without　having　formed　a
  constitution；　in　a　very　regular　way；　for　three　years。　　All　this
  time　negro　slavery　could　be　taken　in　by　any　few　individuals；　and
  by　that　decision　of　the　Supreme　Court；　which　the　Judge　approves；
  all　the　rest　of　the　people　cannot　keep　it　out；　but　when　they　come
  to　make　a　constitution；　they　may　say　they　will　not　have　slavery。
  But　it　is　there；　they　are　obliged　to　tolerate　it　some　way；　and
  all　experience　shows　it　will　be　so；　for　they　will　not　take　the
  negro　slaves　and　absolutely　deprive　the　owners　of　them。　　All
  experience　shows　this　to　be　so。　　All　that　space　of　time　that　runs
  from　the　beginning　of　the　settlement　of　the　Territory　until　there
  is　sufficiency　of　people　to　make　a　State　constitution；all　that
  portion　of　time　popular　sovereignty　is　given　up。　　The　seal　is
  absolutely　put　down　upon　it　by　the　court　decision；　and　Judge
  Douglas　puts　his　own　upon　the　top　of　that；　yet　he　is　appealing　to
  the　people　to　give　him　vast　credit　for　his　devotion　to　popular
  sovereignty。
  Again；　when　we　get　to　the　question　of　the　right　of　the　people　to
  form　a　State　constitution　as　they　please；　to　form　it　with　slavery
  or　without　slavery；　if　that　is　anything　new；　I　confess　I　don't
  know　it。　　Has　there　ever　been　a　time　when　anybody　said　that　any
  other　than　the　people　of　a　Territory　itself　should　form　a
  constitution？　　What　is　now　in　it　that　Judge　Douglas　should　have
  fought　several　years　of　his　life；　and　pledge　himself　to　fight　all
  the　remaining　years　of　his　life　for？　　Can　Judge　Douglas　find
  anybody　on　earth　that　said　that　anybody　else　should　form　a
  constitution　for　a　people？　　＇A　voice；　〃Yes。〃＇　Well；　I　should　like
  you　to　name　him；　I　should　like　to　know　who　he　was。　　＇Same　voice；
  〃John　Calhoun。〃＇
  No；　sir；　I　never　heard　of　even　John　Calhoun　saying　such　a　thing。
  He　insisted　on　the　same　principle　as　Judge　Douglas；　but　his　mode
  of　applying　it；　in　fact；　was　wrong。　　It　is　enough　for　my　purpose
  to　ask　this　crowd　whenever　a　Republican　said　anything　against　it。
  They　never　said　anything　against　it；　but　they　have　constantly
  spoken　for　it；　and　whoever　will　undertake　to　examine　the
  platform；　and　the　speeches　of　responsible　men　of　the　party；　and
  of　irresponsible　men；　too；　if　you　please；　will　be　unable　to　find
  one　word　from　anybody　in　the　Republican　ranks　opposed　to　that
  popular　sovereignty　which　Judge　Douglas　thinks　that　he　has
  invented。　　I　suppose　that　Judge　Douglas　will　claim；　in　a　little
  while；　that　he　is　the　inventor　of　the　idea　that　the　people　should
  govern　themselves；　that　nobody　ever　thought　of　such　a　thing　until
  he　brought　it　forward。　　We　do　not　remember　that　in　that　old
  Declaration　of　Independence　it　is　said　that：
  〃We　hold　these　truths　to　be　self…evident；　that　all　men　are
  created　equal；　that　they　are　endowed　by　their　Creator　with
  certain　inalienable　rights；　that　among　these　are　life；　liberty；
  and　the　pursuit　of　happiness；　that　to　secure　these　rights；
  governments　are　instituted　among　men；　deriving　their　just　powers
  from　the　consent　of　the　governed。〃
  There　is　the　origin　of　popular　sovereignty。　　Who；　then；　shall
  come　in　at　this　day　and　claim　that　he　invented　it？
  The　Lecompton　Constitution　connects　itself　with　this　question；
  for　it　is　in　this　matter　of　the　Lecompton　Constitution　that　our
  friend　Judge　Douglas　claims　such　vast　credit。　　I　agree　that　in
  opposing　the　Lecompton　Constitution；　so　far　as　I　can　perceive；　he
  was　right。　　I　do　not　deny　that　at　all；　and；　gentlemen；　you　will
  readily　see　why　I　could　not　deny　it；　even　if　I　wanted　to。　　But　I
  do　not　wish　to；　for　all　the　Republicans　in　the　nation　opposed　it；
  and　they　would　have　opposed　it　just　as　much　without　Judge
  Douglas's　aid　as　with　it。　　They　had　all　taken　ground　against　it
  long　before　he　did。　　Why；　the　reason　that　he　urges　against　that
  constitution　I　urged　against　him　a　year　before。　　I　have　the
  printed　speech　in　my　hand。　　The　argument　that　he　makes；　why　that
  constitution　should　not　be　adopted；　that　the　people　were　not
  fairly　represented　nor　allowed　to　vote；　I　pointed　out　in　a　speech
  a　year　ago；　which　I　hold　in　my　hand　now；　that　no　fair　chance　was
  to　be　given　to　the　people。　　＇〃Read　it；　Read　it。〃＇　I　shall　not
  waste　your　time　by　trying　to　read　it。　　＇〃Read　it；　Read　it。〃＇
  Gentlemen；　reading　from　speeches　is　a　very　tedious　business；
  particularly　for　an　old　man　that　has　to　put　on　spectacles；　and
  more　so　if　the　man　be　so　tall　that　he　has　to　bend　over　to　the
  light。
  A　little　more；　now；　as　to　this　matter　of　popular　sovereignty　and
  the　Lecompton　Constitution。　　The　Lecompton　Constitution；　as　the
  Judge　tells　us；　was　defeated。　　The　defeat　of　it　was　a　good　thing
  or　it　was　not。　　He　thinks　the　defeat　of　it　was　a　good　thing；　and
  so　do　I；　and　we　agree　in　that。　　Who　defeated　it？
  ＇A　voice：　Judge　Douglas。＇
  Yes；　he　furnished　himself；　and　if　you　suppose　he　controlled　the
  other　Democrats　that　went　with　him；　he　furnished　three　votes；
  while　the　Republicans　furnished　twenty。
  That　is　what　he　did　to　defeat　it。　　In　the　House　of
  Representatives　he　and　his　friends　furnished　some　twenty　votes；
  and　the　Republicans　furnished　ninety　odd。　　Now；　who　was　it　that
  did　the　work？
  ＇A　voice：　Douglas。＇
  Why；　yes；　Douglas　did　it！　　To　be　sure　he　did。
  Let　us；　however；　put　that　proposition　another　way。　　The
  Republicans　could　not　have　done　it　without　Judge　Douglas。　　Could
  he　have　done　it　without　them？　　Which　could　have　come　the　nearest
  to　doing　it　without　the　other？
  ＇A　voice：　Who　killed　the　bill？＇
  ＇Another　voice：　Douglas。＇
  Ground　was　taken　against　it　by　the　Republicans　long　before
  Douglas　did　it。　　The　proportion　of　opposition　to　that　measure　is
  about　five　to　one。
  ＇A　voice：　Why　don't　they　come　out　on　it？＇
  You　don't　know　what　you　are　talking　about；　my　friend。　　I　am　quite
  willing　to　answer　any　gentleman　in　the　crowd　who　asks　an
  intelligent　question。
  Now；　who　in　all　this　country　has　ever　found　any　of　our　friends　of
  Judge　Douglas's　way　of　thinking；　and　who　have　acted　upon　this
  main　question；　that　has　ever　thought　of　uttering　a　word　in　behalf
  of　Judge　Trumbull？
  ＇A　voice：　We　have。＇
  I　defy　you　to　show　a　printed　resolution　passed　in　a　Democratic
  meetingI　take　it　upon　myself　to　defy　any　man　to　show　a　printed
  resolution　of　a　Democratic　meeting；　large　or　smallin　favor　of
  Judge　Trumbull；　or　any　of　the　five　to　one　Republicans　who　beat
  that　bill。　　Everything　must　be　for　the　Democrats！　　They　did
  everything；　and　the　five　to　the　one　that　really　did　the　thing
  they　snub　over；　and　they　do　not　seem　to　remember　that　they　have
  an　existence　upon　the　face　of　the　earth。
  Gentlemen；　I　fear　that　I　shall　become　tedious。　　I　leave　this
  branch　of　the　subject　to　take　hold　of　another。　　I　take　up　that
  part　of　Judge　Douglas's　speech　in　which　he　respectfully　attended
  to　me。
  Judge　Douglas　made　two　points　upon　my　recent　speech　at
  Springfield。　　He　says　they　are　to　be　the　issues　of　this　campaign。
  The　first　one　of　these　points　he　bases　upon　the　language　in　a
  speech　which　I　delivered　at　Springfield；　which　I　believe　I　can
  quote　correctly　from　memory。　　I　said　there　that　〃we　are　now　far
  into　the　fifth　year　since　a　policy　was　instituted　for　the　avowed
  object；　and　with　the　confident　promise；　of　putting　an　end　to
  slavery　agitation；　under　the　operation　of　that　policy；　that
  agitation　has　not　only　not　ceased；　but　has　constantly　augmented。〃
  〃I　believe　it　will　not　cease　until　a　crisis　shall　have　been
  reached　and　passed。　　'A　house　divided　against　itself　cannot
  stand。'　I　believe　this　government　cannot　endure　permanently　half
  slave　and　half　free。〃　〃I　do　not　expect　the　Union　to　be
  dissolved；〃I　am　quoting　from　my　speech；　〃I　do　not　expect　the
  house　to　fall；　but　I　do　expect　it　will　cease　to　be　divided。　　It
  will　become　all　one　thing　or　all　the　other。　　Either　the　opponents
  of　slavery　will　arrest　the　spread　of　it　and　place　it　where　the
  public　mind　shall　rest　in　the　belief　that　it　is　in　the　cours