these　main　points；　to　be　sure；　are　their　thunderings　of　cannon；
  their　marching　and　music；　their　fizzlegigs　and　fireworks；　but　I
  will　not　waste　time　with　them。　　They　are　but　the　little　trappings
  of　the　campaign。
  Coming　to　the　substance；the　first　point；〃popular　sovereignty。〃
  It　is　to　be　labeled　upon　the　cars　in　which　he　travels；　put　upon
  the　hacks　he　rides　in；　to　be　flaunted　upon　the　arches　he　passes
  under；　and　the　banners　which　wave　over　him。　　It　is　to　be　dished
  up　in　as　many　varieties　as　a　French　cook　can　produce　soups　from
  potatoes。　　Now；　as　this　is　so　great　a　staple　of　the　plan　of　the
  campaign；　it　is　worth　while　to　examine　it　carefully；　and　if　we
  examine　only　a　very　little；　and　do　not　allow　ourselves　to　be
  misled；　we　shall　be　able　to　see　that　the　whole　thing　is　the　most
  arrant　Quixotism　that　was　ever　enacted　before　a　community。　　What
  is　the　matter　of　popular　sovereignty？　　The　first　thing；　in　order
  to　understand　it；　is　to　get　a　good　definition　of　what　it　is；　and
  after　that　to　see　how　it　is　applied。
  I　suppose　almost　every　one　knows　that；　in　this　controversy；
  whatever　has　been　said　has　had　reference　to　the　question　of　negro
  slavery。　　We　have　not　been　in　a　controversy　about　the　right　of
  the　people　to　govern　themselves　in　the　ordinary　matters　of
  domestic　concern　in　the　States　and　Territories。　　Mr。　Buchanan；　in
  one　of　his　late　messages　（I　think　when　he　sent　up　the　Lecompton
  Constitution）　urged　that　the　main　point　to　which　the　public
  attention　had　been　directed　was　not　in　regard　to　the　great
  variety　of　small　domestic　matters；　but　was　directed　to　the
  question　of　negro　slavery；　and　he　asserts　that　if　the　people　had
  had　a　fair　chance　to　vote　on　that　question　there　was　no
  reasonable　ground　of　objection　in　regard　to　minor　questions。
  Now；　while　I　think　that　the　people　had　not　had　given；　or　offered；
  them　a　fair　chance　upon　that　slavery　question；　still；　if　there
  had　been　a　fair　submission　to　a　vote　upon　that　main　question；　the
  President's　proposition　would　have　been　true　to　the　utmost。
  Hence；　when　hereafter　I　speak　of　popular　sovereignty；　I　wish　to
  be　understood　as　applying　what　I　say　to　the　question　of　slavery
  only；　not　to　other　minor　domestic　matters　of　a　Territory　or　a
  State。
  Does　Judge　Douglas；　when　he　says　that　several　of　the　past　years
  of　his　life　have　been　devoted　to　the　question　of　〃popular
  sovereignty；〃　and　that　all　the　remainder　of　his　life　shall　be
  devoted　to　it；　does　he　mean　to　say　that　he　has　been　devoting　his
  life　to　securing　to　the　people　of　the　Territories　the　right　to
  exclude　slavery　from　the　Territories？　　If　he　means　so　to　say　he
  means　to　deceive；　because　he　and　every　one　knows　that　the
  decision　of　the　Supreme　Court；　which　he　approves　and　makes
  especial　ground　of　attack　upon　me　for　disapproving；　forbids　the
  people　of　a　Territory　to　exclude　slavery。　　This　covers　the　whole
  ground；　from　the　settlement　of　a　Territory　till　it　reaches　the
  degree　of　maturity　entitling　it　to　form　a　State　Constitution。　　So
  far　as　all　that　ground　is　concerned；　the　Judge　is　not　sustaining
  popular　sovereignty；　but　absolutely　opposing　it。　　He　sustains　the
  decision　which　declares　that　the　popular　will　of　the　Territory
  has　no　constitutional　power　to　exclude　slavery　during　their
  territorial　existence。　　This　being　so；　the　period　of　time　from
  the　first　settlement　of　a　Territory　till　it　reaches　the　point　of
  forming　a　State　Constitution　is　not　the　thing　that　the　Judge　has
  fought　for　or　is　fighting　for；　but；　on　the　contrary；　he　has
  fought　for；　and　is　fighting　for；　the　thing　that　annihilates　and
  crushes　out　that　same　popular　sovereignty。
  Well；　so　much　being　disposed　of；　what　is　left？　　Why；　he　is
  contending　for　the　right　of　the　people；　when　they　come　to　make　a
  State　Constitution；　to　make　it　for　themselves；　and　precisely　as
  best　suits　themselves。　　I　say　again；　that　is　quixotic。　　I　defy
  contradiction　when　I　declare　that　the　Judge　can　find　no　one　to
  oppose　him　on　that　proposition。　　I　repeat；　there　is　nobody
  opposing　that　proposition　on　principle。　　Let　me　not　be
  misunderstood。　　I　know　that；　with　reference　to　the　Lecompton
  Constitution；　I　may　be　misunderstood；　but　when　you　understand　me
  correctly；　my　proposition　will　be　true　and　accurate。　　Nobody　is
  opposing；　or　has　opposed；　the　right　of　the　people；　when　they　form
  a　constitution；　to　form　it　for　themselves。　　Mr。　Buchanan　and　his
  friends　have　not　done　it；　they；　too；　as　well　as　the　Republicans
  and　the　Anti…Lecompton　Democrats；　have　not　done　it；　but　on　the
  contrary；　they　together　have　insisted　on　the　right　of　the　people
  to　form　a　constitution　for　themselves。　　The　difference　between
  the　Buchanan　men　on　the　one　hand；　and　the　Douglas　men　and　the
  Republicans　on　the　other；　has　not　been　on　a　question　of
  principle；　but　on　a　question　of　fact。
  The　dispute　was　upon　the　question　of　fact；　whether　the　Lecompton
  Constitution　had　been　fairly　formed　by　the　people　or　not。　　Mr。
  Buchanan　and　his　friends　have　not　contended　for　the　contrary
  principle　any　more　than　the　Douglas　men　or　the　Republicans。　　They
  have　insisted　that　whatever　of　small　irregularities　existed　in
  getting　up　the　Lecompton　Constitution　were　such　as　happen　in　the
  settlement　of　all　new　Territories。　　The　question　was；　Was　it　a
  fair　emanation　of　the　people？　　It　was　a　question　of　fact；　and　not
  of　principle。　　As　to　the　principle；　all　were　agreed。　　Judge
  Douglas　voted　with　the　Republicans　upon　that　matter　of　fact。
  He　and　they；　by　their　voices　and　votes；　denied　that　it　was　a　fair
  emanation　of　the　people。　　The　Administration　affirmed　that　it
  was。　　With　respect　to　the　evidence　bearing　upon　that　question　of
  fact；　I　readily　agree　that　Judge　Douglas　and　the　Republicans　had
  the　right　on　their　side；　and　that　the　Administration　was　wrong。
  But　I　state　again　that；　as　a　matter　of　principle；　there　is　no
  dispute　upon　the　right　of　a　people　in　a　Territory；　merging　into　a
  State；　to　form　a　constitution　for　themselves　without　outside
  interference　from　any　quarter。　　This　being　so；　what　is　Judge
  Douglas　going　to　spend　his　life　for？　　Is　he　going　to　spend　his
  life　in　maintaining　a　principle　that　nobody　on　earth　opposes？
  Does　he　expect　to　stand　up　in　majestic　dignity；　and　go　through
  his　apotheosis　and　become　a　god　in　the　maintaining　of　a　principle
  which　neither　man　nor　mouse　in　all　God's　creation　is　opposing？
  Now　something　in　regard　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　more
  specially；　for　I　pass　from　this　other　question　of　popular
  sovereignty　as　the　most　arrant　humbug　that　has　ever　been
  attempted　on　an　intelligent　community。
  As　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution；　I　have　already　said　that　on　the
  question　of　fact；　as　to　whether　it　was　a　fair　emanation　of　the
  people　or　not；　Judge　Douglas；　with　the　Republicans　and　some
  Americans；　had　greatly　the　argument　against　the　Administration；
  and　while　I　repeat　this；　I　wish　to　know　what　there　is　in　the
  opposition　of　Judge　Douglas　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　that
  entitles　him　to　be　considered　the　only　opponent　to　it；as　being
  par　excellence　the　very　quintessence　of　that　opposition。　　I　agree
  to　the　rightfulness　of　his　opposition。　　He　in　the　Senate　and　his
  class　of　men　there　formed　the　number　three　and　no　more。　　In　the
  House　of　Representatives　his　class　of　menthe　Anti…Lecompton
  Democratsformed　a　number　of　about　twenty。　　It　took　one　hundred
  and　twenty　to　defeat　the　measure；　against　one　hundred　and　twelve。
  Of　the　votes　of　that　one　hundred　and　twenty；　Judge　Douglas's
  friends　furnished　twenty；　to　add　to　which　there　were　six
  Americans　and　ninety…four　Republicans。　　I　do　not　say　that　I　am
  precisely　accurate　in　their　numbers；　but　I　am　sufficiently　so　for
  any　use　I　am　making　of　it。
  Why　is　it　that　twenty　shall　be　entitled　to　all　the　credit　of
  doing　that　work；　and　the　hundred　none　of　it？　　Why；　if；　as　Judge
  Douglas　says；　the　honor　is　to　be　divided　and　due　credit　is　to　be
  given　to　other　parties；　why　is　just　so　much　given　as　is　consonant
  with　the　wishes；　the　interests；　and　advancement　of　the　twenty？
  My　understanding　is；　when　a　common　job　is　done；　or　a　common
  enterprise　prosecuted；　if　I　put　in　five　dollars　to　your　one；　I
  have　a　right　to　take　out　five　dollars　to　your　one。　　But　he　does
  not　so　understand　it。　　He　declares　the　dividend　of　credit　for
  defeating　Lecompton　upon　a　basis　which　seems　unprecedented　and
  incomprehensible。
  Let　us　see。　　Lecompton　in　the　raw　was　defeated。　　It　afterward
  took　a　sort　of　cooked…up　shape；　and　was　passed　in　the　English
  bill。　　It　is　said　by　the　Judge　that　the　defeat　was　a　good　and
  proper　thing。　　If　it　was　a　good　thing；　why　is　he　entitled　to　more
  credit　than　others　for　the　performance　of　that　good　act；　unless
  there　was　something　in　the　antecedents　of　the　Republicans　that
  might　induce　every　one　to　expect　them　to　join　in　that　good　work；
  and　at　the　same　time　something　leading　them　to　doubt　that　he
  would？　　Does　he　place　his　superior　claim　to　credit　on　the　ground
  that　he　performed　a　good　act　which　was　never　expected　of　him？　　H