me Court as
our honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas.

Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats are
bound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In the
sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I have
said and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that as the
Democrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extension
of slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound to
support it as such; and I will tell you here that General Jackson once
said each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understood
it." Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to the
Dred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it.
I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in the
way in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decision
to be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. Let me
talk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. We
will say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and, like Judge
Douglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is a
constitutional right The first thing you do is to swear you will support
the Constitution, and all rights guaranteed therein; that you
will, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support his
constitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withhold
that necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution and
constitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible man
if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now,
that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional
right. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature in
legislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly
laws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does he
mean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, that
what you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that?
The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his
"Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with
him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up this
species of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last invented
this sort of do-nothing sovereig