en seeks to give a
reason that would not apply to his popular sovereignty in the Territories.
What is that reason? "The abolition of the African slave trade is a
compromise of the Constitution!" I deny it. There is no truth in the
proposition that the abolition of the African slave trade is a compromise
of the Constitution. No man can put his finger on anything in the
Constitution, or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere
barren assertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinction
between the revival of the African slave trade and his "great principle."

At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it was
expected that the slave trade would be abolished. I should assert and
insist upon that, if judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it was
equally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories, and
I can show by history that in regard to these two things public opinion
was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there was more done
in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery than was ever done
to abolish the foreign slave trade. Lest I be misunderstood, I say again
that at the time of the formation of the Constitution, public expectation
was that the slave trade would be abolished, but no more so than the
spread of slavery in the Territories should be restrained. They stand
alike, except that in the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by public
opinion, showing that it was more committed against the spread of slavery
in the Territories than against the foreign slave trade.

Compromise! What word of compromise was there about it? Why, the public
sense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave trade; but there was
at the time a very great commercial interest involved in it, and extensive
capital in that branch of trade. There were doubtless the incipient stages
of improvement in the South in the way of farming, dependent on the slave
trade, and they made a proposition to Congress to abolish the trade after
allowing it twenty years,--a sufficient time for the capital and commerce
engaged in it to be transferred to other channel. They made no provision
that it should be abolished in twenty years; I do not doubt that they
expected it would be, but they made no bargain about it. The public
sentiment left no doubt in the minds of any that it would be done away.
I repeat, there is nothing in the history of those times in favor of
that