out
that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that the
slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories under the Constitution
of the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully driven
out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. He
is not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked, and impudent
absurdity; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being
"controlled as other property."

The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell you where it will
go. He now swears by the court. He was once a leading man in Illinois to
break down a court, because it had made a decision he did not like. But
he now not only swears by the court, the courts having got to working
for you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts,
as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendly
legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy
property in slaves in a Territory, and show plainly enough that there
can be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature to make them
so burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to be
unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit "I swear by
the court; I give it up"; and while that is going on he has been getting
all his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with him. In this
again he serves you faithfully, and, as I say, more wisely than you serve
yourselves.

Again: I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact that
Judge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinion
that this government "cannot endure permanently, half slave and half
free." He has complained of Seward for using different language, and
declaring that there is an "irrepressible conflict" between the principles
of free and slave labor. [A voice: "He says it is not original with
Seward. That it is original with Lincoln."] I will attend to that
immediately, sir. Since that time, Hickman of Pennsylvania expressed the
same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman: why? There is a little
chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he may
yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference! It is not unpatriotic to
hold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man.

But neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the enviable or
unenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same idea
was expre