Would such a Court command the respect of the country?
If the Republican party cannot trust Democratic.
Judges, how can they expect us to trust Republican Judges, when they have been selected in advance for the purpose of packing a decision· in the event of a case arising?
My fellow-citizens, whenever partisan politics shall be carried on to the bench ; whenever the Judges
shall be arraigned upon the stump, and their judicial conduct reviewed in town meetings and caucuses; whenever the independence and integrity of the judiciary shall be tampered with to the extent of rendering them partial, blind and suppliant tools, what security will you have for your rights and your liberties?
I therefore take issue with Mr. Lincoln
directly in regard to this warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States
I accept the decision of that Court as it was pronounced.
Whatever my individual opinions may be, I, as a good citizen, am bound by the laws of the land, as the Legislature makes them, as the Court
expounds them, and as the executive officers administer them.
I am bound by our Constitution as our fathers made it, and as it is our duty to support it. I am bound, as a good citizen, to sustain the constituted authorities, and to resist, discourage, and beat down, by all lawful and peaceful means, all attempts at exciting mobs, or violence; or any other revolutionary proceedings against the Constitution
and the constituted authorities of the country.
is alarmed for fear that, under the Dred Scott
decision, slavery will go into all the Territories
of the United States
All I have to say is that, with or without that decision, slavery will go just where the people want it, and not one inch further.
You have had experience upon that subject in the case of Kansas
You have been told by the Republican party that, from 1854, when the Kansas
bill passed, down to last winter, that slavery was sustained and supported in Kansas
by the laws of what they called a “bogus” Legislature.
And how many slaves were there in the Territory
at the end of last winter?
Not as many at the end of that period as there were on the day the Kansas
There was quite a number of slaves in Kansas
, taken there under the Missouri Compromise
, and in spite of it, before the Kansas
bill passed, and now it is asserted that there are not as many there as there were before the passage of the bill, notwithstanding that they had local laws sustaining and encouraging it, enacted, as the Republicans say, by a “bogus” Legislature, imposed upon Kansas
by an invasion from Missouri
Why has not slavery obtained a foothold in Kansas
under these circumstances?
Simply because there was a majority of her people opposed to slavery, and every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves there, the moment that majority got possession of the ballot-boxes, and a fair election was held, that moment slavery would be abolished and he would lose them.
For that reason, such owners as took their slaves there brought them back to Missouri
, fearing that if they remained they would he emancipated.
Thus you see that under the principle of popular sovereignty, slavery has been kept out of Kansas
, notwithstanding the fact that for the first three years they had a Legislature in that Territory favorable to it. I tell you, my friends, it is impossible under our institutions to force slavery on an unwilling people.
I f this principle of popular sovereignty asserted in the Nebraska
bill be fairly carried out, by letting the people decide the question for themselves, by a fair vote, at a fair election, and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one day, or one hour, in any Territory against the unfriendly legislation of an unfriendly people.
I care not how the Dred Scott
decision may have settled the abstract question so far as the practical result is concerned ; for, to use the language of an eminent Southern Senator
, on this very question:
I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, for it is of no particular consequence ; slavery cannot exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting, it, furnishing police regulations and remedies, and an omission to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional prohibition.
Without affirmative legislation in its favor, slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a barren rock, without protection.
It would wilt and die for the want of support.