writings of those who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy,
and that they so looked upon it, and not as an evil merely confining
itself to the States where it is situated; and while we agree that, by
the Constitution we assented to, in the States where it exists, we have
no right to interfere with it, because it is in the Constitution; and we
are by both duty and inclination to stick by that Constitution, in all
its letter and spirit, from beginning to end,

So much, then, as to my disposition--my wish to have all the State
legislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government, and a
uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States, by which I suppose
it is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow here
too, and we must make those which grow North grow in the South. All this
I suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all
this nonsense; for I must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me
on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of
the States.

A little now on the other point,--the Dred Scott decision. Another of the
issues he says that is to be made with me is upon his devotion to the
Dred Scott decision, and my opposition to it.

I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred
Scott decision; but I should be allowed to state the nature of that
opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairly
implied by the term Judge Douglas has used, "resistance to the decision"?
I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I
would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that
Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. But I
am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is refusing to