Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past years of his
life have been devoted to the question of "popular sovereignty," and that
all the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean to say
that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of the
Territories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories? If he
means so to say he means to deceive; because he and every one knows that
the decision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial
ground of attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the people of a
Territory to exclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the
settlement of a Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity
entitling it to form a State Constitution. So far as all that ground is
concerned, the Judge is not sustaining popular sovereignty, but
absolutely opposing it. He sustains the decision which declares that the
popular will of the Territory has no constitutional power to exclude
slavery during their territorial existence. This being so, the period of
time from the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the point
of forming a State Constitution is not the thing that the Judge has
fought for or is fighting for, but, on the contrary, he has fought for,
and is fighting for, the thing that annihilates and crushes out that same
popular sovereignty.

Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? Why, he is contending for
the right of the people, when they come to make a State Constitution, to
make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I say
again, that is quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that the
Judge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there
is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not be
misunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution,
I may be misunderstood; but when you understand me correctly, my
proposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has