a god in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse in
all God's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the Lecompton
Constitution more specially; for I pass from this other question of
popular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been
attempted on an intelligent community.

As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the
question of fact, as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or
not, Judge Douglas, with the Republicans and some Americans, had greatly
the argument against the Administration; and while I repeat this, I wish
to know what there is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton
Constitution that entitles him to be considered the only opponent to
it,--as being par excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I
agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his
class of men there formed the number three and no more. In the House of
Representatives his class of men--the Anti-Lecompton Democrats--formed a
number of about twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the
measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred
and twenty, Judge Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which
there were six Americans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I
am precisely accurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any
use I am making of it.

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing that
work, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the
honor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties,
why is just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests,
and advancement of the twenty? My understanding is, when a common job is
done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your
one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not