outrun in the race of empire across to the Pacific--every measure, I say,
up to the Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly
suggested that slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on
the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the
blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the
negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it as
an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists, they will
not overlook the constitutional guards which our fathers placed around
it; they will do nothing that can give proper offence to those who hold
slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method
to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more
white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences.
They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the
belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction in God's own
good time. And to this end they will, if possible, restore the government
to the policy of the fathers, the policy of preserving the new
Territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the
Northwestern Territories were sought to be preserved by the Ordinance of
1787, and the Compromise Act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length
and breadth, the modern Democratic idea, that slavery is as good as
freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if
people can be found to carry it. All, or nearly all, of Judge Douglas's
arguments are logical, if you admit that slavery is as good and as right
as freedom, and not one of them is worth a rush if you deny it. This is
the difference, as I understand it, between the Republican and Democratic
parties.

My friends, I have endeavored to show you the logical consequences of the
Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people of a Territory cannot
prevent the establishment of slavery in their midst. I have stated what