away the logical consequences of that doctrine by the transparent sophistry of unfriendly legislation; dragging the proudest exploits of American statesmanship into the dust, emasculating the Declaration of Independence because incompatible with its principles; setting aside the ordinance of 1787 because that stern fact is a conclusive historical argument against it; a Jesuitical piece of equivocation and double-dealing; unable to stand before the criticism of a logical mind, because it is a mixture of glaring contradictions; unable to stop the war of principle and interests, because it is at war with itself.
It is true, its principal champion worked hard to cover with bullying boisterousness the moral cowardice from which it sprang, but in vain. He mistakes the motive-power which shapes the actions of free nations. Having no moral convictions of his own to stand upon, he could never address himself to the moral sense of the people. Having no moral convictions of his own! This is a grave charge, but I know what I say. I respect true convictions wherever I find them. Among the fire-eaters of the South there are men who speak of the moral basis of slavery, and believe in it; who speak of the blessings of servitude and believe in it; who assert that slavery is right, and believe it. Atrocious as their errors may be, and deeply as I deplore them, yet I respect their convictions as soon as I find them to be such. But look into the record of the champion of “popular sovereignty”; scan it from syllable to syllable, and then tell me, you Douglasites of the South, do you find one word there indicating a moral conviction that slavery is right? And you Douglasites of the North, who are in the habit of telling us that you are the true anti-slavery men, and that popular sovereignty will surely work the overthrow of the institution—did your master ever utter a similar sentiment? Do you find in his record one word of sympathy with the downtrodden and degraded? One
