Compiled documentation on the U.S. Civil War

[Rogue 9]

From the December 6, 1858 issue of the New York Times, another speech from Senator Douglas. It's similar enough to his New Orleans speech that I suspect it's just a variation of his 1858 stump speech adapted for Southern audiences.

Douglas at the South
Senator Douglas on Slavery, State Rights, Senator Seward, Popular Sovereignty, and Territorial Expansion
His Speech at Memphis, Tenn.

Senator Douglas, on the 29th of November, made a political speech at Memphis, Tenn., of which we find the following report in the Eagle and Enquirer of the 30th:

Ladies and Gentlemen: I feel no small degree of reluctance in attempting to make a political speech to you to-day. I had quite as much experience in public discussions during this year as was agreeable to me. Of all things on earth most unpleasant is it for a man to be called upon for a speech after the election is over. Pending a contest, when the passion, and sentiments, and the patriotism of the people are aroused, a speaker has something to animate him, and to induce him to exert himself to present his sentiments in a clear light to his audience. We have just passed through a struggle in Illinois involving issues which I believe to be vital to the perpetuity of this Union, and to the peace and harmony of the different sections of the Republic. I would not to-day yield to the request to address you, but for the fact that I desire to know whether Democrats are the same in Tennessee as they are in Illinois. We have had in Illinois, during this Summer, Governor Jones, and our Democrats say that he preaches the same doctrine to them, which we hold to be orthodox in our own community. [Immense cheering.] So long as we live under a common Constitution, any political creed which cannot be proclaimed wherever that Constitution is the supreme law of the land, must be ruinous and fatal. Principles ought to be avowed the same in Tennessee as in Illinois; the same in Louisiana as in New-York; the same in South Carolina as in Massachusetts; the same wherever the American flag waves over the American soil. A creed of one political party in this country which cannot be thus announced and proclaimed, must be radically wrong.

In Illinois it has been my place to fight against a political organization, sectional in its character, sectional in its principles, sectional in its policy and sectional in its organization. The Republican or Abolition Party of the North constitutes the main body of all the enemies of the Democracy. There that party is necessarily sectional, appealing to Northern passions, Northern pride and ambition. [Cries of "That's so."] I have had occasion to say this on many a "stump" in Illinois this year, that they dare not cross the Ohio River and carry their principles with them. Can any political organization be sound or safe, which is confined to one section and derives its entire strength by stimulating passion, prejudice, and hostility against another section?

I am going to address you to-day as I am in the habit of addressing Illinois audiences. I do not expect to say anything but that I have said over and over again during the late canvass of my own State. In Illinois, Mr. Lincoln, as the nominee of the Abolition Party, has distinctly defined his principles in his opening address. And prominent in his platform are two articles, namely: That a house divided against itself cannot stand; that this government divided into Free and Slave States cannot exist; that they must all become free or all Slave - all become one thing or all another, otherwise this Government could not personally exist. The other proposition that he advanced was a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United States, because of the Dred Scott decision. Under those two propositions I took a bold, erect, explicit, and unequivocal issue. I maintained that this Government can exist forever, divided into free and slave States as our fathers made it, each retaining the sovereign right to protect slavery just as long as it chooses, and abolish it whenever it pleases. [Cheers.] It is fatal heresy to say that the local and domestic institutions of the various States must be uniform and equal. Uniformity in the local and domestic institutions is neither possible nor desirable. There are many individuals North and South who think because a particular institution is beneficial in their own locality, that therefore it must necessarily be wise and useful throughout the whole Republic. I, for one, believe that this confederacy was not predicated and founded upon the basis of uniformity among the different institutions of the different States. On the contrary, our fathers knew, as well as we know, that in a republic as large and broad as this, with such a variety of climate, soil and production, there must necessarily be a corresponding variety in the local and domestic institutions of the different States, each adapted to the interests and wants of each locality. Our fathers knew that the institutions adapted to the granite hills of New-Hampshire, were unsuited to the rice-growing plantations of South Carolina. They knew that the laws and institutions which were well adapted to the rich and fertile plains of Illinois, were unsuited to the mining districts of California. They knew that a variety of climate, soil, and production necessarily created a corresponding variety in interest, requiring a dissimilarity of institutions and laws adapted to the wants and interests of each.

Hence it does not follow, because African Slavery is a good institution for you in Tennessee, that it is a wise one in Vermont or New-Hampshire. All I say on that point is this: That this Republic was founded on the principle of States'-Rights sovereignty. [Cheers.] When the Constitution was made, the Republic consisted of thirteen States, twelve of which were Slaveholding and one was Free. The doctrine of uniformity did not then prevail, as I had occasion many times to say. But suppose this doctrine of uniformity had prevailed in the Convention that framed the Constitution and when they were about to sign it had risen and said that "a house divided against itself cannot stand." "This Union, divided into Free and Slave States, cannot endure; they must all be Free or all Slave." Suppose they had announced to the framers of the Constitution that assumption, what would have been the result? Do you think that the one Free State would have outvoted the other twelve Slaveholding States, and abolished Slavery everywhere? On the contrary, would not the twelve Slaveholding States have outvoted the one Free State, and established Slavery, by an irrevocable provision of the Constitution, on every foot of the American Continent? [Great cheering and applause.]

Thus, you see, if this doctrine of uniformity had prevailed when the Constitution was made, it would have led to the result directly the opposite to the wishes of those who now proclaim the fatal heresy. It was then recognized as a sound policy that each State should retain its sovereign power over all of its local and domestic affairs within its own limits; should retain its separate Legislature, with the right to make laws and constitutions as should be adapted to its interests, without interference from any other State, or from the Federal Government. Under the operation of that principle, this Republic has existed up to this day. In the progress of events, the Northern States have increased more than the South, until now the North have a majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and a majority in every department of the Government, with the power to elect a President by Northern votes, without assistance from any Slaveholding States.

The question now arises, will that North, which has thus secured its power under the operation of this great principle of State's Rights and State Sovereignty, turn about the moment it gets the control of the Government, and exercise an act of usurpation on the minority that we would never have submitted to when we were a majority? For one, I think that the very proposition, merely because they have got a majority, to exercise it over a minority to control their local and domestic institutions is a treasonable proposition. ["Amen."] It is a confession that they do not intend to carry out and administer this Government upon the principles upon which our fathers made it. It involves a confession that they would practice on one side while a minority, and then assume another when they are a majority.

I firmly believe that there is no safety to this Republic; there can be no peace, no harmony between the North and the South; there cannot be perpetuity in this Government except by the administering it in good faith, upon these principles, upon which it was made, to wit, the right of each State, old or new, Free or Slave, to manage its own affairs to suit itself, and then mind its own business, and let its neighbors alone. [Immense applause.] I was glad to find Mr. Lincoln boldly avowing his principles in his opening speech. I had no desire to make the fearful contest in which I was involved, unless its results should settle permanently some great political principles. When Mr. Lincoln took his position, I went heart and soul into that contest in order to ascertain whether or not there was any common platform upon which the Northern and Southern people may live in peace forever under a common Constitution. [Applause.] I think I am doing my opponent no injustice when I say that I had driven him step by step, from almost every plan in his platform. Just at that point Mr. Seward, the great leader of the Republican Party, stepped into the arena and made his Rochester speech, and held up to the world the great creed that Mr. Lincoln was about abandoning on the plains of Illinois. Mr. Seward's Rochester speech does not contain one new idea nor proposition; each and every one are taken from the debate in the Illinois contest, and hence when that speech was made I did feel rather a desire to make the northern route to Washington to make one speech in reply to Seward's version of Lincoln's platform. But it matters not whether the platform is made by Illinois or New-York - whether by Mr. Lincoln or Seward the standard bearer. The question is whether or not this novel doctrine of uniformity between local and domestic institutions shall prevail in this Government, or the old-fashioned doctrine, the sovereign right of each State to decide for itself, shall be maintained forever in this Republic. [Applause.] We have a proposition which Mr. Lincoln reviewed on behalf of the Republican or Abolition party in the Illinois contest - a great crusade against the Supreme Court on account of the Dred Scott decision. Under that proposition various points were made. First, that the Dred Scott decision is unjust, wicked, and monstrous, because it was intended to deprive the negro of the benefits of that one clause of the Constitution of the United States which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the several States. In other words, the decision intended to deprive the negro, slave or free, of the benefits of citizenship. I then stated, as I now repeat, if such was the object or legal effect of the decision, it was the strongest argument that could be urged in support of its correctness. I hold that this Government was made by white men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity; and to be administered by white men, and none other; and that the negro is not, cannot be, and never ought to be, a citizen of the United States. [Cheers.] I have had occasion to advance that proposition in every political speech that I have made for the last two years. In reply to that proposition the Republicans have a set formula - a catechism. I have answered their speeches so many times I could repeat the original speech. They begin by quoting the Declaration of Independence in these words:- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men were created free and equal, and that they were endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Then they say, "does not that say that all men are created free and equal? Is not a negro a man? If so, does not that declare that he is made equal to the white man? Does it not say that equality is conferred by divine power, and that equality is inalienable?" Then they say, "how can you reduce him to a condition of inferiority by human law or human institution?" By that syllogism the Abolitionists have succeeded in misleading a great many young children, a great many old women, and a quite a number of weak old men. That process of reasoning is the whole capital stock in trade of the Abolitionists, and yet it is susceptible of an answer - an answer sustained by the history of this country, as well as by the experience of mankind.

In the first place, the Declaration of Independence, when it declared that all men were created equal, had no reference to the negro; they were not talking of negroes nor thinking of them; they were speaking of white men - men of European birth, European descent - struggling for the rights of this continent against the tyranny attempted to be imposed upon them by the powers of the Old World. And hence they spoke of white men, that they were created equal - that is, equal to their brethren across the water. If you desire evidence on that subject, I will present that testimony which I have been in the habit of submitting to the Abolitionists of the North, in confirmation of the correctness of their opinion. I remind those Abolitionists that when the Declaration of Independence was put forth every one of the thirteen colonies was a slave-holding colony. At that time every man who signed the Declaration of Independence represented a slave-holding constituency. Appealing to these facts, are you prepared to say that Thomas Jefferson was so great a hypocrite as to suppose that his negro slaves were his equal by divine right and yet hold them in slavery the balance of his life. Are you prepared to say that every one of those venerated patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence were such great hypocrites as to say that the negroes were their equals and yet never emancipated a slave nor conferred political equality upon them. Those very facts are sufficient to show that they had reference to white men and not to negroes and other inferior races, when they declared the equality of all men.

Here I desire to say as I have said on all occasions at the north, that it does not follow because a negro is not our equal that therefore he must necessarily be a slave. On the other hand, I have ever said and now repeat to you that humanity requires that we, the white men, should extend to the negro race and to every other inferior race every immunity and facility which can be granted safely and consistently with the good of the community where he lives. [Cries of "Good."]

Humanity and Christianity demand that much at our hands. With reference to this principle there will be, there can be no difference of opinion. The question arises, what is the nature and extent of the rights we avow to extend to the negro? My answer to that question is this - it is a question which each State under the Constitution has a right to decide for itself. We in Illinois have decided that question. We began as a Territory, establishing hereditary Slavery within it and maintaining it for twelve years, until we found it was not good for us to have Slavery, and hence we abolished it.

When we abolished it we provided that the State would not hold slaves, nor could the negro hold citizenship there. I will not stop to inquire of you whether you like or dislike that system of policy which we adopted in Illinois. I shall not discuss it for the reason that, with all due respect, it is none of our business whether it is a good policy or not. [Immense applause.] It is enough for my purpose that Illinois is a sovereign State and by virtue of her sovereignty, had the right to adopt that line of policy. It suits us, and that is enough, whether it suits any one else on earth or not. [Laughter.] If you people of Tennessee don't like our policy, just stay at home and let us alone. Having thus settled a line of policy for ourselves in Illinois, one that we believe to be just and proper to ourselves, we have exhausted all the power we have upon that subject. We have nothing to say, whether Slavery is right, or wrong, whether it is a blessing or a curse; whether it is necessary or unnecessary in other States. We say to you, gentlemen, do as we did, work out your own salvation by your own experience. If it is a blessing, hug it to your bosoms. If it is not - if it is a curse, live under it until you can dispose of it as you may think best. All we ask is, that we in Illinois shall have the liberty to maintain our own line of policy without interference of New-England on the one side, or Southern States on the other. I am aware that our policy in regard to negroes differs from every other State in the Union. In New-York they allow a negro to vote if he owns $250 worth of property. While I never saw the wisdom or justice of his voting at all, and that of making the property qualification a test, New-York being a sovereign power, if she chooses to retain that line of policy, it is her business, not ours. In Maine they allow the negro to vote on an equality with the white man. While I would never permit a negro to vote at all, nor exercise any political rights, nor be a citizen in any State where I could control it with my vote, yet if Maine is content with her policy, and will pursue it and mind her own business, and let us alone, I will not interfere with her; but she must not try to engraft her policy upon us. She must not send her missionaries among us. We do not choose to argue it with them - we argue it with our own people; we argue it at home, but not with other States. If you want Slavery here in Tennessee, have it; if it is for the good of your people, keep it. You must be satisfied with it at home, and not try to force it upon us. We have just as much right to exclude it as you do to introduce it. If you will be content with exercising that power which, under the Constitution, Tennessee possesses, and let us alone, we will be friends with one another without any disturbing cause of irritation. So far as this question of Slavery is concerned, it is so clear that it is a local and domestic institution, that no other State has a right to interfere with, that it seems to be it cannot, does not admit of an argument. What is the just institution and policy with reference to Slavery in the Territories? - that has been the great disturbing element of discord between the North and South. The North have seemed to labor under the delusion that it, as a section, had a distinct right and interest in making as many Free States and Territories as possible.

Many of you in the South labor under the same delusion, in making just as many Slave States as possible. With all due regard to your actions on this subject, permit me to say, that neither the North as a section nor the South as a section has any right or interest in that question of Slavery in Kansas. [Applause.] The Constitution recognizes no such distinction as North and South. The Constitution recognized one Republic - thirty-two Sovereign States, and all other distinctions than those separate States are unauthorized by the Constitution. For the North to interfere and try to deprive the people of Kansas of Slavery when they want it, is a violation of the people of Kansas, but not of the South. For the South to interfere and try and plant Slavery in Kansas contrary to the will of the people, is a violation of the people of Kansas, but not those of the North. It is no violation of Northern or Southern rights to say that the true principles of its Constitution shall be carried out in all time to come. Hence, whether Slavery shall or shall not exist in Kansas, is a question for the people of Kansas, with which no State of the Union nor the Federal Government has any right to interfere one way or the other.

Now I will tell you right here why it was that I opposed the Lecompton Constitution - though I never intend to revive the strife and acrimony that grew out of it - yet I will tell you why I opposed that instrument. I stated in my opening speech that I opposed the Lecompton Constitution, not because of the Slavery clause contained in it - I opposed it because I believe it was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas. [Applause.] Others think it was the act and deed of that people. But I say you had no right to force it upon Kansas unless it was their act, embodying their will. I stated then, and repeat now, that if Kansas wanted Slavery, she ought to have it - if she did not want it, it should never be forced upon her if I could prevent it. Whether she should have it or not is her own business, and nobody else's. But I do not believe that the Lecompton Constitution was their act and deed, or embodied their will. I then asserted, and I repeat to you to-day, that under our system of Government no power on earth can rightfully force a Constitution down the throats of an unwilling people; it is a violation of the great principles of self-government. It is no excuse for a Slave State to say that Slavery is a good thing; it is no excuse for a Free State to say that Freedom is a blessing. Bear in mind you had no right to force a good thing on an unwilling people; but by assuming that it is a good thing or a bad one, you violate the great principles of State sovereignty. It is for the people of Kansas to decide for themselves whether Freedom or Slavery is a good or a bad thing; and the very question of its goodness or its badness is to be decided by the people who are to live under that Constitution, and not by the North or the South outside the new State. I shall not go into an argument to show whether I was right or wrong on the point as to whether Lecompton embodied the will of the people of Kansas. I only state that the result of the votes on the "English Bill," rejecting the Lecompton Constitution by eight to one, is sufficient testimony to my mind that the people did not want it. If they wanted Lecompton I was willing that they should have it. If they wanted a new one, I was willing that they should have that. I intended then, as I intend at all times, to stand firmly by my principles of the constitution, and the sovereignty of the States, no matter whether it benefits this or that section. [Applause.] And permit me to say to the Democrats here present, that I never knew a democratic party, if they departed from its principles on a plea of expediency, without in the end receiving just retribution for the abandonment of that principle. [Applause.] The policy is ever of Union men, of Constitution-loving men, of friends of States Rights, and States Governments to stand firmly by our principles and carry them out in good faith, then should expediency take care of itself. It is not right for me to go before the Northern people and ask them to abandon their principles in order to give greater power to the North by securing another free State? And if you admit it to be treason to the Constitution to appeal to Northern passion, interest and pride, how much less treasonable is it for a Southern man to say, let the South seek by the same means to strengthen herself, although it is a violation of principle? I do not pretend to say whether there has been an abandonment of principle; you decide for yourselves whether Lecompton embodied the popular will of Kansas. If it did, it was right. If not, it was wrong; and no Southern support could make it right - no Northern opposition could make it wrong. I say Lecompton is dead. Peace to its ashes. I hope that another such question will never arise. I believe that a Territory making a Constitution, and coming into the Union, should have just such Constitution as they want, and I will resist any attempt - whether for the benefit of the North or the South - to force it down their throats against their will. [Cheering and applause.]

One word more. Several gentlemen have called on me, and asked me what I meant or thought by this doctrine of Popular Sovereignty as enunciated in my Freeport speech in Illinois. I mean that I stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it; by the constituted authorities as they exist; by the decisions of the Supreme Court as they are pronounced. [Applause.] By the decision in the Dred Scott case, it will be found, by reading Chief Justice Taney's decision, that Slaves are decided to be property on an equal footing with other property, and that consequently the owners of that species of property have the same right to take it into a Territory as the owner of any other property [Cries of "Good," and immense applause.] The Illinois Democracy accept that decision as the authoritative exposition of the Constitution, and on that point I concur. ["Good."] Now, the question arises, what is the condition of that property after it gets into the Territory? You, in the Slave-holding, and we, in the Free States, whatever our occupation may be, have an interest in knowing what our legal rights are when we get there. I believe I said in Freeport that when you get into the Territory with your property on an equal footing with all other property, it is all subject to the local law for its protection without reference to the different character of it. If you go there with your horses and your mules, whether it shall be taxed or exempt is a question for the Territorial Legislature. If you go there with your dry goods, whether you shall sell without license or be compelled to get a license is a question for the local legislature. If you go there with your liquor the manner of your selling it is a question to be determined by the local laws. You may say you do not think it just for them to discourage one species of business for the benefit of another, but how are you going to help it? I do not wish to mislead you by these views. If you are wise you won't be misled, but will think for yourselves. If your slave property is not subject to the local law for its protection, what protection have you got for it? Suppose the local legislature do not make any slave law at all; suppose they do not pass any law furnishing a remedy for the violation of your rights, can you hold your slaves a day? Non-action is exclusion. The omission to furnish a law protecting property amounts to practical exclusion. Is there any lawyer, any well informed man who will controvert that proposition? Now suppose the local legislature refuses to make a law to protect your property how are you going to compel them to do it? Perhaps they will make it and perhaps they will not. I will tell you when they will and when they will not. Whenever a Territory has a climate, soil, and production make it the interest of the inhabitants to encourage slave property, they will pass a slave code and give it encouragement. Whenever the climate, soil and production precludes the possibility of slavery being profitable, they will not permit it. You come right back to the principles of dollars and cents. I do not care where the migration in the Southern country comes from; if old Joshua R. Giddings should raise a colony in Ohio and settle down in Louisiana, he would be the strongest advocate of slavery in the whole South; he would find when he got there his opinion would be very much modified; he would find on those sugar plantations that it was not a question between the white man and the negro, but between the negro and the crocodile. He would say that between the negro and the crocodile, he took the side of the negro. But, between the negro and the white man, he would go for the white man. The Almighty has drawn the line on this Continent, on the one side of which the soil must be cultivated by slave labor; on the other by white labor. That line did not run on thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, for thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes runs over mountains and through valleys. But this slave line meanders in the sugar fields and plantations of the South (the remainder of this sentence was lost by the confusion around the reporter.) And the people living in their different localities and in the Territories must determine for themselves whether their "middle bed" is best adapted to slavery or free labor.

Hence, under the Constitution there is no power to prevent a Southern man going there with his slaves any more than a Northern man. His property, when it gets there, is subject to local law for protection. There will be found in that local Legislature power of deciding if they do not want it, and of encouraging it if they do want it. It is folly for you to entertain visionary dreams that you can fix Slavery where the people do not want it; and it is equal folly for the Northern fanatic to think that he can abolish by law where the people do want it. The people of each locality are the best judges; they will act for their own interests. They won't care whether they are penetrating New-England or South Carolina; they will look to their own homes and ñresides, and the interests of their children and grandchildren as their own good and the good of posterity may require, regardless of the controversies North or South. It is no use to disguise the fact - if the people of a territory want Slavery they will have it; if they don't want it you can't force it on them. I am content with that result.

I don't think that under our system of Government that Slavery ought to be forced upon any people against their will. You of the South must be content in leaving your slave property in the same category, to be protected in the same manner, by the same principles as all other property. Whenever you take the ground that slave property requires different protection from other property, and you call upon Congress to furnish it, * * you might as well intrust your infant to the tender embrace of a bear, as your infant Territory to the gentlemanly embrace of Northern Abolitionists. If, therefore, we act upon the principle laid down by Mr. Buchanan in his acceptance of his Cincinnati nomination, and as expounded by the Supreme Court under the Constitution, that Congress should "keep hands off" and never interfere one way or the other; but that the Territory shall be free or slave, just as our people desire, then there will be peace and harmony between all the States of this Union. I do not believe there is any other common ground of peace for these great principles.

If non-intervention of Government, State rights and State sovereignty can be maintained, the Union can exist. If these principles of State sovereignty in the old States and the new are maintained, then America can fulfill the expectations of its most sanguine friends in all time to come. Then these United States can fulfill its destiny, being the light to teach the nations of the old world, a just constitutional liberty. Then America will increase and expand indefinitely, as our Republic shall increase. It is folly for us to imagine that because we now have territory enough we shall never need any more. When this Republic was made, its original boundaries were enough, but a few years' increase found us cramped, and we demanded more. We required Louisiana to open a road to the Rocky Mountains. We required Florida to open a road to the Gulf. We annexed Texas with California and New-Mexico. We have now Territory enough, but how long will it be enough? One hive is enough for one swarm of bees, but a new swarm comes next year, and a new hive is wanted. Our nation is a young nation, increasing by natural growth and increasing by emigration, and our boundaries must be enlarged. You may like it, or you may dislike it - you can never fulfill your destiny without it. Men may say we shall never want anything more of Mexico. We were told so when the treaty was made; that the greatest boundary should never be disturbed except by the consent of the two Republics; declaring that if any question arose, we would not annex it. I knew the time would come when we would be compelled to take more.

[Judge Douglas here alluded to his resistance to the ratification of the treaty with Mexico, and also touched upon the Central American question, but owing to the confusion around him, our reporter was unable to hear what he said.] He said that General Cass asked him what he wanted with Central America. He replied that the time would come when we were bound to have it. "Why," said he, "it is too far off." Yes, a great way off; it is nearly half way to California, and on the direct road there. [Laughter.] I do not want Central America any more than I did in '50; but the time will come when our destiny, our institutions, our safety will compel us to have it. I am unwilling now to pledge our faith as a nation in that which I am certain our grand-children would do. So it is with the Island of Cuba. I do not care whether you want it or not. It is a matter of no consequence whether we want it or not; we are compelled to take it, and we can't help it. [Immense applause.]

The Judge here alluded to the fact of its commanding the entrance to the Mississippi, and that although it was now subject to the Spanish Crown, and that the Spanish Crown was fast falling to pieces, and said that when the time came, that Cuba must go in into the hands of France, England, or any other European power we would be bound to take it. Hence, he would never consent to any line of policy inconsistent with our taking it when our interest, our honor, and safety required us to do so. He did not wish to hasten the acquisition of any more territory. He said it would come fast enough. "But our brethren must be prepared for it, and not have our guest come and take us by surprise and find us unprepared to give him a night's lodging when he comes. Our policy must be in harmony with our destiny. Our destiny is to increase until we become the strongest power on the face of the globe. We must go on until we are capable of carrying out, in good faith, the great Constitution and principles upon which our Government was founded. This government is a confederation of sovereign, independent States, each having the right to have just such a Constitution as it pleases; each having a Constitution different from every other, and requiring laws and institutions different from every other. Variety, dissimilarity, local law and local institutions is the great principle on which the safety of the Republic rests, and not that fatal heresy that the States must all be free or all slave."

[Rogue 9]

Saving here for future use.