be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established.  It is alike valuable for my purpose.  Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery, but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he don’t care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down.  He may say he don’t care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing.  He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them.  So they have, if it is not a wrong.  But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong.  He says that upon the score of equality slaves should be allowed to go into a new Territory, like other property.  This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property.  If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical.  But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong.  You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments—­it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.

  [Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, pp. 233-4.

That is the real issue.  That is the issue that will continue in this country when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent.  It is the eternal struggle between these two principles—­right and wrong—­throughout the world.  They are the two principles that have stood face to face from the beginning of time; and will ever continue to struggle.  The one is the common right of humanity and the other the divine right of kings.  It is the same principle, in whatever shape it develops itself.  It is the same spirit that says, “You work and toil and earn bread, and I’ll eat it.”  No matter in what shape it comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his own nation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle.

  [Sidenote] Lincoln-Douglas Debates, p. 56.

As to the vaunted popular sovereignty principle, Lincoln declared it “the most arrant Quixotism that was ever enacted before a community....  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 Territories has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during their territorial existence.”