Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination—–­piece of machinery, so to speak—­compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision.  Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition.  Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition.  This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted, and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of “squatter sovereignty,” otherwise called “sacred right of self-government,” which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this:  That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.  That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows:  “It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.”  Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of “Squatter Sovereignty” and “sacred right of self-government.”  “But,” said opposition members, “let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery.”  “Not we,” said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro’s freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the Congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854.  The negro’s name was “Dred Scott,” which name now designates the decision finally made in the case.  Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election.  Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers:  “That is a question for the Supreme Court.”