Can any man doubt that, even in spite of the people’s will, slavery will triumph through violence, unless that will be made manifest and enforced?  Even Governor Reeder claimed at the outset that the contest in Kansas was to be fair, but he got his eyes open at last; and I believe that, as a result of this moral and physical violence, Kansas will soon apply for admission as a slave State.  And yet we can’t mistake that the people don’t want it so, and that it is a land which is free both by natural and political law. No law is free law! Such is the understanding of all Christendom.  In the Somerset case, decided nearly a century ago, the great Lord Mansfield held that slavery was of such a nature that it must take its rise in positive (as distinguished from natural) law; and that in no country or age could it be traced back to any other source.  Will some one please tell me where is the positive law that establishes slavery in Kansas? [A voice:  “The bogus laws.”] Aye, the bogus laws!  And, on the same principle, a gang of Missouri horse-thieves could come into Illinois and declare horse-stealing to be legal [Laughter], and it would be just as legal as slavery is in Kansas.  But by express statute, in the land of Washington and Jefferson, we may soon be brought face to face with the discreditable fact of showing to the world by our acts that we prefer slavery to freedom—­darkness to light! [Sensation.]

It is, I believe, a principle in law that when one party to a contract violates it so grossly as to chiefly destroy the object for which it is made, the other party may rescind it.  I will ask Browning if that ain’t good law. [Voices:  “Yes!”] Well, now if that be right, I go for rescinding the whole, entire Missouri Compromise and thus turning Missouri into a free State; and I should like to know the difference—­should like for any one to point out the difference—­between our making a free State of Missouri and their making a slave State of Kansas. [Great applause.] There ain’t one bit of difference, except that our way would be a great mercy to humanity.  But I have never said—­and the Whig party has never said—­and those who oppose the Nebraska bill do not as a body say, that they have any intention of interfering with slavery in the slave States.  Our platform says just the contrary.  We allow slavery to exist in the slave States—­not because slavery is right or good, but from the necessities of our Union.  We grant a fugitive slave law because it is so “nominated in the bond;” because our fathers so stipulated—­had to—­and we are bound to carry out this agreement.  But they did not agree to introduce slavery in regions where it did not previously exist.  On the contrary, they said by their example and teachings that they did not deem it expedient—­did not consider it right—­to do so; and it is wise and right to do just as they did about it [Voices:  “Good!"], and that is what we propose—­not to interfere with slavery where it exists (we have never tried to do it), and to give them a reasonable and efficient fugitive slave law. [A voice:  “No!”] I say YES! [Applause.] It was part of the bargain, and I’m for living up to it; but I go no further; I’m not bound to do more, and I won’t agree any further. [Great applause.]