So much, then, as to my disposition, my wish, to have all the State legislatures blotted out and to have one consolidated government and a uniformity of domestic regulations in all the States; by which I suppose it is meant, if we raise corn here we must make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make those things which grow North grow in the South.  All this I suppose he understands I am in favour of doing.  Now, so much for all this nonsense—­for I must call it so.  The Judge can have no issue with me on a question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of the States.

A little now on the other point,—­the Dred Scott decision.  Another of the issues, he says, that is to be made with me is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott decision and my opposition to it.

I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to the Dred Scott decision; but I should be allowed to state the nature of that opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so.  What is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used, “resistance to the decision”?  I do not resist it.  If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master I would be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise.  But I am doing no such thing as that; all that I am doing is refusing to obey it as a political rule.  If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should.

That is what I would do.  Judge Douglas said last night that before the decision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide by it until it was reversed.  Just so!  We let this property abide by the decision, but we will try to reverse that decision.  We will try to put it where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until it is reversed.  Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made; and we mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably.

What are the uses of decisions of courts?  They have two uses.  First, they decide upon the question before the court.  They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave.  Nobody resists that.  Not only that, but they say to everybody else that persons standing just as Dred Scott stands are as he is.  That is, they say that when a question comes up upon another person it will be so decided again, unless the court decides another way, unless the court overrules its decision.  Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide the other way.  That is one thing we mean to try to do.