They well understand that the report of the committee and the bill propose to establish the principle in all Territorial organizations, that the question of slavery shall be referred to the people to regulate for themselves, and that such legislation should be had as was necessary to remove all legal obstructions to the free exercise of this right by the people.  The eighth section of the Missouri act standing in the way of this great principle must be rendered inoperative and void, whether expressly repealed or not, in order to give the people the power of regulating their own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution.

Now, sir, if these gentlemen have entire confidence in the correctness of their own position, why do they not meet the issue boldly and fairly, and controvert the soundness of this great principle of popular sovereignty in obedience to the Constitution?  They know full well that this was the principle upon which the colonies separated from the crown of Great Britain, the principle upon which the battles of the Revolution were fought, and the principle upon which our republican system was founded.  They cannot be ignorant of the fact that the Revolution grew out of the assertion of the right on the part of the imperial Government to interfere with the internal affairs and domestic concerns of the colonies. * * *

The Declaration of Independence had its origin in the violation of that great fundamental principle which secured to the colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way; and the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that principle, and the recognition of the right asserted by it.  Abolitionism proposes to destroy the right and extinguish the principle for which our forefathers waged a seven years’ bloody war, and upon which our whole system of free government is founded.  They not only deny the application of this principle to the Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohibition upon all the States to be formed out of those Territories.  Therefore, the doctrine of the Abolitionists—­the doctrine of the opponents of the Nebraska and Kansas bill, and the advocates of the Missouri restriction—­demands Congressional interference with slavery not only in the Territories, but in all the new States to be formed therefrom.  It is the same doctrine, when applied to the Territories and new States of this Union, which the British Government attempted to enforce by the sword upon the American colonies.  It is this fundamental principle of self-government which constitutes the distinguishing feature of the Nebraska bill.  The opponents of the principle are consistent in opposing the bill.  I do not blame them for their opposition.  I only ask them to meet the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging that they are opposed to the principle which it is the object of the bill to carry into operation.  It seems that there is no power on earth, no intellectual power, no mechanical power, that can bring them to a fair discussion of the true issue.  If they hope to delude the people and escape detection for any considerable length of time under the catch-words “Missouri compromise” and “faith of compacts,” they will find that the people of this country have more penetration and intelligence than they have given them credit for.