thrown about it.  I suppose that in reference both to its actual existence in the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that we have no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it.  We go further than that:  we don’t propose to disturb it where, in one instance, we think the Constitution would permit us.  We think the Constitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia.  Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms which I don’t suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to,—­the terms of making the emancipation gradual, and compensating the unwilling owners.  Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to the actual existence of the institution and the difficulties thrown about it.  We also oppose it as an evil so far as it seeks to spread itself.  We insist on the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits.  We don’t suppose that in doing this we violate anything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due to the constitutional guaranties thrown around it.

We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I ought perhaps to address you a few words.  We do not propose that when Dred Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide him to be free.  We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent way disturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as a political rule which shall be binding on the voter to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the members of Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actually concur with the principles of that decision.  We do not propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays the foundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the States themselves.  We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this subject.

I will add this:  that if there be any man who does not believe that slavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in any one of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on the other hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatient over the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregard of these, he too is misplaced, standing with us.  He will find his place somewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable of understanding them, for all these things.  This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity.  I will