much of it, and was too high-spirited to apologize, even to a friend, for his political beliefs or conduct; but he said after a talk over it: "You are aware of the relation I hold to the party. I know those Southern leaders and their purposes as well as I know anything, and I assure you that under no circumstances shall they use or drive me. I have fought them for years. I am entitled to leadership, or I would not hold or desire it, and they shall not deprive me of it."

This was true of Douglas, if ever it was of any man or party leader who contended with those Southern aristocrats. No one ever held leadership in our country against such overwhelming odds as he did, measured with leaders in his own party. He was offered the temptation of power, influence, and money; but rather served and led his part of his party against all, a powerful Democratic Administration under Buchanan, and a more powerful organizing party under Lincoln. He was re-elected senator, defied the slave-power and its scheming leaders, and defeated them in their determination to make Kansas a slave State. He kept every one of his followers in the line of patriotic duty who faithfully heeded his advice, without whom, leader or men, it did not appear that the Union could have been saved. In proof of his patriotism and integrity, with abundant opportunities for a lifetime to enrich himself, he died an honest poor man.

On the promulgation of the decision, hundreds of thousands of copies were printed by Congress at the public expense, and thousands on private account of the pro-slavery members of Congress. In addition to this, the press of the free and border States published extracts from the decision and opinion, showing their meaning, character, and purposes. These resulted in the most widespread distribution that had ever been given any such proceeding.

In the light afforded by this new wickedness, added to the border war and ceaseless work of these slave-extenders, the resolution of the people went deeper, that the time had ar

rived to restrict and restrain the slave-system, and not to extend its influence and power. However, the slave-leaders seemed altogether content and satisfied. They expected that the trouble and agitation would prove no more than a political excitement, and that they would go on in their plan to overthrow Douglas, and make Kansas a slave State.

They were in war anyway, and had only restrained themselves under the pressure of a Presidential election. They had control of all the powers and resources of the Government. They expected opposition from the rising Republican party, and it was making rapid and unprecedented growth, demonstrated at every election in the free States. They rather desired the opposition of the Republican party and all anti-slavery people, even to the point of producing an insurrection. This they intended to suppress with United States troops, restore civil order, and retain their supremacy.

But things did not happen or come that way. Douglas, whether wisely or sincerely, supported the court's decision, and again they were nonplused in their attempt to overthrow or limit his political leadership. His wisdom and foresight surprised and chagrined them, and led them to more active and desperate plans for his defeat. If he was not altogether sincere, he was at least a thousand times more so than they

were.

Douglas, informed as he was, an able lawyer which he certainly was, knew the intent and meaning of the decision; but like a capable soldier or strategist, took advantage of the slaveholders' movement to overthrow him, without resigning or surrendering his command. They were sorely disappointed in the action of Douglas, who by his acquiescence in the decision still remained the undisputed leader of his division or faction of the party.

A

CHAPTER XXXI.

LTHOUGH the free State people, men leaders, and news

papers emphatically denounced the decision, not a hand

was raised nor a movement taken in the courts or Congress to set aside or resist it. It was choked down all it could be, when its flatness was discovered, and kicked under the benches as a sterile hatching. Without being enforced or resisted, it was let alone to perish as an unobserved political scheme of the slave-power, remembered chiefly as one of their disastrous failures and disclosed designs, that aroused the people to a sense of the slaveholding iniquity. Douglas's submission to it was in a measure compulsory. He characterized it "as a legal construction which of necessity had to be obeyed;" but if any slaveholders were venturesome enough to take their slaves into the Territories, they would do so at the risk of losing them.

In proof that the decision was never more than a political device, the slaveholders would not trust it as any sort of settlement in law by which they could take their slaves into the Territories. The Republicans and the anti-slavery people all over the land treated it as a political design that gave them unexampled opportunity for denouncing slavery and all that were concerned in it, but made no preparation to resist it, nor to reverse or set it aside in any court of the land.

It was shattered and shorn at once of all its wickedness, even as a provocative in one political campaign. After the war was over and slavery was finally disposed of, Congress forgave the weak old judge who rendered it, without ever having obeyed his scheme of slavery proselyting as it was

designed, called by courtesy "A decision." When this was done his bust was planted among the other distinguished and antiquated gentlemen of the Supreme Court who have construed, decided, and confused our laws and Constitution for almost a century.

Douglas said in discussing it: "The material and controlling points in the case, those which have been made the subject of unmeasured abuse and denunciation may thus be stated: First. The court decided that under the Constitution of the United States a Negro descended from slave parents is not and can not be a citizen of the United States. Second. That the Act of March 6, 1820, commonly called "The Missouri Compromise Act,' was unconstitutional and void before it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and consequently did not and could not have the legal effect of extinguishing a master's right to his slave in either of those Territories. While the right continues in full force under the guarantees of the Constitution, and can not be diverted or alienated by Act of Congress, it necessarily remains a barren and worthless right, unless sustained, protected, and enforced by appropriate police regulations and legal legislation, prescribing adequate remedies for its violation. These regulations and remedies must necessarily depend entirely upon the will and wishes of the people of the Territory, as they can only be prescribed by the local Legislatures. Hence the great principle of popular sovereignty and self-government is sustained and firmly established by the authority of this decision."

This decision, with its pronged, reaching-out opinion cure-all and save-all for slavery under the Constitution, was made up and held ready to spread slavery all over the land; but it became a stumbling-block to the leaders who framed and so rashly and inconsiderately announced it. It gave Mr. Lincoln the best chance of his life up to that time, such an opportunity as had not been before within reach, to get at the real wickedness of slavery and what it required of its defend

ers. With the most incisive penetration, the keenest and most searching analysis, without restraint of any sort, and the high qualifications of a judicial reasoner, he tore the flimsy fabric to pieces, and laid the motive bare, and uncovered it to the gaze and judgment of mankind.

He said in one of his speeches in the summer of 1857: "And now as to the 'Dred Scott decision:' First, that a Negro can not sue in United States courts; and, secondly, that Congress can not prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court, dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in that respect I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis than he could on Taney. He denounces all who question the correctness of that as offering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him? Judicial decisions have two uses-first, to determine absolutely the case decided; and, secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use they are called precedents and authorities. We believe as much as Judge Douglas in obedience to and respect for the judicial department of the Government.

"We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject only to be disturbed by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the 'Dred Scott decision' is erroneous. We know that the court that made it has often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it overrule this. We offer no resistance to it. Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both