. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved--I do not expect the
House to fall--but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will
become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of Slavery
will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind
shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate
extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become
alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as
South."

[Governor Seward's announcement of an "irrepressible conflict" was
made four months later.]

He then proceeded to lay bare and closely analyze the history of all
that had been done, during the four years preceding, to produce the
prevailing condition of things touching human Slavery; describing it as
resulting from that, "now almost complete legal combination-piece of
machinery, so to speak--compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred
Scott decision." After stating the several points of that decision, and
that the doctrine of the "Sacred right of self-government" had been
perverted by the Nebraska "Squatter Sovereignty," argument to mean that,
"if any one man chose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed
to object," he proceeded to show the grounds upon which he charged
"pre-concert" among the builders of that machinery. Said he: "The people
were to be left perfectly free, 'subject only to the Constitution.'
What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not see.
Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott
decision to afterward come in and declare the perfect freedom of the
people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly
declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enough now, the
adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.
Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual
opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough
now: the speaking out then would have damaged the 'perfectly free'
argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing
President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a
re-argument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of
the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting
of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded
that he may give the rider a fall. And w