on may be amended
after 1864 by a two-thirds vote:

"But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the
ownership of slaves."

"It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they
are identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the Washington
Union of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution."

I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feels
interested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, and
see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds:

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed by
the glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 10th of November,
and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State
has no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was a
fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union."

I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. I
have read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this charge
that the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make? It was a
purpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossible
for the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State from
entering it with their "property," so called, and making it a slave State.
In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institution
of slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglas
has himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a reason
why he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer; but when
we get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, that
he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, whom does he make that charge
against? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely? No; he
says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and so
the framers of that Constitution are brought in with the editor of
the newspaper in that "fatal blow being struck." He did not call it a
"conspiracy." In his language, it is a "fatal blow being struck." And if
the words carry the meaning better when changed from a "conspiracy" into a
"fatal blow being struck," I will change my expression, and call it "fatal
blow being struck." We see the charge made not merely against the editor
of the Union, but all the framers of the Lecompton Constitution; and