But the Great Declaration, not content with announcing certain rights as unalienable, and therefore beyond the control of any government, still further, restrains the sovereignty, which it asserts, by simply declaring that the United States have “full power to do all acts and things which independent states may OF RIGHT do.” Here is a well-defined limitation upon Popular Sovereignty. The dogma of Tory lawyers and pamphleteers--put forward to sustain the claim of Parliamentary omnipotence, and vehemently espoused by Dr. Johnson in his “Taxation no Tyranny”--was, openly, that _sovereignty_ is in its nature _illimitable_, precisely as is now loosely professed by Mr. Douglas for his handful of squatters. But this dogma is distinctly discarded in the Declaration, and it is frankly proclaimed that all _sovereignty_ is subordinate to the rule of _Right_. Mark, now, the difference. All existing governments at that time, even the local governments of the Colonies, stood on _Power_, without limitation. Here was a new government, which, taking its place among the nations, announced that it stood only on _Right_, and claimed no sovereignty inconsistent with _Right_. Such, again, is the Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration of Independence. And yet this transcendent principle is now degraded into a “dodge,” and the sacred name of Popular Sovereignty is prostituted to cover the claim of a master over his slave. It is urged that a handful of squatters may rightfully decide this claim, and the time-honored traditional power of Congress over Slavery in the Territories is denied or voted down. To protect this “villany,” as John Wesley would call it, the right of the people to govern themselves is invoked,--forgetful that this divine right can give no authority to enslave others, that even the people are not omnipotent, and that never do they rise so high as when, recognizing the everlasting laws of Right, they bend to the behests of Justice.