"I differ from the senator from Illinois in regard to the bill, the history of its inception, and what was intended by it. As I understand it, we stood in this position: the southern senators, I believe, almost without an exception, who spoke upon that question--I know I did for one, as I have always done from the time I first made my appearance on this floor--maintained that the South had the right, under the Constitution, of protection of this property in the Territories; on the other hand, senators from the free States denied that right. None of them would vote to give it to us; but there were a portion of the northern democracy who were willing to do this; they were willing to repeal the Missouri restriction, and establish a territorial government there. A bill was immediately drawn which left this right to the territories to legislate for the prohibition of slavery in abeyance. It neither affirmed nor disaffirmed the power of the territorial legislature to legislate upon this subject of slavery; but it provided very carefully and cautiously that any question arising out of it might be referred to the judiciary.... The case then stood thus: whilst the southern men maintained on one side (and I was amongst them) that they had the right to the protection of their property under the Constitution, those from the free States maintained the opposite opinion. There could have been no accord between them on that point; but the southern men, with some objection and reluctance, in order to harmonize, did agree, as the only mode of getting the Missouri Compromise repealed, if the territorial legislature attempted to exercise the power, that the court should decide; and this they could do with perfect consistency, because they provided that whatever powers were delegated to the territorial legislature should be exercised under the Constitution. In their opinion, the Constitution not only prohibited Congress from delegating a power to abolish slavery to the territories, but from exercising it itself. Whilst they maintained that Congress had the power to govern in the territories, they maintained that there was an obligation on Congress, imposed by the equality of the States, that they should not prohibit the institutions of one State while they allowed those of another; and that was the mode in which it was passed. The bill in itself was, in my opinion, a compromise in which neither sacrificed principles, but left the whole question in abeyance to be decided by the courts without taking from Congress the power to resume jurisdiction, if they should choose to do so afterward. They retained as much good as they could without raising those questions upon which there could have been no accord of opinion.